Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  1. Strecker, D.: Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland (2019) 0.02 
    0.02145919 = product of:
  0.15021433 = sum of:
    0.15021433 = sum of:
      0.12076873 = weight(_text_:zugriff in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12076873 = score(doc=596,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2160124 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03622214 = queryNorm
          0.5590824 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
      0.0294456 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0294456 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Anfang der 2000er Jahre entstanden in Reaktion auf unzureichende Zugangswege zu Fachliteratur und ausgelöst durch steigende Subskriptionsgebühren wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften erste illegale Dokumentensammlungen, sogenannte Schattenbibliotheken. Schattenbibliotheken sind Internetdienste, die ohne Zustimmung der RechteinhaberInnen Datenbanken mit wissenschaftlichen Volltexten erstellen, betreiben und allen Interessierten dadurch den Zugriff auf wissenschaftliche Literatur ermöglichen. Zu den meistgenutzten Schattenbibliotheken zählt Sci-Hub. Der Dienst wurde 2011 von Alexandra Elbakyan entwickelt und umfasste zum Zeitpunkt der Untersuchung mehr als 74 Millionen Dokumente. Die Akzeptanz dieser Dienste unter Forschenden und anderen Personengruppen, verschwimmende Grenzen in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung zu Open Access sowie mögliche Konsequenzen für bestehende legale Zugänge zu Fachliteratur beschäftigen nicht nur InformationswissenschaftlerInnen weltweit. In diesem Beitrag wird die Rolle des Phänomens Schattenbibliothek bei der wissenschaftlichen Informationsversorgung in Deutschland untersucht, insbesondere im Hinblick auf regionale Verteilungen von Downloads, Zugriffszeiten, Zusammenhängen zwischen der Größe bestimmter Personengruppen (Bevölkerungszahl, Anzahl wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeitender an Hochschulen) und den Downloadzahlen eines Bundeslands sowie den Eigenschaften der angefragten Dokumente (Themen, Verlage, Publikationsalter beim Zugriff).
    Date
    1. 1.2020 13:22:34
  2. Müller, S.: Schattenbibliotheken : Welche Auswirkungen haben Sci-Hub und Co. auf Verlage und Bibliotheken? (2019) 0.02 
    0.019140333 = product of:
  0.13398233 = sum of:
    0.13398233 = sum of:
      0.09962913 = weight(_text_:zugriff in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09962913 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2160124 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03622214 = queryNorm
          0.46121946 = fieldWeight in 765, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=765)
      0.0343532 = weight(_text_:22 in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0343532 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Schattenbibliotheken wie Sci-Hub bieten Zugriff auf wissenschaftliche Volltexte aus allen akademischen Disziplinen. Sie agieren rechtswidrig, indem sie die Bezahlschranken der Verlage umgehen und Dokumente in ihren eigenen Datenbanken speichern. Sie können als eine der Auswirkungen auf die Zeitschriftenkrise der letzten Jahrzehnte verstanden werden. Im Rahmen meiner Bachelorarbeit habe ich mich intensiv mit diesem noch relativ jungen Phänomen auseinandergesetzt. Bibliotheken sind als Bindeglied zwischen den Wissenschaftsverlagen und ihren eigenen Nutzern direkt von Schattenbibliotheken betroffen. Während sie auf der einen Seite von einer besseren Verhandlungsposition gegenüber Verlagen profitieren könnten, müssen sie auf der anderen Seite mit den illegalen Datenbanken konkurrieren. Wie kann diese Gradwanderung gelingen?
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.5, S.397-404
  3. Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011) 0.01 
    0.0071533015 = product of:
  0.025036555 = sum of:
    0.007859954 = product of:
      0.039299767 = sum of:
        0.039299767 = weight(_text_:system in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039299767 = score(doc=4198,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0171766 = product of:
      0.0343532 = sum of:
        0.0343532 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0343532 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Large, data-rich organizations have tremendously large collections of digital objects to be "repurposed," to respond quickly and economically to publishing, marketing, and information needs. Some management typically assume that a content management system, or some other technique such as OWL and RDF, will automatically address the workflow and technical issues associated with this reuse. Four case studies show that the sources of some roadblocks to agile repurposing are as much managerial and organizational as they are technical in nature. The review concludes with suggestions on how digital object repurposing can be integrated given these organizations' structures.
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:23:07
    Theme
    Content Management System
  4. Hummel, P.: Millionen Fachartikel illegal im Netz verfügbar (2016) 0.01 
    0.005083119 = product of:
  0.03558183 = sum of:
    0.03558183 = product of:
      0.07116366 = sum of:
        0.07116366 = weight(_text_:zugriff in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07116366 = score(doc=2871,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2160124 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.32944247 = fieldWeight in 2871, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Abstract
    Die Online-Plattform Sci-Hub überwindet die Paywalls der Verlage und baut eine riesige "Schattenbibliothek" der Wissenschaft auf. Auch Gerichte können sie bislang nicht stoppen. Das hatte sich Elsevier sicherlich anders vorgestellt. Der große Wissenschaftsverlag hat im Juni 2015 Klage gegen die Online-Plattformen Sci-Hub und LibGen eingereicht. Der Grund: Dort war eine riesige Anzahl akademischer Publikationen frei und kostenlos zugänglich gemacht worden. Sci-Hub bot Nutzern Zugriff auf Millionen Veröffentlichungen, viele davon urheberrechtlich geschützt. Seit nun letzte Woche die Website Bigthink.com ausführlich über das Verfahren gegen Sci-Hub vor einem US-Bundesbezirksgerichts in New York berichtet hat, verbreitet sich die Nachricht vom "Pirate Bay für die Wissenschaft" in den sozialen Netzwerken rasant. Eine bessere Werbemaßnahme als das Gerichtsverfahren hätte sich Sci-Hub kaum wünschen können. Elsevier ist einer der größten akademischen Verlage der Welt. Nach Presseberichten macht das Unternehmen mit seinen mehr als 2200 Journalen einen jährlichen Reinerlös von über einer Milliarde Dollar. Doch es sieht seine Geschäfte offenbar durch Sci-Hub bedroht. Mit aktuell mehr als 49 Millionen Veröffentlichungen, die 35 Terabyte an Daten umfassen, wie der (nicht verifizierte) Twitter-Account @Sci_Hub schreibt, umfasst die "Schattenbibliothek" wohl eine der größten je vorhandenen Sammlungen akademischer Literatur.
  5. Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.00 
    0.004957425 = product of:
  0.034701973 = sum of:
    0.034701973 = product of:
      0.06940395 = sum of:
        0.06940395 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06940395 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 4.2017 10:42:05
    22. 4.2017 10:48:38
  6. Loos, A.: ¬Die Million ist geknackt (2015) 0.00 
    0.0042065145 = product of:
  0.0294456 = sum of:
    0.0294456 = product of:
      0.0588912 = sum of:
        0.0588912 = weight(_text_:22 in 4208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0588912 = score(doc=4208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    7. 4.2015 17:22:03
  7. 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 
    0.004087601 = product of:
  0.014306603 = sum of:
    0.0044914023 = product of:
      0.022457011 = sum of:
        0.022457011 = weight(_text_:system in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022457011 = score(doc=4051,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.19684705 = fieldWeight in 4051, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4051)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose The introduction of "altmetrics" as new tools to analyze scientific impact within the reward system of science has challenged the hegemony of citations as the predominant source for measuring scientific impact. Mendeley readership has been identified as one of the most important altmetric sources, with several features that are similar to citations. The purpose of this paper is to perform an in-depth analysis of the differences and similarities between the distributions of Mendeley readership and citations across fields. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze two issues by using in each case a common analytical framework for both metrics: the shape of the distributions of readership and citations, and the field normalization problem generated by differences in citation and readership practices across fields. In the first issue the authors use the characteristic scores and scales method, and in the second the measurement framework introduced in Crespo et al. (2013). Findings There are three main results. First, the citations and Mendeley readership distributions exhibit a strikingly similar degree of skewness in all fields. Second, the results on "exchange rates (ERs)" for Mendeley readership empirically supports the possibility of comparing readership counts across fields, as well as the field normalization of readership distributions using ERs as normalization factors. Third, field normalization using field mean readerships as normalization factors leads to comparably good results. Originality/value These findings open up challenging new questions, particularly regarding the possibility of obtaining conflicting results from field normalized citation and Mendeley readership indicators; this suggests the need for better determining the role of the two metrics in capturing scientific recognition.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Special issue on "The reward system of science".
  8. Engels, T.C.E; Istenic Starcic, A.; Kulczycki, E.; Pölönen, J.; Sivertsen, G.: Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? (2018) 0.00 
    0.0037117435 = product of:
  0.0129911015 = sum of:
    0.003175901 = product of:
      0.015879504 = sum of:
        0.015879504 = weight(_text_:system in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015879504 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 4631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH. Originality/value The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  9. Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017) 0.00 
    0.0028043431 = product of:
  0.0196304 = sum of:
    0.0196304 = product of:
      0.0392608 = sum of:
        0.0392608 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0392608 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    9.10.2017 15:48:22
  10. Schmale, W.: Strategische Optionen für universitäre Repositorien in den Digital Humanities (2018) 0.00 
    0.0024538 = product of:
  0.0171766 = sum of:
    0.0171766 = product of:
      0.0343532 = sum of:
        0.0343532 = weight(_text_:22 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0343532 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    20. 9.2018 12:22:39
  11. Hrachovec, H.: Offen gesagt: Beschwerden eines Archivars (2018) 0.00 
    0.0024538 = product of:
  0.0171766 = sum of:
    0.0171766 = product of:
      0.0343532 = sum of:
        0.0343532 = weight(_text_:22 in 4443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0343532 = score(doc=4443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    20. 9.2018 12:22:52
  12. Münch, V.: They have a dream (2019) 0.00 
    0.0021032572 = product of:
  0.0147228 = sum of:
    0.0147228 = product of:
      0.0294456 = sum of:
        0.0294456 = weight(_text_:22 in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0294456 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.1, S.25-39
  13. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.00 
    0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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.
  14. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.00 
    0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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(1/7)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  15. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.00 
    0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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(1/7)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
  16. Taglinger, H.: Ausgevogelt, jetzt wird es ernst (2018) 0.00 
    0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:38:55
  17. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.00 
    0.0017527144 = product of:
  0.0122690005 = sum of:
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  18. 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 
    0.0014021716 = product of:
  0.0098152 = sum of:
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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.
  19. Brown, D.J.: Access to scientific research : challenges facing communications in STM (2016) 0.00 
    0.0014021716 = product of:
  0.0098152 = sum of:
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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
  20. Brown, D.J.: Repositories and journals: are they in conflict? : a literature review of relevant literature (2010) 0.00 
    8.0203614E-4 = product of:
  0.0056142528 = sum of:
    0.0056142528 = product of:
      0.028071264 = sum of:
        0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 3954) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028071264 = score(doc=3954,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 3954, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3954)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    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.

Authors

Languages

  • d 12
  • e 12

Types

  • a 24
  • el 7
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications