Search (313 results, page 1 of 16)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Noever, D.; Ciolino, M.: ¬The Turing deception (2022) 0.23 
    0.22858559 = product of:
  0.5143176 = sum of:
    0.051431756 = product of:
      0.15429527 = sum of:
        0.15429527 = weight(_text_:3a in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15429527 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27453792 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.15429527 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15429527 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27453792 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.15429527 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15429527 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27453792 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
    0.15429527 = weight(_text_:2f in 862) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15429527 = score(doc=862,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27453792 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.56201804 = fieldWeight in 862, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=862)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    Source
    https%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fabs%2F2212.06721&usg=AOvVaw3i_9pZm9y_dQWoHi6uv0EN
  2. Gabler, S.: Vergabe von DDC-Sachgruppen mittels eines Schlagwort-Thesaurus (2021) 0.19 
    0.190488 = product of:
  0.428598 = sum of:
    0.0428598 = product of:
      0.1285794 = sum of:
        0.1285794 = weight(_text_:3a in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1285794 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27453792 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.1285794 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1285794 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27453792 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.1285794 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1285794 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27453792 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
    0.1285794 = weight(_text_:2f in 1000) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1285794 = score(doc=1000,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.27453792 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 1000, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1000)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    Content
    Master thesis Master of Science (Library and Information Studies) (MSc), Universität Wien. Advisor: Christoph Steiner. Vgl.: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371680244_Vergabe_von_DDC-Sachgruppen_mittels_eines_Schlagwort-Thesaurus. DOI: 10.25365/thesis.70030. Vgl. dazu die Präsentation unter: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAIQw7AJahcKEwjwoZzzytz_AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.dnb.de%2Fdownload%2Fattachments%2F252121510%2FDA3%2520Workshop-Gabler.pdf%3Fversion%3D1%26modificationDate%3D1671093170000%26api%3Dv2&psig=AOvVaw0szwENK1or3HevgvIDOfjx&ust=1687719410889597&opi=89978449.
  3. Krüger, N.; Pianos, T.: Lernmaterialien für junge Forschende in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften als Open Educational Resources (OER) (2021) 0.05 
    0.04686106 = product of:
  0.14058317 = sum of:
    0.10157438 = weight(_text_:open in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10157438 = score(doc=252,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.6965534 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
    0.028771617 = weight(_text_:access in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028771617 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 252, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=252)
    0.010237177 = product of:
      0.03071153 = sum of:
        0.03071153 = weight(_text_:22 in 252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03071153 = score(doc=252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 252, 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=252)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Das EconBiz Academic Career Kit ist ein interaktives Online-Tutorial für den wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchs in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften. In drei Modulen geht es um die Themen: erste Veröffentlichung, Open Access, Predatory Journals und Urheberrecht - Wissenschaftskommunikation, kollaboratives Arbeiten, Networking und Metriken - Forschungsdatenmanagement. Angebote der Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz sind in diesen Feldern und für diese Zielgruppe in Deutschland noch nicht flächendeckend verbreitet. Darum - und weil Forschende sich zu diesen Fragen meist im Netz informieren - ist das Academic Career Kit als OER unter der Lizenz CC-BY veröffentlicht und damit zur Bearbeitung und Weiterverwendung durch Dritte freigegeben.
    Content
    Teil 1 in: Open Password. 2021, Nr.920 vom 10.05.2021.
