Search (438 results, page 1 of 22)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  1. Olivieri, R.: Academic publishing in transition : the academic publishers response (1995) 0.09 
    0.09009206 = product of:
  0.1351381 = sum of:
    0.02442182 = weight(_text_:of in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02442182 = score(doc=4988,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
    0.11071627 = sum of:
      0.040008247 = weight(_text_:science in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040008247 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.2910318 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
      0.07070802 = weight(_text_:22 in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07070802 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Discusses the changing forces of demand, supply and technical change in the field of academic publishing. Covers electronic publishing; the UnCover document delivery service from B.H. Blackwell; the work of Blackwell Science and Blackwell Publishers and electronic pilot studies
    Source
    IATUL proceedings (new series). 4(1995), S.15-22
  2. Speier, C.; Palmer, J.; Wren, D.; Hahn, S.: Faculty perceptions of electronic journals as scholarly communication : a question of prestige and legitimacy (1999) 0.08 
    0.07746877 = product of:
  0.11620315 = sum of:
    0.027630134 = weight(_text_:of in 3674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027630134 = score(doc=3674,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 3674, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3674)
    0.088573016 = sum of:
      0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 3674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0320066 = score(doc=3674,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 3674, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3674)
      0.056566417 = weight(_text_:22 in 3674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056566417 = score(doc=3674,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3674, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3674)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Recent years have seen a proliferation of electronic journals across academic disciplines. Electronic journals offer many advantages to multiple constituencies, however, their acceptance by faculty and university promotion and tenure committees is unclear. This research examines perceptions of faculty and promotion and tenure committee members regarding the perceived prestige and legitimacy of electronic journals as an outlet for scholarly communication
    Date
    22. 5.1999 14:43:47
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.6, S.537-543
  3. Harter, S.P.: Scholarly communication and electronic journals : an impact study (1998) 0.08 
    0.075863846 = product of:
  0.113795765 = sum of:
    0.025222747 = weight(_text_:of in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025222747 = score(doc=3035,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
    0.088573016 = sum of:
      0.0320066 = weight(_text_:science in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0320066 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
      0.056566417 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056566417 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Studies the effects of e-journals on the scholarly communities they are serving. Considers to what extent scholars and researchers are aware of, influenced by, using, or building their own work on research published in e-journals. Draws a sample of scholarly, peer-reviewed e-journals and conducts several analyzes thorugh citation analysis. The data show that the impact of journals on scholarly communication has been minimal
    Date
    22. 2.1999 16:56:06
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(1998) no.6, S.507-516
  4. Medelsohn, L.D.: Chemistry journals : the transition from paper to electronic with lessons for other disciplines (2003) 0.07 
    0.06583727 = product of:
  0.0987559 = sum of:
    0.022382967 = weight(_text_:of in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022382967 = score(doc=1871,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
    0.07637294 = sum of:
      0.033948127 = weight(_text_:science in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033948127 = score(doc=1871,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.24694869 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
      0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 1871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042424813 = score(doc=1871,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1871, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1871)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Chemical information sciences-ranging from subjectspecific bibliometrics to sophisticated theoretical systems for modeling structures and reactions-have historically led in developing new technologies. Hundreds of papers are published or presented at conferences annually in this discipline. One of the more significant conferences at which important research has historically been presented is the Tri-Society Symposium an Chemical Information, an event jointly sponsored by the American Chemical Society, the American Society for Information Science and Technology, and the Special Libraries Association and held every four years. Eight years ago, the theme of this conference was the chemist's workstation; papers were presented an developments enabling chemists to access and process a variety of different types of chemical information from their desktop or laboratory bench. Several of these papers were subsequently published as a Perspectives issue.
    Date
    19.10.2003 17:17:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 54(2003) no.12, S.1136-1137
  5. Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011) 0.06 
    0.06306444 = product of:
  0.09459666 = sum of:
    0.017095273 = weight(_text_:of in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017095273 = score(doc=4198,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.07750139 = sum of:
      0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028005775 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.049495615 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.049495615 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Large, data-rich organizations have tremendously large collections of digital objects to be "repurposed," to respond quickly and economically to publishing, marketing, and information needs. Some management typically assume that a content management system, or some other technique such as OWL and RDF, will automatically address the workflow and technical issues associated with this reuse. Four case studies show that the sources of some roadblocks to agile repurposing are as much managerial and organizational as they are technical in nature. The review concludes with suggestions on how digital object repurposing can be integrated given these organizations' structures.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:23:07
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.363-374
  6. Frandsen, T.F.; Wouters, P.: Turning working papers into journal articles : an exercise in microbibliometrics (2009) 0.06 
    0.060238775 = product of:
  0.09035816 = sum of:
    0.023928396 = weight(_text_:of in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023928396 = score(doc=2757,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
    0.066429764 = sum of:
      0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02400495 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
      0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042424813 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This article focuses on the process of scientific and scholarly communication. Data on open access publications on the Internet not only provides a supplement to the traditional citation indexes but also enables analysis of the microprocesses and daily practices that constitute scientific communication. This article focuses on a stage in the life cycle of scientific and scholarly information that precedes the publication of formal research articles in the scientific and scholarly literature. Binomial logistic regression models are used to analyse precise mechanisms at work in the transformation of a working paper (WP) into a journal article (JA) in the field of economics. The study unveils a fine-grained process of adapting WPs to their new context as JAs by deleting and adding literature references, which perhaps can be best captured by the term sculpting.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:59:25
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.4, S.728-739
  7. Oppenheim, C.: Electronic scholarly publishing and open access (2009) 0.06 
    0.05920849 = product of:
  0.08881273 = sum of:
    0.022382967 = weight(_text_:of in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022382967 = score(doc=3662,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
    0.066429764 = sum of:
      0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02400495 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
      0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 3662) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042424813 = score(doc=3662,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3662, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3662)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    A review of recent developments in electronic publishing, with a focus on Open Access (OA) is provided. It describes the two main types of OA, i.e. the `gold' OA journal route and the 'green' repository route, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the two, and the reactions of the publishing industry to these developments. Quality, cost and copyright issues are explored, as well as some of the business models of OA. It is noted that whilst so far there is no evidence that a shift to OA will lead to libraries cancelling subscriptions to toll-access journals, this may happen in the future, and that despite the apparently compelling reasons for authors to move to OA, so far few have shown themselves willing to do so. Conclusions about the future of scholarly publications are drawn.
    Date
    8. 7.2010 19:22:45
    Source
    Information science in transition, Ed.: A. Gilchrist
  8. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.06 
    0.05871062 = product of:
  0.08806593 = sum of:
    0.02442182 = weight(_text_:of in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02442182 = score(doc=4635,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
    0.06364411 = sum of:
      0.028290104 = weight(_text_:science in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028290104 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
      0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03535401 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    We investigate the extent to which open-access (OA) journals and articles in biology, computer science, economics, history, medicine, and psychology are indexed in each of 11 bibliographic databases. We also look for variations in index coverage by journal subject, journal size, publisher type, publisher size, date of first OA issue, region of publication, language of publication, publication fee, and citation impact factor. Two databases, Biological Abstracts and PubMed, provide very good coverage of the OA journal literature, indexing 60 to 63% of all OA articles in their disciplines. Five databases provide moderately good coverage (22-41%), and four provide relatively poor coverage (0-12%). OA articles in biology journals, English-only journals, high-impact journals, and journals that charge publication fees of $1,000 or more are especially likely to be indexed. Conversely, articles from OA publishers in Africa, Asia, or Central/South America are especially unlikely to be indexed. Four of the 11 databases index commercially published articles at a substantially higher rate than articles published by universities, scholarly societies, nonprofit publishers, or governments. Finally, three databases-EBSCO Academic Search Complete, ProQuest Research Library, and Wilson OmniFile-provide less comprehensive coverage of OA articles than of articles in comparable subscription journals.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.8, S.1614-1628
  9. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.06 
    0.057292055 = product of:
  0.08593808 = sum of:
    0.022293966 = weight(_text_:of in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022293966 = score(doc=2593,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
    0.06364411 = sum of:
      0.028290104 = weight(_text_:science in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028290104 = score(doc=2593,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
      0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03535401 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, the purpose of this paper is to report an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000-2013. Design/methodology/approach Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations. Findings Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline. Research limitations/implications Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version. Practical implications SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by institutional repositories and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines. Originality/value This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Object
    Social Science Research Network
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 67(2015) no.6, S.614-635
  10. Brown, D.J.: Access to scientific research : challenges facing communications in STM (2016) 0.06 
    0.055182245 = product of:
  0.082773365 = sum of:
    0.018705688 = weight(_text_:of in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018705688 = score(doc=3769,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2292085 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
    0.06406768 = sum of:
      0.035784468 = weight(_text_:science in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035784468 = score(doc=3769,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.26030678 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
      0.028283209 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028283209 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The debate about access to scientific research raises questions about the current effectiveness of scholarly communication processes. This book explores, from an independent point of view, the current state of the STM publishing market, new publishing technologies and business models as well as the information habit of researchers, the politics of research funders, and the demand for scientific research as a public good. The book also investigates the democratisation of science including how the information needs of knowledge workers outside academia can be embraced in future.
    Content
    Inhalt: Chapter 1. Background -- Chapter 2. Definitions -- Chapter 3. Aims, Objectives, and Methodology -- Chapter 4. Setting the Scene -- Chapter 5. Information Society -- Chapter 6. Drivers for Change -- Chapter 7 A Dysfunctional STM Scene? -- Chapter 8. Comments on the Dysfunctionality of STM Publishing -- Chapter 9. The Main Stakeholders -- Chapter 10. Search and Discovery -- Chapter 11. Impact of Google -- Chapter 12. Psychological Issues -- Chapter 13. Users of Research Output -- Chapter 14. Underlying Sociological Developments -- Chapter 15. Social Media and Social Networking -- Chapter 16. Forms of Article Delivery -- Chapter 17. Future Communication Trends -- Chapter 18. Academic Knowledge Workers -- Chapter 19. Unaffiliated Knowledge Workers -- Chapter 20. The Professions -- Chapter 21. Small and Medium Enterprises -- Chapter 22. Citizen Scientists -- Chapter 23. Learned Societies -- Chapter 24. Business Models -- Chapter 25. Open Access -- Chapter 26. Political Initiatives -- Chapter 27. Summary and Conclusions -- Chapter 28. Research Questions Addressed
    LCSH
    Communication in science
    Science publishing
    Subject
    Communication in science
    Science publishing
  11. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.05 
    0.05283731 = product of:
  0.07925596 = sum of:
    0.023254223 = weight(_text_:of in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023254223 = score(doc=4051,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.28494355 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
    0.056001738 = sum of:
      0.027718531 = weight(_text_:science in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027718531 = score(doc=4051,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.20163277 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.028283209 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028283209 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Special issue on "The reward system of science".
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 69(2017) no.5, S.557-575
  12. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.05 
    0.052493498 = product of:
  0.07874025 = sum of:
    0.02338211 = weight(_text_:of in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02338211 = score(doc=2646,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
    0.055358134 = sum of:
      0.020004123 = weight(_text_:science in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020004123 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.1455159 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
      0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03535401 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    A statistical analysis of full text downloads of articles in Elsevier's ScienceDirect covering all disciplines reveals large differences in download frequencies, their skewness, and their correlation with Scopus-based citation counts, between disciplines, journals, and document types. Download counts tend to be 2 orders of magnitude higher and less skewedly distributed than citations. A mathematical model based on the sum of two exponentials does not adequately capture monthly download counts. The degree of correlation at the article level within a journal is similar to that at the journal level in the discipline covered by that journal, suggesting that the differences between journals are, to a large extent, discipline specific. Despite the fact that in all studied journals download and citation counts per article positively correlate, little overlap may exist between the set of articles appearing in the top of the citation distribution and that with the most frequently downloaded ones. Usage and citation leaks, bulk downloading, differences between reader and author populations in a subject field, the type of document or its content, differences in obsolescence patterns between downloads and citations, and different functions of reading and citing in the research process all provide possible explanations of differences between download and citation distributions.
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.2, S.412-431
  13. Digital libraries: current issues : Digital Libraries Workshop DL 94, Newark, NJ, May 19-20, 1994. Selected papers (1995) 0.05 
    0.049926486 = product of:
  0.07488973 = sum of:
    0.008459966 = weight(_text_:of in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008459966 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.103663445 = fieldWeight in 1385, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1385)
    0.066429764 = sum of:
      0.02400495 = weight(_text_:science in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02400495 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.17461908 = fieldWeight in 1385, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1385)
      0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 1385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042424813 = score(doc=1385,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1385, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1385)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This volume is the first book coherently summarizing the current issues in digital libraries research, design and management. It presents, in a homogeneous way, thoroughly revised versions of 15 papers accepted for the First International Workshop on Digital Libraries, DL '94, held at Rutgers University in May 1994; in addition there are two introductory chapters provided by the volume editors, as well as a comprehensive bibliography listing 262 entries. Besides introductory aspects, the topics addressed are administration and management, information retrieval and hypertext, classification and indexing, and prototypes and applications. The volume is intended for researchers and design professionals in the field, as well as for experts from libraries administration and scientific publishing.
    Date
    22. 1.1996 18:26:45
    Series
    Lecture notes in computer science; vol.916
  14. Engels, T.C.E; Istenic Starcic, A.; Kulczycki, E.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.: Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? (2018) 0.04 
    0.044086702 = product of:
  0.06613005 = sum of:
    0.02184354 = weight(_text_:of in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02184354 = score(doc=4631,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
    0.044286508 = sum of:
      0.0160033 = weight(_text_:science in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0160033 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.028283209 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028283209 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05218836 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH. Originality/value The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Source
    Aslib journal of information management. 70(2018) no.6, S.592-607
  15. Oppenheim, C.: ¬The implications of copyright legislation for electronic access to journal collections (1994) 0.04 
    0.04012516 = product of:
  0.06018774 = sum of:
    0.03190453 = weight(_text_:of in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03190453 = score(doc=7245,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 7245, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7245)
    0.028283209 = product of:
      0.056566417 = sum of:
        0.056566417 = weight(_text_:22 in 7245) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056566417 = score(doc=7245,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7245, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7245)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The nature and implications of electrocopying are summarised. After a brief review of the principles of copyright, the issue of whether electrocopying infringes copyright is debated. Publishers are aware of the threat that electrocopying poses to their business. The various options available to publishers for responding to electrocopying are summarised. Patterns of scholarly communications and the relationships between authors, publishers and libraries are being challenged. Constructive dialogue is necessary if the issues are to be resolved
    Source
    Journal of document and text management. 2(1994) no.1, S.10-22
  16. Doering, P.F.: ¬The hidden dangers of electronic publishing (1995) 0.04 
    0.039850555 = product of:
  0.05977583 = sum of:
    0.02442182 = weight(_text_:of in 4551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02442182 = score(doc=4551,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4551, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4551)
    0.03535401 = product of:
      0.07070802 = sum of:
        0.07070802 = weight(_text_:22 in 4551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07070802 = score(doc=4551,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4551, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4551)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Considers dangers posed by the growth of electronic publishing. These fall into 3 groups: dangers to reputation, dangers to intellectual property, and dangers to organizational integrity. Discusses these danger areas and suggests a number of defences
    Date
    22. 7.1996 21:39:19
  17. Butler, H.J.: ¬The electronic journal : a viable channel for formal scholarly communication? (1994) 0.04 
    0.03837499 = product of:
  0.057562485 = sum of:
    0.029843956 = weight(_text_:of in 3518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029843956 = score(doc=3518,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 3518, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3518)
    0.027718531 = product of:
      0.055437062 = sum of:
        0.055437062 = weight(_text_:science in 3518) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055437062 = score(doc=3518,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.40326554 = fieldWeight in 3518, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3518)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Sociologists of science agree that the ultimate end of doing science is the production of new knowledge which must be disseminated to the scholarly community through formal publication channels. In return for contributions to knowledge, scholars expect compensatory rewards and recognition, granted in the form of tenure, promotion, research funding, and honorary awards. Formal rewards are typically granted to those who communicyte through channels which meet certain criteria of acceptability
    Source
    Navigating the networks: Proceedings of the 1994 Mid-year Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Portland, Oregon, May 21-25, 1994. Ed.: D.L. Andersen et al
  18. Larsen, P.S.: Books and bytes : preserving documents for posterity (1999) 0.04 
    0.037659995 = product of:
  0.05648999 = sum of:
    0.028199887 = weight(_text_:of in 4318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028199887 = score(doc=4318,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 4318, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4318)
    0.028290104 = product of:
      0.05658021 = sum of:
        0.05658021 = weight(_text_:science in 4318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05658021 = score(doc=4318,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.41158113 = fieldWeight in 4318, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes: The 50th Anniversary of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Pt.1: The Journal, its society, and the future of print
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.11, S.1020-1027
  19. Watters, C.: Information retrieval and the virtual document (1999) 0.04 
    0.037659995 = product of:
  0.05648999 = sum of:
    0.028199887 = weight(_text_:of in 4319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028199887 = score(doc=4319,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 4319, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4319)
    0.028290104 = product of:
      0.05658021 = sum of:
        0.05658021 = weight(_text_:science in 4319) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05658021 = score(doc=4319,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.41158113 = fieldWeight in 4319, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4319)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes: The 50th Anniversary of the Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Pt.1: The Journal, its society, and the future of print
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.11, S.1028-1029
  20. Santos Green, L.; Johnston, M.P.: ¬A contextualization of editorial misconduct in the library and information science academic information ecosystem (2022) 0.04 
    0.03742969 = product of:
  0.056144536 = sum of:
    0.029306183 = weight(_text_:of in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029306183 = score(doc=612,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05218836 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
    0.026838351 = product of:
      0.053676702 = sum of:
        0.053676702 = weight(_text_:science in 612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053676702 = score(doc=612,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05218836 = queryNorm
            0.39046016 = fieldWeight in 612, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In the last decade, one of the most effective tools applied in combating the erosion of public trust in academic research has been an increased level of transparency in the peer review and editorial process. Publicly available publication ethics guidelines and policies are vital in creating a transparent process that prevents unethical research, publication misconduct, manipulation of the communication of research to practitioners, and the erosion of public trust. This study investigated how these unethical practices, specifically those coded as editorial misconduct, bring the authenticity and integrity of the library and information science academic research digital record into question. Employing a multi-layered approach, including key informant interviews, researchers determined the frequency and the content of ethical publishing policies and procedures in library and information science journals; exploring the ways the lack of, or nonadherence to these policies and procedures impacted library and information science researchers in instances of editorial misconduct.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 73(2022) no.7, S.913-928

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 362
  • d 70
  • f 2
  • es 1
  • m 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 386
  • el 29
  • m 23
  • s 15
  • r 9
  • b 2
  • i 1
  • p 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications