Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  1. Hrachovec, H.: Offen gesagt: Beschwerden eines Archivars (2018) 0.03 
    0.02804866 = product of:
  0.11219464 = sum of:
    0.11219464 = sum of:
      0.06960216 = weight(_text_:entwicklung in 4443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06960216 = score(doc=4443,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20103875 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.4765134 = idf(docFreq=1366, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04490967 = queryNorm
          0.34621266 = fieldWeight in 4443, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.4765134 = idf(docFreq=1366, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4443)
      0.042592485 = weight(_text_:22 in 4443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042592485 = score(doc=4443,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Open Access Archive für Fachdisziplinen unterscheiden sich von organisationseigenen Repositorien durch ihre geringere institutionelle Verankerung und konstitutive Translokalität. Aus ihrer Sicht fallen manche Schwierigkeiten der Open Access-Initiative besonders ins Gewicht. Am Beispiel eines kleinen disziplinären Repositoriums Sammelpunkt (für Philosophie) werden zwei Punkte hervorgehoben. Erstens finden sich Journalbeiträge (bisweilen in unterschiedlichen Versionen) immer häufiger in mehreren, offenen oder gebührenpflichtigen, Archiven. Und zweitens können spezialisierte Sammlungen der Anziehungskraft dominanter Portale im akademischen sozialen Netz nichts entgegensetzen. Die Gründe dieser Entwicklung sind zu analysieren. Eine konzeptuelle Unzulänglichkeit liegt darin, dass die publikumswirksame Rede vom offenen Zugang zur Forschungsliteratur bei näherem Hinsehen zu undifferenziert ist, um unbeabsichtigte Praktiken auszuschließen.
    Date
    20. 9.2018 12:22:52
  2. Weingart, P.: Zur Situation und Entwicklung wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken (2016) 0.01 
    0.014914748 = product of:
  0.059658993 = sum of:
    0.059658993 = product of:
      0.119317986 = sum of:
        0.119317986 = weight(_text_:entwicklung in 3252) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.119317986 = score(doc=3252,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20103875 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4765134 = idf(docFreq=1366, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = queryNorm
            0.5935074 = fieldWeight in 3252, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4765134 = idf(docFreq=1366, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3252)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  3. Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.01 
    0.010756226 = product of:
  0.043024905 = sum of:
    0.043024905 = product of:
      0.08604981 = sum of:
        0.08604981 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08604981 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 4.2017 10:42:05
    22. 4.2017 10:48:38
  4. Loos, A.: ¬Die Million ist geknackt (2015) 0.01 
    0.00912696 = product of:
  0.03650784 = sum of:
    0.03650784 = product of:
      0.07301568 = sum of:
        0.07301568 = weight(_text_:22 in 4208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07301568 = score(doc=4208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    7. 4.2015 17:22:03
  5. Ergül, A.; Böhm, A.; Schmidt, E.; Hissen, S.; Sariklis, T.: Erfolgsfaktoren für die Durchsetzung von PDF/A als weltweiter Standard für elektronische Langzeitarchivierung (2012) 0.01 
    0.00870027 = product of:
  0.03480108 = sum of:
    0.03480108 = product of:
      0.06960216 = sum of:
        0.06960216 = weight(_text_:entwicklung in 4794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06960216 = score(doc=4794,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20103875 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4765134 = idf(docFreq=1366, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = queryNorm
            0.34621266 = fieldWeight in 4794, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4765134 = idf(docFreq=1366, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4794)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Der Artikel befasst sich mit der historischen Entwicklung der Langzeitarchivierung und den damit verbundenen Ansprüchen und Problemen. Insbesondere geht es um die rechtlichen Aspekte, die Dokumentenechtheit, die Revisionssicherheit, die Plattformunabhängigkeit und die Kostenkalkulation der zu archivierenden Daten. Auf dieser Basis werden die Erfolgsfaktoren für die Etablierung des PDF/A-Formats in Zusammenhang mit der digitalen Langzeitarchivierung dargestellt. Aus den Ergebnissen der eigens erstellten Online-Befragung auf der "PDF-Association"- Website zum Thema Kundenzufriedenheit werden Nutzen und Probleme der Anwender zusammengefasst.
  6. Herb, U.: Open Access zwischen Revolution und Goldesel : eine Bilanz fünfzehn Jahre nach der Erklärung der Budapest Open Access Initiative (2017) 0.01 