    Date
    22. 5.2021 12:43:05
    Source
    Open Password. 2021, Nr.935 vom 16.06.2021 [https://www.password-online.de/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=view_in_browser&action=view&data=WzMwNSwiMjNiZDFkOWY4Nzg5IiwwLDAsMjc1LDFd]
  4. Wolf, C.: Open Access Helper : neue Funktionen kurz vorgestellt (2021) 0.05 
    0.045462176 = product of:
  0.20457979 = sum of:
    0.13059564 = weight(_text_:open in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13059564 = score(doc=138,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.89556867 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
    0.073984146 = weight(_text_:access in 138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.073984146 = score(doc=138,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.67406833 = fieldWeight in 138, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=138)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Open Access Helper <https://www.oahelper.org> ist eine Browser-Erweiterung, die es Ihren Nutzern leichter machen soll, Open Access Kopien für wissenschaftliche Literatur zu finden. Dabei prüft Open Access Helper im Hintergrund anhand der ausgezeichneten APIs von unpaywall.org and core.ac.uk. Neben der Möglichkeit Open Access Kopien zu finden, hat Open Access Helper <https://www.oahelper.org> nun einen wichtigen Schritt gemacht, Ihre Nutzer noch besser zu unterstützen. Dank der Zusammenarbeit mit einer Bibliothek in Irland, kann die Erweiterung Ihre Nutzer nun besser unterstützen. Als Bibliothek können Sie für Open Access Helper Ihren* EZProxy* und/oder ein *Anfrageformular* bzw. *Link Resolver* hinterlegen. Es entstehen Ihnen und Ihren Nutzerinnen und Nutzern hierbei keine Kosten. Open Access Helper gibt es für Chrome, Firefox, Safari (macOS) und auch für iPad & iPhone. Download Links finden Sie unter https://www.oahelper.org oder über eine Such im App / Extension Store Ihrer Wahl. Weitere Informationen finden Sie unter https://www.oahelper.org.
    Object
    Open Access Helper
  5. Dellmann, S.: Studie "Wirkungen von Open Access" veröffentlicht (2022) 0.04 
    0.039533094 = product of:
  0.17789891 = sum of:
    0.11356362 = weight(_text_:open in 523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11356362 = score(doc=523,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.77877045 = fieldWeight in 523, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=523)
    0.06433529 = weight(_text_:access in 523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06433529 = score(doc=523,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.5861577 = fieldWeight in 523, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=523)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Content
    "Open Access bietet intuitiv viele Vorteile. Wie Umfragen zeigen, haben einige Wissenschaftler:innen dennoch Vorbehalte. Im letzten Jahrzehnt sind viele empirische Studien erschienen, welche fundierte Ergebnisse zu Hoffnungen und Befürchtungen liefern. Was bisher fehlte, war eine umfassende Übersicht zu empirischen Studienergebnissen zu den Wirkungen von Open Access. Um diese Lücke zu schließen, hat die Technische Informationsbibliothek (TIB) im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) die Studie <https://doi.org/10.34657/7666> "Wirkungen von Open Access. Literaturstudie über empirische Arbeiten 2010-2021" durchgeführt. Wie wir zeigen konnten, sind viele positive Wirkungen durch die empirische Literatur bestätigt, viele Vorbehalte durch die empirische Literatur zurückgewiesen oder nicht bestätigt. Lesen Sie die Zusammenfassung im Blogpost: https://tib.eu/studie-open-access-wirkungen - oder gleich den gesamten Bericht: https://doi.org/10.34657/7666."
  6. Candela, G.: ¬An automatic data quality approach to assess semantic data from cultural heritage institutions (2023) 0.04 
    0.036944248 = product of:
  0.110832736 = sum of:
    0.07182394 = weight(_text_:open in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07182394 = score(doc=997,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.49253768 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
    0.028771617 = weight(_text_:access in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028771617 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 997, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=997)
    0.010237177 = product of:
      0.03071153 = sum of:
        0.03071153 = weight(_text_:22 in 997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03071153 = score(doc=997,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 997, 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=997)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    In recent years, cultural heritage institutions have been exploring the benefits of applying Linked Open Data to their catalogs and digital materials. Innovative and creative methods have emerged to publish and reuse digital contents to promote computational access, such as the concepts of Labs and Collections as Data. Data quality has become a requirement for researchers and training methods based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. This article explores how the quality of Linked Open Data made available by cultural heritage institutions can be automatically assessed. The results obtained can be useful for other institutions who wish to publish and assess their collections.
    Date
    22. 6.2023 18:23:31
  7. Vogt, T.: ¬Die Transformation des renommierten Informationsservices zbMATH zu einer Open Access-Plattform für die Mathematik steht vor dem Abschluss. (2020) 0.03 
    0.0349968 = product of:
  0.1574856 = sum of:
    0.10053258 = weight(_text_:open in 31) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10053258 = score(doc=31,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.68940914 = fieldWeight in 31, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=31)
    0.056953028 = weight(_text_:access in 31) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056953028 = score(doc=31,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.51889807 = fieldWeight in 31, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=31)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Content
    "Mit Beginn des Jahres 2021 wird der umfassende internationale Informationsservice zbMATH in eine Open Access-Plattform überführt. Dann steht dieser bislang kostenpflichtige Dienst weltweit allen Interessierten kostenfrei zur Verfügung. Die Änderung des Geschäftsmodells ermöglicht, die meisten Informationen und Daten von zbMATH für Forschungszwecke und zur Verknüpfung mit anderen nicht-kommerziellen Diensten frei zu nutzen, siehe: https://www.mathematik.de/dmv-blog/2772-transformation-von-zbmath-zu-einer-open-access-plattform-f%C3%BCr-die-mathematik-kurz-vor-dem-abschluss."
  8. Graf, K.: Zur Open-Access-Heuchelei der Bibliotheken : sie lassen ihr Repositorium e-LiS verkommen (2021) 0.03 
    0.030308114 = product of:
  0.13638651 = sum of:
    0.08706375 = weight(_text_:open in 396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08706375 = score(doc=396,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.5970458 = fieldWeight in 396, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=396)
    0.04932277 = weight(_text_:access in 396) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04932277 = score(doc=396,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.4493789 = fieldWeight in 396, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=396)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
  9. Laakso, M.; Matthias, L.; Jahn, N.: Open is not forever : a study of vanished open access journals (2021) 0.03 
    0.028296806 = product of:
  0.12733562 = sum of:
    0.08706375 = weight(_text_:open in 333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08706375 = score(doc=333,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.5970458 = fieldWeight in 333, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=333)
    0.04027187 = weight(_text_:access in 333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04027187 = score(doc=333,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.36691633 = fieldWeight in 333, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=333)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The preservation of the scholarly record has been a point of concern since the beginning of knowledge production. With print publications, the responsibility rested primarily with librarians, but the shift toward digital publishing and, in particular, the introduction of open access (OA) have caused ambiguity and complexity. Consequently, the long-term accessibility of journals is not always guaranteed, and they can even disappear from the web completely. The focus of this exploratory study is on the phenomenon of vanished journals, something that has not been carried out before. For the analysis, we consulted several major bibliographic indexes, such as Scopus, Ulrichsweb, and the Directory of Open Access Journals, and traced the journals through the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. We found 174 OA journals that, through lack of comprehensive and open archives, vanished from the web between 2000 and 2019, spanning all major research disciplines and geographic regions of the world. Our results raise vital concern for the integrity of the scholarly record and highlight the urgency to take collaborative action to ensure continued access and prevent the loss of more scholarly knowledge. We encourage those interested in the phenomenon of vanished journals to use the public dataset for their own research.
    Footnote
    Vgl. dazu den Letter to the editor: Shelomi, M.: Comment on "Open is not forever: A study of vanished open access journals". In. JASIST 72(2021) no.9, S.1113-1114 [https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24543]: "One reason these journals may have vanished is that they were predatory journals: a possibility the original paper did not consider." Dazu die Erwiderung der Autoren: Response to comment on "Open is not forever: A study of vanished open access journals". In: JASIST 72(2021) no.9, S.1115-1116 [https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24542].
  10. James, J.E.: Pirate open access as electronic civil disobedience : is it ethical to breach the paywalls of monetized academic publishing? (2020) 0.03 
    0.027716044 = product of:
  0.1247222 = sum of:
    0.07539943 = weight(_text_:open in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07539943 = score(doc=37,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.5170568 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
    0.04932277 = weight(_text_:access in 37) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04932277 = score(doc=37,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.4493789 = fieldWeight in 37, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=37)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Open access has long been an ideal of academic publishing. Yet, contrary to initial expectations, cost of access to published scientific knowledge increased following the advent of the Internet and electronic processing. An analysis of the ethicality of current arrangements in academic publishing shows that monetization and the sequestering of scientific knowledge behind paywalls breach the principle of fairness and damage public interest. Following decades of failed effort to redress the situation, there are ethical grounds for consumers of scientific knowledge to invoke the right of collective civil disobedience, including support for pirate open access. Could this be the best option available to consumers of scientific knowledge for removing paywalls to knowledge that rightly belongs in the public domain?
  11. Geschuhn, K.: Vertragsunterzeichnung Springer Nature und Projekt DEAL (2020) 0.03 
    0.02672925 = product of:
  0.12028162 = sum of:
    0.076783024 = weight(_text_:open in 5654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076783024 = score(doc=5654,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.5265449 = fieldWeight in 5654, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5654)
    0.043498594 = weight(_text_:access in 5654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043498594 = score(doc=5654,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.39631495 = fieldWeight in 5654, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5654)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Text der Mail: "Anknüpfend an das im August 2019 unterzeichnete Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) geben Springer Nature und MPDL Services GmbH im Namen von Projekt DEAL heute bekannt, dass der formale Vertrag der bislang weltweit umfangreichsten transformativen Open-Access-Vereinbarung unterzeichnet wurde. Seit dem 1. Januar 2020 werden Publikationen in Springer Nature-Subskriptionszeitschriften aus den mehr als 700 teilnahmeberechtigten deutschen wissenschaftlichen Einrichtungen Open Access publiziert. Teilnehmende Institutionen erhalten umfassenden Zugang zum Zeitschriftenportfolio von Springer Nature. Lesen Sie die Pressemitteilung hier: https://www.hrk.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/pressemitteilung/meldung/springer-nature-und-projekt-deal-unterzeichnen-weltweit-umfangreichsten-open-access-transformationsv/ Der vollständige Vertragstext wird zusammen mit dem Start des Teilnahmeverfahrens für deutsche Einrichtungen in der zweiten Januarhälfte veröffentlicht. MPDL Services GmbH wird in den kommenden Wochen weitere Informationen zur Verfügung stellen und sich mit den teilnahmeberechtigten Institutionen in Verbindung setzen. Informationen zu den Eckpunkten der Vereinbarung finden Sie hier: https://www.projekt-deal.de/springer-nature-vertrag/ Bitte beachten Sie, dass der Start der Open-Access-Gold-Komponente auf den 1.8.2020 verschoben wurde."
    Vgl. auch den Text in der Mail von A. Jobmann an Inetbib vom 14.01.2020: "nach mehrjährigen Verhandlungen kam es im Rahmen des Allianzprojektes DEAL am 15. Januar 2019 zu einem Vertragsabschluss mit dem Verlag Wiley und am 09.01.2020 zu einem ähnlichen Vertragsabschluss mit Springer Nature. Diese Verträge berechtigen die korrespondierenden Autorinnen und Autoren aller beteiligten Einrichtungen, ihre Publikationen in den Zeitschriften des Wiley-Verlages und Springer Nature unter einer freien Lizenz im Open Access zu publizieren. Das finanzielle Beteiligungsmodell für solche Transformationsverträge setzt derzeit noch bei den bisherigen Subskriptionszahlungen an die jeweiligen Verlage an. Mit der Open-Access-Transformation wird jedoch insbesondere die Umstellung des Standard-Geschäftsmodells für issenschaftliche Verlage von Subskription auf das Open-Access-Publizieren angestrebt. Damit verbunden sind Änderungen in den Geschäftsprozessen und der Abrechnungslogik, in deren Zentrum zukünftig die einzelne Publikation steht.
  12. Kirsch, M.A.: Plan S in der Diskussion : Reaktionen aus der Wissenschaft auf die internationale Open-Access-Initiative (2020) 0.03 
    0.0262476 = product of:
  0.1181142 = sum of:
    0.07539943 = weight(_text_:open in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07539943 = score(doc=132,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.5170568 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
    0.04271477 = weight(_text_:access in 132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04271477 = score(doc=132,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.38917357 = fieldWeight in 132, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=132)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Plan S und seine potenziellen Auswirkungen auf die wissenschaftliche Publikationskultur gehören aktuell zu den international intensiv diskutierten Themen, vor allem in der Open-Access-Community, aber auch im Bibliotheksbereich. Der folgende Beitrag greift diese Debatten aus der Sicht der internationalen Forschungsgemeinschaft auf und beleuchtet repräsentativ wichtige Akteure sowie grundlegende Positionen in der Auseinandersetzung mit der Open-Access-Initiative. Er skizziert ihre Entwicklung von der Ankündigung im September 2018 bis zum Erscheinen der überarbeiteten Version Ende Mai 2019 und untersucht, inwiefern die Wortmeldungen von Seiten der Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler sowie von Forschungszusammenschlüssen Eingang in die Überarbeitungen von Plan S fanden. Deren zunehmende Wichtigkeit - vor allem auch im Hinblick auf eine breitere Akzeptanz der Plan-S-Strategie bei den Forschenden - spiegelt sich in mehreren von der cOAlition S initiierten Feedback-Aktionen wider. Als eine der Folgen von Plan S ist somit eine Intensivierung der bereits seit längerem geführten Diskussionen über wissenschaftliche Publikationskulturen zu beobachten, die in zunehmendem Maße auch Bibliotheken als Ansprechpartner für Hochschulen und Wissenschaft fordern werden.
  13. Frick, C.; Kaier, C.: Publikationskosten für Zeitschriftenartikel abseits von Open-Access-Publikationsfonds : Lost in Transformation? (2020) 0.03 
    0.025002921 = product of:
  0.11251315 = sum of:
    0.07182394 = weight(_text_:open in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07182394 = score(doc=69,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.49253768 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
    0.040689208 = weight(_text_:access in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040689208 = score(doc=69,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.3707187 = fieldWeight in 69, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=69)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Mit der Etablierung von Open Access als Standardmodell des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens verlagert sich der Fokus von Subskriptions- auf Publikationskosten. Die zuverlässige und vollständige Erfassung dieser Kosten stellt eine große Herausforderung für Bibliotheken und Institutionen dar. Gründe dafür sind dezentrale Rechnungsworkflows, unterschiedliche Kostenmodelle, Nebengebühren, ein Nebeneinander von Einzel- und Pauschalgebühren und die Vermischung von Subskriptions- und Publikationskosten. Der vorliegende Beitrag analysiert zunächst die Vielfalt der unterschiedlichen Ausgaben für Artikel in wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften. Im Anschluss zeigt er zwei Ansätze der Erfassung von dezentralen Publikationskosten auf, die zu einer besseren Steuerung und mehr Transparenz der Ausgaben für das Publizieren beitragen.
  14. Ming, W.; Zhao, Z.: Rethinking the open access citation advantage : evidence from the "reverse-flipping" journals (2022) 0.02 
    0.021873001 = product of:
  0.0984285 = sum of:
    0.06283286 = weight(_text_:open in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06283286 = score(doc=750,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.43088073 = fieldWeight in 750, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=750)
    0.03559564 = weight(_text_:access in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03559564 = score(doc=750,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.3243113 = fieldWeight in 750, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=750)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Although the open access citation advantage (OACA) has been discussed extensively, scholars lack a clear understanding of the mechanisms through which switching from subscription-based model to open access (OA) model affects the citation impact of a scholarly journal. Many journals have switched from subscription to OA, yet they later also flipped their preswitching articles (i.e., those under subscription model) to OA, thus leaving no subscription article to be compared with their postswitching OA counterparts. To detect the switching effect, our study instead focused on 60 journals that "reverse flipped" from OA to subscription. We use a difference-in-difference (DiD) analytical framework to analyze two propositions related to OACA, based on the bibliographic and citation data of pre- and postswitching publications in these journals. Our findings indicate that reverse flipping is unlikely to affect the journals' impact through changing the visibility of their articles. Instead, it could lead to a systematical shift in the submissions to the journals and thus considerably affect their impact. Our findings have important theoretical and practical implications for subsequent studies, funding agencies, and scholarly journals considering a reverse flip.
  15. Kodua-Ntim, K.: Narrative review on open access institutional repositories and knowledge sharing in South Africa (2023) 0.02 
    0.021873001 = product of:
  0.0984285 = sum of:
    0.06283286 = weight(_text_:open in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06283286 = score(doc=1050,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.43088073 = fieldWeight in 1050, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1050)
    0.03559564 = weight(_text_:access in 1050) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03559564 = score(doc=1050,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.3243113 = fieldWeight in 1050, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1050)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This brief communication conveys a critical assessment of the benefits, challenges, and potential of Open Access Institutional Repositories (OAIRs) for knowledge sharing in South Africa. The review identifies best practices and recommendations to promote and improve their usage. Researchers need training and support to understand guidelines and best practices for depositing their work. Limited funding for OAIRs can be addressed by government funding or exploring alternative models. Legal and policy frameworks must support OAIRs and ensure they comply with international standards. Proper management and indexing policies enhance institutional visibility and information retrieval. OAIRs promote collaboration and cooperation among researchers and provide a platform for knowledge sharing and feedback. Standardized platforms and frameworks ensure digital outputs are accessible and usable for the academic community. Sharing knowledge on self-archiving encourages researchers to deposit their works. Formal reviews must focus on metadata and ensure that articles are from DHET-accredited journals and that theses and dissertations meet institutional requirements. These efforts promote open access and preserve scholarly works for future generations.
  16. Morrison, H.; Borges, L.; Zhao, X.; Kakou, T.L.; Shanbhoug, A.N.: Change and growth in open access journal publishing and charging trends 2011-2021 (2022) 0.02 
    0.020421462 = product of:
  0.09189658 = sum of:
    0.06283286 = weight(_text_:open in 741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06283286 = score(doc=741,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.43088073 = fieldWeight in 741, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=741)
    0.02906372 = weight(_text_:access in 741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02906372 = score(doc=741,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 741, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=741)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This study examines trends in open access article processing charges (APCs) from 2011 to 2021, building on a 2011 study by Solomon and Björk. Two methods are employed, a modified replica and a status update of the 2011 journals. Data are drawn from multiple sources and datasets are available as open data. Most journals do not charge APCs; this has not changed. The global average per-journal APC increased slightly, from 906 to 958 USD, while the per-article average increased from 904 to 1,626 USD, indicating that authors choose to publish in more expensive journals. Publisher size, type, impact metrics and subject affect charging tendencies, average APC, and pricing trends. Half the journals from the 2011 sample are no longer listed in DOAJ in 2021, due to ceased publication or publisher de-listing. Conclusions include a caution about the potential of the APC model to increase costs beyond inflation. The university sector may be the most promising approach to economically sustainable no-fee OA journals. Universities publish many OA journals, nearly half of OA articles, tend not to charge APCs and when APCs are charged, the prices are very low on average.
  17. Schreur, P.E.: ¬The use of Linked Data and artificial intelligence as key elements in the transformation of technical services (2020) 0.02 
    0.020328088 = product of:
  0.091476396 = sum of:
    0.05078719 = weight(_text_:open in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05078719 = score(doc=125,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
    0.040689208 = weight(_text_:access in 125) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040689208 = score(doc=125,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.3707187 = fieldWeight in 125, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=125)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Library Technical Services have benefited from numerous stimuli. Although initially looked at with suspicion, transitions such as the move from catalog cards to the MARC formats have proven enormously helpful to libraries and their patrons. Linked data and Artificial Intelligence (AI) hold the same promise. Through the conversion of metadata surrogates (cataloging) to linked open data, libraries can represent their resources on the Semantic Web. But in order to provide some form of controlled access to unstructured data, libraries must reach beyond traditional cataloging to new tools such as AI to provide consistent access to a growing world of full-text resources.
  18. Hobert, A.; Jahn, N.; Mayr, P.; Schmidt, B.; Taubert, N.: Open access uptake in Germany 2010-2018 : adoption in a diverse research landscape (2021) 0.02 
    0.020205412 = product of:
  0.09092435 = sum of:
    0.058042504 = weight(_text_:open in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058042504 = score(doc=250,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.39803052 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
    0.032881845 = weight(_text_:access in 250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032881845 = score(doc=250,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 250, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=250)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Es handelt sich um eine bibliometrische Untersuchung der Entwicklung der Open-Access-Verfügbarkeit wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriftenartikel in Deutschland, die im Zeitraum 2010-18 erschienen und im Web of Science indexiert sind. Ein besonderes Augenmerk der Analyse lag auf der Frage, ob und inwiefern sich die Open-Access-Profile der Universitäten und außeruniversitären Wissenschaftseinrichtungen in Deutschland voneinander unterscheiden.
    Content
    This study investigates the development of open access (OA) to journal articles from authors affiliated with German universities and non-university research institutions in the period 2010-2018. Beyond determining the overall share of openly available articles, a systematic classification of distinct categories of OA publishing allowed us to identify different patterns of adoption of OA. Taking into account the particularities of the German research landscape, variations in terms of productivity, OA uptake and approaches to OA are examined at the meso-level and possible explanations are discussed. The development of the OA uptake is analysed for the different research sectors in Germany (universities, non-university research institutes of the Helmholtz Association, Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Society, Leibniz Association, and government research agencies). Combining several data sources (incl. Web of Science, Unpaywall, an authority file of standardised German affiliation information, the ISSN-Gold-OA 3.0 list, and OpenDOAR), the study confirms the growth of the OA share mirroring the international trend reported in related studies. We found that 45% of all considered articles during the observed period were openly available at the time of analysis. Our findings show that subject-specific repositories are the most prevalent type of OA. However, the percentages for publication in fully OA journals and OA via institutional repositories show similarly steep increases. Enabling data-driven decision-making regarding the implementation of OA in Germany at the institutional level, the results of this study furthermore can serve as a baseline to assess the impact recent transformative agreements with major publishers will likely have on scholarly communication.
  19. Buehling, K.; Geissler, M.; Strecker, D.: Free access to scientific literature and its influence on the publishing activity in developing countries : the effect of Sci-Hub in the field of mathematics (2022) 0.02 
    0.019248089 = product of:
  0.0866164 = sum of:
    0.036276564 = weight(_text_:open in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036276564 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
    0.050339837 = weight(_text_:access in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050339837 = score(doc=647,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.4586454 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    This paper investigates whether free access to scientific literature increases the participation of under-represented groups in scientific discourse. To this end, we aggregate and match data tracing access to Sci-Hub, a widely used black open access (OA) repository or shadow library, and publication data from the Web of Science (WoS). We treat the emergence of Sci-Hub as an exogenous event granting relatively unrestricted access to publications, which are otherwise hidden behind a paywall. We analyze changes in the publication count of researchers from developing countries in a given journal as a proxy for general participation in scientific discourse. Our results indicate that in the exemplary field of mathematics, free access to academic knowledge is likely to improve the representation of authors from developing countries in international journals. Assuming the desirability of greater international diversity in science (e.g., to generate more original work, reproduce empirical findings in different settings, or shift the research focus toward topics that are overlooked by researchers from more developed countries), our findings lend evidence to the claim of the OA movement that scientific knowledge should be free and widely distributed.
  20. Moore, S.A.: Revisiting "the 1990s debutante" : scholar-led publishing and the prehistory of the open access movement (2020) 0.02 
    0.01785923 = product of:
  0.08036653 = sum of:
    0.05130281 = weight(_text_:open in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05130281 = score(doc=5920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.3518126 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
    0.02906372 = weight(_text_:access in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02906372 = score(doc=5920,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.26479906 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The movement for open access publishing (OA) is often said to have its roots in the scientific disciplines, having been popularized by scientific publishers and formalized through a range of top-down policy interventions. But there is an often-neglected prehistory of OA that can be found in the early DIY publishers of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Managed entirely by working academics, these journals published research in the humanities and social sciences and stand out for their unique set of motivations and practices. This article explores this separate lineage in the history of the OA movement through a critical-theoretical analysis of the motivations and practices of the early scholar-led publishers. Alongside showing the involvement of the humanities and social sciences in the formation of OA, the analysis reveals the importance that these journals placed on experimental practices, critique of commercial publishing, and the desire to reach new audiences. Understood in today's context, this research is significant for adding complexity to the history of OA, which policymakers, advocates, and publishing scholars should keep in mind as OA goes mainstream.

Authors

Languages

  • e 216
  • d 97
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 268
  • el 90
  • m 19
  • s 6
  • p 3
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications