-
Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011)
0.02
0.016227381 = product of:
0.075727776 = sum of:
0.030006537 = weight(_text_:subject in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030006537 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035551235 = score(doc=4635,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 4635, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4635)
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
- 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.
-
Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015)
0.01
0.006702908 = product of:
0.04692035 = sum of:
0.03675035 = weight(_text_:subject in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03675035 = score(doc=2593,freq=6.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 2593, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2593)
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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
-
Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016)
0.00
0.0044839755 = product of:
0.03138783 = sum of:
0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021217827 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2646, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2646)
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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
-
Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017)
0.00
0.002054651 = product of:
0.028765112 = sum of:
0.028765112 = product of:
0.057530224 = sum of:
0.057530224 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057530224 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 22. 4.2017 10:42:05
22. 4.2017 10:48:38
-
Nobarany, S.; Booth, K.S.: Understanding and supporting anonymity policies in peer review (2017)
0.00
0.0018186709 = product of:
0.02546139 = sum of:
0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02546139 = score(doc=3533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Design of peer-review support systems is shaped by the policies that define and govern the process of peer review. An important component of these are policies that deal with anonymity: The rules that govern the concealment and transparency of information related to identities of the various stakeholders (authors, reviewers, editors, and others) involved in the peer-review process. Anonymity policies have been a subject of debate for several decades within scholarly communities. Because of widespread criticism of traditional peer-review processes, a variety of new peer-review processes have emerged that manage the trade-offs between disclosure and concealment of identities in different ways. Based on an analysis of policies and guidelines for authors and reviewers provided by publication venues, we developed a framework for understanding how disclosure and concealment of identities is managed. We discuss the appropriate role of information technology and computer support for the peer-review process within that framework.
-
Loos, A.: ¬Die Million ist geknackt (2015)
0.00
0.0017434291 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = product of:
0.048816014 = sum of:
0.048816014 = weight(_text_:22 in 4208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048816014 = score(doc=4208,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4208, 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=4208)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 7. 4.2015 17:22:03
-
Brown, D.J.: Repositories and journals: are they in conflict? : a literature review of relevant literature (2010)
0.00
0.0015155592 = product of:
0.021217827 = sum of:
0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021217827 = score(doc=3954,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This paper aims to bring together information on whether any evidence exists of a commercial conflict between the creation of digital archives at research institutions and by key subject centres of excellence, and the business of journal publishing. Design/methodology/approach - Relevant publications, including articles published in refereed books and journals, as well as informal commentaries on listservs, blogs and wikis, were analysed to determine whether there is any evidence of a commercial relationship. Findings - Most of the published comments are highly subjective and anecdotal - there is a significant emotional overtone to many of the views expressed. There is precious little hard evidence currently available to support or debunk the idea that a commercial conflict exists between repositories and journal subscriptions. The situation is made more difficult by the many technological, sociological and administrative changes that are taking place in parallel to the establishment of repositories. Practical implications - Separating the key drivers and their impact is a major strategic challenge facing all stakeholders in the scholarly communication industry in future. Research limitations/implications - This is an important area which requires close monitoring - the possible threat that the established journal publishing system could be eroded away by a new "free" scholarly information system needs attention. One significant study in this area is being undertaken by the PEER group, funded by the European Commission with hard evidence being collected by UCL's CIBER research group. The results from this impartial investigation will be very welcome. Originality/value - The paper shows that relationship between repositories and journal subscriptions is vague.
-
Abad-García, M.-F.; González-Teruel, A.; González-Llinares, J.: Effectiveness of OpenAIRE, BASE, Recolecta, and Google Scholar at finding spanish articles in repositories (2018)
0.00
0.0015155592 = product of:
0.021217827 = sum of:
0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 4185) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021217827 = score(doc=4185,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4185, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4185)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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.
-
Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017)
0.00
0.0011622861 = product of:
0.016272005 = sum of:
0.016272005 = product of:
0.03254401 = sum of:
0.03254401 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03254401 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, 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=3882)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 9.10.2017 15:48:22
-
Müller, S.: Schattenbibliotheken : Welche Auswirkungen haben Sci-Hub und Co. auf Verlage und Bibliotheken? (2019)
0.00
0.0010170004 = product of:
0.014238005 = sum of:
0.014238005 = product of:
0.02847601 = sum of:
0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02847601 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 765, 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=765)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Source
- B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.5, S.397-404
-
Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011)
0.00
0.0010170004 = product of:
0.014238005 = sum of:
0.014238005 = product of:
0.02847601 = sum of:
0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02847601 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 22. 1.2011 14:23:07
-
Schmale, W.: Strategische Optionen für universitäre Repositorien in den Digital Humanities (2018)
0.00
0.0010170004 = product of:
0.014238005 = sum of:
0.014238005 = product of:
0.02847601 = sum of:
0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02847601 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3909, 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=3909)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 20. 9.2018 12:22:39
-
Hrachovec, H.: Offen gesagt: Beschwerden eines Archivars (2018)
0.00
0.0010170004 = product of:
0.014238005 = sum of:
0.014238005 = product of:
0.02847601 = sum of:
0.02847601 = weight(_text_:22 in 4443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02847601 = score(doc=4443,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4443, 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=4443)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 20. 9.2018 12:22:52
-
Münch, V.: They have a dream (2019)
0.00
8.7171455E-4 = product of:
0.0122040035 = sum of:
0.0122040035 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5631, 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=5631)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Source
- B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.1, S.25-39
-
Strecker, D.: Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland (2019)
0.00
8.7171455E-4 = product of:
0.0122040035 = sum of:
0.0122040035 = product of:
0.024408007 = sum of:
0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024408007 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, 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=596)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 1. 1.2020 13:22:34
-
Taglinger, H.: Ausgevogelt, jetzt wird es ernst (2018)
0.00
7.264289E-4 = product of:
0.010170003 = sum of:
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 22. 1.2018 11:38:55
-
Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017)
0.00
7.264289E-4 = product of:
0.010170003 = sum of:
0.010170003 = product of:
0.020340007 = sum of:
0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020340007 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Somers, J.: Torching the modern-day library of Alexandria : somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them. (2017)
0.00
5.811431E-4 = product of:
0.008136002 = sum of:
0.008136002 = product of:
0.016272005 = sum of:
0.016272005 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016272005 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3608, 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=3608)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- You were going to get one-click access to the full text of nearly every book that's ever been published. Books still in print you'd have to pay for, but everything else-a collection slated to grow larger than the holdings at the Library of Congress, Harvard, the University of Michigan, at any of the great national libraries of Europe-would have been available for free at terminals that were going to be placed in every local library that wanted one. At the terminal you were going to be able to search tens of millions of books and read every page of any book you found. You'd be able to highlight passages and make annotations and share them; for the first time, you'd be able to pinpoint an idea somewhere inside the vastness of the printed record, and send somebody straight to it with a link. Books would become as instantly available, searchable, copy-pasteable-as alive in the digital world-as web pages. It was to be the realization of a long-held dream. "The universal library has been talked about for millennia," Richard Ovenden, the head of Oxford's Bodleian Libraries, has said. "It was possible to think in the Renaissance that you might be able to amass the whole of published knowledge in a single room or a single institution." In the spring of 2011, it seemed we'd amassed it in a terminal small enough to fit on a desk. "This is a watershed event and can serve as a catalyst for the reinvention of education, research, and intellectual life," one eager observer wrote at the time. On March 22 of that year, however, the legal agreement that would have unlocked a century's worth of books and peppered the country with access terminals to a universal library was rejected under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. When the library at Alexandria burned it was said to be an "international catastrophe." When the most significant humanities project of our time was dismantled in court, the scholars, archivists, and librarians who'd had a hand in its undoing breathed a sigh of relief, for they believed, at the time, that they had narrowly averted disaster.
-
Brown, D.J.: Access to scientific research : challenges facing communications in STM (2016)
0.00
5.811431E-4 = product of:
0.008136002 = sum of:
0.008136002 = product of:
0.016272005 = sum of:
0.016272005 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016272005 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- 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
-
Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017)
0.00
5.811431E-4 = product of:
0.008136002 = sum of:
0.008136002 = product of:
0.016272005 = sum of:
0.016272005 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016272005 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03002521 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