    0.0062144785 = product of:
  0.024857914 = sum of:
    0.024857914 = product of:
      0.04971583 = sum of:
        0.04971583 = weight(_text_:entwicklung in 3551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04971583 = score(doc=3551,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20103875 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4765134 = idf(docFreq=1366, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = queryNorm
            0.24729475 = fieldWeight in 3551, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4765134 = idf(docFreq=1366, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3551)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Die Erklärungen und Positionierungen zu Open Access anfangs der 2000er Jahre waren von Umbruchstimmung, Euphorie und Idealismus getragen, eine Revolution des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens wurde vielfach vorhergesagt. Die Erwartungen an Open Access lagen auf der Hand und waren umrissen: Wissenschaftlern war an rascher Verbreitung ihrer eigenen Texte gelegen sowie an der Verfügbarkeit der Texte ihrer Kollegen, Bibliothekaren an einer Abhilfe für stark steigende Journalpreise, den Wissenschaftseinrichtungen an effizienter und freier Verbreitung ihrer Inhalte. Einzig die Position der kommerziellen Wissenschaftsverlage zu Open Access war überwiegend zögerlich bis ablehnend. Der Artikel versucht sich 15 Jahre nach dem Treffen der Budapest Open Access Initiative 2001 an einer Bilanz zum Open Access. 2016 muss festgehalten werden, dass die von den maßgeblichen Open-Access-Advokaten früherer Tage erhoffte Revolution wohl ausbleiben wird. Vielmehr scheint aktuell die Entwicklung des Open Access weitgehend von den vormals in Open-Access-Szenarien kaum erwähnten kommerziellen Verlagen angetrieben. Zwar findet sich auch Open Access in wissenschaftlicher Selbstverwaltung, dennoch bleiben die Akteure im wissenschaftlichen Publizieren bislang die gleichen wie 2001 und die schon damals bekannten Konzentrationseffekte am Publikationsmarkt setzen sich fort.
  7. Schönfelder, N.: Mittelbedarf für Open Access an ausgewählten deutschen Universitäten und Forschungseinrichtungen : Transformationsrechnung (2019) 0.01 
    0.0062144785 = product of:
  0.024857914 = sum of:
    0.024857914 = product of:
      0.04971583 = sum of:
        0.04971583 = weight(_text_:entwicklung in 5427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04971583 = score(doc=5427,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20103875 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4765134 = idf(docFreq=1366, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = queryNorm
            0.24729475 = fieldWeight in 5427, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4765134 = idf(docFreq=1366, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5427)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Für fünf deutsche Universitäten sowie ein Forschungsinstitut werden auf Basis der Publikationsdaten des Web of Science Abschätzungen zu den Gesamtausgaben für APCs erstellt und mit den derzeitigen Subskriptionsausgaben verglichen. Der Bericht zeigt, dass die Kostenübernahme auf Basis der projizierten Ausgaben für Publikationen aus nicht-Drittmittel-geförderter Forschung für alle hier betrachteten Einrichtungen ohne Probleme aus den derzeitigen bibliothekarischen Erwerbungsetats für Zeitschriften bestritten werden könnte. Dies setzt jedoch voraus, dass Drittmittelgeber neben der üblichen Forschungsförderung auch für die APCs der aus diesen Projekten resultierenden Publikationen aufkommen. Trifft dies nicht zu und die wissenschaftliche Einrichtung muss für sämtliche Publikationen die APCs selbst tragen, so hängen die budgetären Auswirkungen wesentlich von der zukünftigen Entwicklung der Artikelbearbeitungsgebühren ab.
  8. Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017) 0.01 
    0.0060846405 = product of:
  0.024338562 = sum of:
    0.024338562 = product of:
      0.048677124 = sum of:
        0.048677124 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048677124 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    9.10.2017 15:48:22
  9. Müller, S.: Schattenbibliotheken : Welche Auswirkungen haben Sci-Hub und Co. auf Verlage und Bibliotheken? (2019) 0.01 
    0.0053240606 = product of:
  0.021296242 = sum of:
    0.021296242 = product of:
      0.042592485 = sum of:
        0.042592485 = weight(_text_:22 in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042592485 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.5, S.397-404
  10. Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011) 0.01 
    0.0053240606 = product of:
  0.021296242 = sum of:
    0.021296242 = product of:
      0.042592485 = sum of:
        0.042592485 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042592485 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:23:07
  11. Schmale, W.: Strategische Optionen für universitäre Repositorien in den Digital Humanities (2018) 0.01 
