Search (254 results, page 13 of 13)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  1. Cabanac, G.: Bibliogifts in LibGen? : a study of a text-sharing platform driven by biblioleaks and crowdsourcing (2016) 0.00 
    0.0014603289 = product of:
  0.008761973 = sum of:
    0.008761973 = product of:
      0.026285918 = sum of:
        0.026285918 = weight(_text_:29 in 2850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026285918 = score(doc=2850,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2850, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2850)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Research articles disseminate the knowledge produced by the scientific community. Access to this literature is crucial for researchers and the general public. Apparently, "bibliogifts" are available online for free from text-sharing platforms. However, little is known about such platforms. What is the size of the underlying digital libraries? What are the topics covered? Where do these documents originally come from? This article reports on a study of the Library Genesis platform (LibGen). The 25 million documents (42 terabytes) it hosts and distributes for free are mostly research articles, textbooks, and books in English. The article collection stems from isolated, but massive, article uploads (71%) in line with a "biblioleaks" scenario, as well as from daily crowdsourcing (29%) by worldwide users of platforms such as Reddit Scholar and Sci-Hub. By relating the DOIs registered at CrossRef and those cached at LibGen, this study reveals that 36% of all DOI articles are available for free at LibGen. This figure is even higher (68%) for three major publishers: Elsevier, Springer, and Wiley. More research is needed to understand to what extent researchers and the general public have recourse to such text-sharing platforms and why.
  2. Vincent-Lamarre, P.; Boivin, J.; Gargouri, Y.; Larivière, V.; Harnad, S.: Estimating open access mandate effectiveness : the MELIBEA score (2016) 0.00 
    0.0014603289 = product of:
  0.008761973 = sum of:
    0.008761973 = product of:
      0.026285918 = sum of:
        0.026285918 = weight(_text_:29 in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026285918 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    18.10.2016 14:29:07
  3. Moore, S.A.: Revisiting "the 1990s debutante" : scholar-led publishing and the prehistory of the open access movement (2020) 0.00 
    0.0014603289 = product of:
  0.008761973 = sum of:
    0.008761973 = product of:
      0.026285918 = sum of:
        0.026285918 = weight(_text_:29 in 5920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026285918 = score(doc=5920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 5920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5920)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    11. 7.2020 13:29:13
  4. Jahn, N.; Matthias, L.; Laakso, M.: Toward transparency of hybrid open access through publisher-provided metadata : an article-level study of Elsevier (2022) 0.00 
    0.0014603289 = product of:
  0.008761973 = sum of:
    0.008761973 = product of:
      0.026285918 = sum of:
        0.026285918 = weight(_text_:29 in 448) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026285918 = score(doc=448,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 448, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=448)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    16.12.2021 18:29:30
  5. Ming, W.; Zhao, Z.: Rethinking the open access citation advantage : evidence from the "reverse-flipping" journals (2022) 0.00 
    0.0014603289 = product of:
  0.008761973 = sum of:
    0.008761973 = product of:
      0.026285918 = sum of:
        0.026285918 = weight(_text_:29 in 750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026285918 = score(doc=750,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13526669 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 750, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=750)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    15.10.2022 19:29:06
  6. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.00 
    0.0014471923 = product of:
  0.008683153 = sum of:
    0.008683153 = product of:
      0.02604946 = sum of:
        0.02604946 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02604946 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  7. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.00 
    0.0014471923 = product of:
  0.008683153 = sum of:
    0.008683153 = product of:
      0.02604946 = sum of:
        0.02604946 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02604946 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  8. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.00 
    0.0014471923 = product of:
  0.008683153 = sum of:
    0.008683153 = product of:
      0.02604946 = sum of:
        0.02604946 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02604946 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
  9. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.00 
    0.0014471923 = product of:
  0.008683153 = sum of:
    0.008683153 = product of:
      0.02604946 = sum of:
        0.02604946 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02604946 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  10. FIZ Karlsruhe unterstützt gemeinsamen Bibliotheksverbund (VZG) bei der Einführung der ESCIDOC-Infrastruktur (2008) 0.00 
    0.0011577539 = product of:
  0.0069465227 = sum of:
    0.0069465227 = product of:
      0.020839568 = sum of:
        0.020839568 = weight(_text_:22 in 1810) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020839568 = score(doc=1810,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1810, 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=1810)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    7. 4.2008 11:36:22
  11. 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 
    0.0011577539 = product of:
  0.0069465227 = sum of:
    0.0069465227 = product of:
      0.020839568 = sum of:
        0.020839568 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020839568 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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.
  12. Brown, D.J.: Access to scientific research : challenges facing communications in STM (2016) 0.00 
    0.0011577539 = product of:
  0.0069465227 = sum of:
    0.0069465227 = product of:
      0.020839568 = sum of:
        0.020839568 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020839568 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    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
  13. 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 
    0.0011577539 = product of:
  0.0069465227 = sum of:
    0.0069465227 = product of:
      0.020839568 = sum of:
        0.020839568 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020839568 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  14. 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 
    0.0011577539 = product of:
  0.0069465227 = sum of:
    0.0069465227 = product of:
      0.020839568 = sum of:
        0.020839568 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020839568 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13465692 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038453303 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Years

Languages

  • d 140
  • e 110
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 213
  • m 28
  • el 19
  • s 8
  • b 2
  • x 2
  • p 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications