Search (261 results, page 1 of 14)

0.24703836 = product of:
  0.37055755 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 3902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=3902,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 3902, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3902)
    0.3385502 = sum of:
      0.25741202 = weight(_text_:demand in 3902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.25741202 = score(doc=3902,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04990557 = queryNorm
          0.8269572 = fieldWeight in 3902, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3902)
      0.081138186 = weight(_text_:22 in 3902) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.081138186 = score(doc=3902,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04990557 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3902, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3902)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22

0.09404173 = product of:
  0.28212517 = sum of:
    0.28212517 = sum of:
      0.21451001 = weight(_text_:demand in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.21451001 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04990557 = queryNorm
          0.689131 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
      0.06761516 = weight(_text_:22 in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06761516 = score(doc=4988,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04990557 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.08234612 = product of:
  0.123519175 = sum of:
    0.010669114 = weight(_text_:on in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010669114 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
    0.11285006 = sum of:
      0.085804 = weight(_text_:demand in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.085804 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04990557 = queryNorm
          0.2756524 = fieldWeight in 3769, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3769)
      0.027046064 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027046064 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04990557 = 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

0.071611695 = product of:
  0.10741754 = sum of:
    0.032339036 = weight(_text_:on in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032339036 = score(doc=5915,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
    0.0750785 = product of:
      0.150157 = sum of:
        0.150157 = weight(_text_:demand in 5915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.150157 = score(doc=5915,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.48239172 = fieldWeight in 5915, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Academic libraries today are faced with the prospect of numerous alternatives to traditional printed indexes to the primary literature. Not only are many indexes made available by publishers on CD-ROM products, but most of these products can be acquired on computer tape for local mounting. This happy situation is further augmented by the availability of these products through mediated search services such as Dialog and end user services such as OCLC FirstSearch. Choosing the best alternative becomes a matter of estimating demand and comparing costs for each type of access. These estimates are complicated by lack of information on how often patrons will use a given alternative and by lack of qualitative data. Results of comparisons made at Trinity and Clemson Universities provide some revealing benchmarks that can help to place a quantitative framework around the decision process

0.053571116 = product of:
  0.08035667 = sum of:
    0.016003672 = weight(_text_:on in 1823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016003672 = score(doc=1823,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 1823, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1823)
    0.064353004 = product of:
      0.12870601 = sum of:
        0.12870601 = weight(_text_:demand in 1823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12870601 = score(doc=1823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.4134786 = fieldWeight in 1823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This study reports an analysis of American Chemical Society electronic journal downloads at Cornell University by individual IP addresses. While the majority of users (IPs) limited themselves to a small number of both journals and article downloads, a small minority of heavy users had a large effect an total journal downloads. There was a very strong relationship between the number of article downloads and the number of users, implying that a user-population can be estimated by just knowing the total use of a journal. Aggregate users (i.e. Library Proxy Server and public library computers) can be regarded as a sample of the entire user population. Analysis of article downloads by format (PDF versus HTML) suggests that individuals are using the system like a networked photocopier, for the purposes of creating print-on-demand copies of articles.

0.044642597 = product of:
  0.066963896 = sum of:
    0.013336393 = weight(_text_:on in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013336393 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
    0.053627502 = product of:
      0.107255004 = sum of:
        0.107255004 = weight(_text_:demand in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.107255004 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.3445655 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This paper explores the usefulness of OpenAIRE, BASE, Recolecta, and Google Scholar (GS) for evaluating open access (OA) policies that demand a deposit in a repository. A case study was designed focusing on 762 financed articles with a project of FIS-2012 of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish national health service's main management body for health research. Its finance is therefore subject to the Spanish Government OA mandate. A search was carried out for full-text OA copies of the 762 articles using the four tools being evaluated and with identification of the repository housing these items. Of the 762 articles concerned, 510 OA copies were found of 353 unique articles (46.3%) in 68 repositories. OA copies were found of 81.9% of the articles in PubMed Central and copies of 49.5% of the articles in an institutional repository (IR). BASE and GS identified 93.5% of the articles and OpenAIRE 86.7%. Recolecta identified just 62.2% of the articles deposited in a Spanish IR. BASE achieved the greatest success, by locating copies deposited in IR, while GS found those deposited in disciplinary repositories. None of the tools identified copies of all the articles, so they need to be used in a complementary way when evaluating OA policies.

0.042669978 = product of:
  0.064004965 = sum of:
    0.0369589 = weight(_text_:on in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0369589 = score(doc=3035,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.33671528 = fieldWeight in 3035, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3035)
    0.027046064 = product of:
      0.054092128 = sum of:
        0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 3035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054092128 = score(doc=3035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

0.038660273 = product of:
  0.057990406 = sum of:
    0.015088406 = weight(_text_:on in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015088406 = score(doc=1901,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 1901, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1901)
    0.042902 = product of:
      0.085804 = sum of:
        0.085804 = weight(_text_:demand in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085804 = score(doc=1901,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2756524 = fieldWeight in 1901, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1901)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - To explore the belief that digital technology has created a steep and irreversible decline in traditional library use, particularly in borrowing from public and higher education library print collections, with a concomitant effect on familiar patterns of reading and reflection. If digital technology has led to a fundamental change in the way young people in HE process information, should traditional assumptions about library use and educational reading habits be abandoned? Design/methodology/approach - This is a comparative analysis of statistics of library use available in the public domain in the USA and UK. Findings - That reading habits shown in the use of public libraries are arguably conservative in nature; and that recent statistics for the circulation of print stock in US and UK university libraries indisputably show year on year increases, not decreases, except where the digitisation of print originals has provided a generous supply of effective digital surrogates for print holdings. The nature of reading has not changed fundamentally in nature. But where copyright law permits large-scale provision of digital collections to be derived from print originals, these will readily displace borrowing from print collections, leading to lower circulation figures of hard copy items. Research limitations/implications - This paper asserts that the restrictive nature of UK copyright law, which is demonstrably backward by international standards, is a major factor inhibiting university teachers from helping their students migrate from print to digital media. This assertion should be researched in greater depth, with a view to using such research to influence the development of future intellectual property legislation in the UK. Practical implications - Because of the essentially conservative nature of reflective reading for educational purposes, digitisation programmes offer an important way forward for academic library service development. Library managers should not underestimate the persistent demand for traditional reading materials: where such materials are provided in digital or print formats, in most cases the digital formats will be preferred; but where high quality educational resources are only available in print, there is no evidence that the format of alternative digital media is in itself sufficient to lure students away from quality content. Originality/value - This paper questions some of the more casual assumptions about the "death" of traditional library services.

0.038148586 = product of:
  0.057222877 = sum of:
    0.030176813 = weight(_text_:on in 3620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030176813 = score(doc=3620,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 3620, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3620)
    0.027046064 = product of:
      0.054092128 = sum of:
        0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 3620) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054092128 = score(doc=3620,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3620, 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=3620)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Describes an approach for developing adaptive textbooks and presents InterBook - an authoring tool based on this approach which simplifies the development of adaptive electronic textbooks on the Web

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.03733623 = product of:
  0.05600434 = sum of:
    0.032339036 = weight(_text_:on in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032339036 = score(doc=582,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29462588 = fieldWeight in 582, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=582)
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=582,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 582, 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=582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses the publishing of books online on the Internet, in the USA. The issues is treated mainly in relation to trade publishers. Outlines various ways in which such publishers have so far used the Internet, for example in the publishing of the full text of works of fiction, for publishing catalogues, and for presenting authors to the public via bulletin boards or electronic conferences. Notes a number or problems which arise: copyright, payment for accessing items, advertising restrictions, and the ease with which the published unit can be tampered with when available on the Internet. Also discusses collaboration and conflicts between publishers and the technology industry

Source

Publishers weekly. 240(1993) no.47, 22 Nov., S.33-35,38

0.035714075 = product of:
  0.053571112 = sum of:
    0.010669114 = weight(_text_:on in 1198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010669114 = score(doc=1198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 1198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1198)
    0.042902 = product of:
      0.085804 = sum of:
        0.085804 = weight(_text_:demand in 1198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085804 = score(doc=1198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2756524 = fieldWeight in 1198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

To arrive at relevant and reliable conclusions concerning the usability of a hypermedia educational e-book, developers have to apply a well-defined evaluation procedure as well as a set of clear, concrete and measurable quality criteria. Evaluating an educational tool involves not only testing the user interface but also the didactic method, the instructional materials and the interaction mechanisms to prove whether or not they help users reach their goals for learning. This article presents a number of evaluation criteria for hypermedia educational e-books and describes how they are embedded into an evaluation procedure. This work is chiefly aimed at helping education developers evaluate their systems, as well as to provide them with guidance for addressing educational requirements during the design process. In recent years, more and more educational e-books are being created, whether by academics trying to keep pace with the advanced requirements of the virtual university or by publishers seeking to meet the increasing demand for educational resources that can be accessed anywhere and anytime, and that include multimedia information, hypertext links and powerful search and annotating mechanisms. To develop a useful educational e-book many things have to be considered, such as the reading patterns of users, accessibility for different types of users and computer platforms, copyright and legal issues, development of new business models and so on. Addressing usability is very important since e-books are interactive systems and, consequently, have to be designed with the needs of their users in mind. Evaluating usability involves analyzing whether systems are effective, efficient and secure for use; easy to learn and remember; and have a good utility. Any interactive system, as e-books are, has to be assessed to determine if it is really usable as well as useful. Such an evaluation is not only concerned with assessing the user interface but is also aimed at analyzing whether the system can be used in an efficient way to meet the needs of its users - who in the case of educational e-books are learners and teachers. Evaluation provides the opportunity to gather valuable information about design decisions. However, to be successful the evaluation has to be carefully planned and prepared so developers collect appropriate and reliable data from which to draw relevant conclusions.

0.035714075 = product of:
  0.053571112 = sum of:
    0.010669114 = weight(_text_:on in 3208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010669114 = score(doc=3208,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.097201325 = fieldWeight in 3208, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3208)
    0.042902 = product of:
      0.085804 = sum of:
        0.085804 = weight(_text_:demand in 3208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085804 = score(doc=3208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2756524 = fieldWeight in 3208, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3208)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

"Die ausbleibende Häme zeigt die widerstreitenden Gefühle der Beteiligten. Wer wie der Suchmaschinenbetreiber Google 2004 der Welt vollmundig eine "digitale Weltbibliothek" zu schenken verspricht und sich im nun überarbeiteten Vergleich mit den US-Autoren und -Verlegern mit einem lediglich englischsprachigen digitalen Bücherzimmer begnügen will, müsste eigentlich Kübel voller Häme gewärtigen. Doch die Gegenspieler reagieren zurückhaltend. Viele wollen ja ebenfalls Geld mit Büchern im Netz verdienen. Freitagnacht traf der von Google, dem US-Verlegerverband und der Autorengewerkschaft Authors Guild überarbeitete Vergleich beim New Yorker Gericht ein. Mit ihm wollen sie sich die Gewinne teilen aus der kostenpflichtigen Einsicht auf Googles Buchsuche, dem Download und dem Druck (Print on Demand) von Büchern aus den Jahren 1922 bis etwa 2004, die nicht mehr lieferbar, aber urheberrechtlich geschützt sind. Die Neufassung enthält einige Verbesserungen für Autoren und Verlage. Entscheidend aber ist die Beschränkung auf Werke, die beim US-Copyright Office registriert worden sind, sowie auf britische, australische und kanadische Titel. Die nicht englischsprachige Welt ist mit einem Mal außen vor: Ihre Bücher werden bei Google wie bisher nur in kurzen Auszügen gezeigt, und mehr darf sie auch von den englischsprachigen nicht einsehen. Christian Sprang, Justitiar des Börsenvereins des deutschen Buchhandels, hält den Vergleich daher in einer ersten Einschätzung "nicht für paradiesisch, aber trotz einiger Pferdefüße für einen Riesenfortschritt".

0.034861263 = product of:
  0.052291892 = sum of:
    0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032007344 = score(doc=2757,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 2757, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2757)
    0.020284547 = product of:
      0.040569093 = sum of:
        0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 2757) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040569093 = score(doc=2757,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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

0.032256197 = product of:
  0.048384294 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=3017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
    0.027046064 = product of:
      0.054092128 = sum of:
        0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054092128 = score(doc=3017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3017, 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=3017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

22. 1.1996 17:59:34

Footnote

Vgl. dazu auch: Zhang, A.: Multimedia file formats on the Internet: a beginner's guide for PC users unter: http://ac.dal.ca/~dong/contents.htm sowie die Zusammenstellung: Kaltschmidt, H. u. A. Poschmann: Stern Punkt x in PC Online 1997, H.5

0.032256197 = product of:
  0.048384294 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 4555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=4555,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 4555, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4555)
    0.027046064 = product of:
      0.054092128 = sum of:
        0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 4555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054092128 = score(doc=4555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4555, 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=4555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Date

23. 7.1996 10:22:20

0.032256197 = product of:
  0.048384294 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 7481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=7481,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 7481, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7481)
    0.027046064 = product of:
      0.054092128 = sum of:
        0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 7481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054092128 = score(doc=7481,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7481, 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=7481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

In print publications, content elements are representable in visual form, but in digital presentation function may be shown through hypertext. Good design must be a tool to illuminate content, not an arbitrary add on. Sets out elements of good digital design. Consideration of the purpose of the publication, the use of the publication, the audience, and the market will help to identify appropriate design choices

Source

Journal of scholarly publishing. 28(1996) no.1, S.13-22

0.032256197 = product of:
  0.048384294 = sum of:
    0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021338228 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
    0.027046064 = product of:
      0.054092128 = sum of:
        0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054092128 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3686, 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=3686)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The British Library's Initiatives for Access programme (1993-) aims to identify the impact and value of digital and networking technologies on the Library's collections and services. Describes the projects: the Electronic Beowulf, digitisation of ageing microfilm, digital photographic images, and use of the Excalibur retrieval software. Examines the ways in which the issues of preparation, scanning, and storage have been tackled, and problems raised by use of recognition technologies and compression

Date

22. 5.1999 19:00:52

0.02905105 = product of:
  0.043576576 = sum of:
    0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026672786 = score(doc=4410,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 4410, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4410)
    0.01690379 = product of:
      0.03380758 = sum of:
        0.03380758 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03380758 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4410, 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=4410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between dissemination of research papers on Twitter and its influence on research impact. Design/methodology/approach Four types of journal Twitter accounts (journal, owner, publisher and no Twitter account) were defined to observe differences in the number of tweets and citations. In total, 4,176 articles from 350 journals were extracted from Plum Analytics. This altmetric provider tracks the number of tweets and citations for each paper. Student's t-test for two-paired samples was used to detect significant differences between each group of journals. Regression analysis was performed to detect which variables may influence the getting of tweets and citations. Findings The results show that journals with their own Twitter account obtain more tweets (46 percent) and citations (34 percent) than journals without a Twitter account. Followers is the variable that attracts more tweets (ß=0.47) and citations (ß=0.28) but the effect is small and the fit is not good for tweets (R2=0.46) and insignificant for citations (R2=0.18). Originality/value This is the first study that tests the performance of research journals on Twitter according to their handles, observing how the dissemination of content in this microblogging network influences the citation of their papers.

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

0.02822417 = product of:
  0.042336255 = sum of:
    0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01867095 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 3598, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3598)
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 3598) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=3598,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3598, 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=3598)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Describes an object-oriented model for paper-based multimedia documents such as textbook with embedded graphics. This model is the 1st step towards building a manageable authoring system for the Web, in which documents can be easily built, extended, truncated, reordered, assembled and disassembled on a computer basis, and the document components, can be reused. The model will also make accessible properties, which might be significant or important to the user, especially in searching or classifying documents, such as the document title and author. Explains the model design and presents the class hierarchy for the model

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.02822417 = product of:
  0.042336255 = sum of:
    0.01867095 = weight(_text_:on in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01867095 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04990557 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
    0.023665305 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733061 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  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