    0.0053240606 = product of:
  0.021296242 = sum of:
    0.021296242 = product of:
      0.042592485 = sum of:
        0.042592485 = weight(_text_:22 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042592485 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 9.2018 12:22:39
  12. Wissenschaftliches Publizieren : zwischen Digitalisierung, Leistungsmessung, Ökonomisierung und medialer Beobachtung (2016) 0.00 
    0.004971583 = product of:
  0.019886332 = sum of:
    0.019886332 = product of:
      0.039772663 = sum of:
        0.039772663 = weight(_text_:entwicklung in 3250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039772663 = score(doc=3250,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20103875 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.4765134 = idf(docFreq=1366, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = queryNorm
            0.1978358 = fieldWeight in 3250, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.4765134 = idf(docFreq=1366, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Content
    Inhalt: Teil 1: Das wissenschaftliche Kommunikationssystem im Wandel Von Fach zu Fach verschieden. Diversität im wissenschaftlichen Publikationssystem - Rosenbaum, Konstanze (S. 41-74) / Open Access und digitale Publikation aus der Perspektive von Wissenschaftsverlagen - Taubert, Niels (S. 75-102) / Zur Situation und Entwicklung wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken - Weingart, Peter (S. 103-122) / Ein wissenschaftspolitisches Beteiligungsexperiment: Ergebnisse und Bewertung der Online-Konsultation "Publikationssystem" - Taubert, Niels / Schön, Kevin (S. 123-144) Teil 2: Rahmenbedingungen Empfehlungen, Stellungnahmen, Deklarationen und Aktivitäten wissenschaftspolitischer Akteure zur Gestaltung des wissenschaftlichen Kommunikationssystems - Herb, Ulrich ( S. 147-178) / Open Access: Effects on Publishing Behaviour of Scientists, Peer Review and Interrelations with Performance Measures - Ball, David (S. 179-210) / Das Urheberrecht und der Wandel des wissenschaftlichen Kommunikationssystems - Peukert, Alexander / Sonnenberg, Marcus (S. 211-242) /
  13. Münch, V.: They have a dream (2019) 0.00 
    0.00456348 = product of:
  0.01825392 = sum of:
    0.01825392 = product of:
      0.03650784 = sum of:
        0.03650784 = weight(_text_:22 in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03650784 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.1, S.25-39
  14. Strecker, D.: Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland (2019) 0.00 
    0.00456348 = product of:
  0.01825392 = sum of:
    0.01825392 = product of:
      0.03650784 = sum of:
        0.03650784 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03650784 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    1. 1.2020 13:22:34
  15. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.00 
    0.0038029004 = product of:
  0.015211602 = sum of:
    0.015211602 = product of:
      0.030423203 = sum of:
        0.030423203 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030423203 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.
  16. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.00 
    0.0038029004 = product of:
  0.015211602 = sum of:
    0.015211602 = product of:
      0.030423203 = sum of:
        0.030423203 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030423203 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  17. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.00 
    0.0038029004 = product of:
  0.015211602 = sum of:
    0.015211602 = product of:
      0.030423203 = sum of:
        0.030423203 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030423203 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
  18. Taglinger, H.: Ausgevogelt, jetzt wird es ernst (2018) 0.00 
    0.0038029004 = product of:
  0.015211602 = sum of:
    0.015211602 = product of:
      0.030423203 = sum of:
        0.030423203 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030423203 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:38:55
  19. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.00 
    0.0038029004 = product of:
  0.015211602 = sum of:
    0.015211602 = product of:
      0.030423203 = sum of:
        0.030423203 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030423203 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  20. 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 
    0.0030423203 = product of:
  0.012169281 = sum of:
    0.012169281 = product of:
      0.024338562 = sum of:
        0.024338562 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024338562 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15726602 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04490967 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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.

Authors

Languages

  • d 14
  • e 8

Types

  • a 20
  • el 6
  • m 2
  • r 1
  • s 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications