Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0044959965 = product of:
  0.031471975 = sum of:
    0.024409214 = weight(_text_:web in 1051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024409214 = score(doc=1051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09670874 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 1051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1051)
    0.0070627616 = weight(_text_:information in 1051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0070627616 = score(doc=1051,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1051, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1051)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

In this article, we report on the status of graphs in 21 scientific agricultural journals indexed in Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge. We analyze the authors' use of graphs in this context in relation to the quality of these journals as measured by their 2-year impact factors. We note a substantial variability in the use of graphs in this context: For one journal, 100% of the papers include graphs, whereas for others only about 50% of them include graphs. We also show that higher impact agricultural journals publish more papers with graphs and that there are more graphs in these papers than in those in journals with lower impact factors (r = +0.40).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.9, S.1946-1950

8.153676E-4 = product of:
  0.011415146 = sum of:
    0.011415146 = weight(_text_:information in 1637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011415146 = score(doc=1637,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 1637, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1637)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Many papers have appeared recently assessing the effects of using tables and graphs in scientific publications. In this brief communication, we assess some of the methodological difficulties that have arisen in this context. These difficulties encompass issues of data availability, suitability of indicators, nature and purpose of tables and graphs, and the role of supplementary information.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.2, S.408-427

6.115257E-4 = product of:
  0.00856136 = sum of:
    0.00856136 = weight(_text_:information in 4968) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00856136 = score(doc=4968,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4968, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4968)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

A text table is a simple table, with no or minimal chartlike elements, that is incorporated directly within a sentence. It can be very efficient in conveying quantitative (and sometimes qualitative) information that can be difficult to read within one or two sentences, but which is too simple to present within a regular table. Although this format has been used in the scientific literature, and indeed recommended in some sources, its effectiveness has not been studied in formal surveys. This article presents the results of one such survey in which three examples were considered. Scientists representing mathematics, statistics, and similar disciplines and scientists representing biology, agriculture, and similar disciplines were asked to participate in the survey; 189 representing the former and 201 representing the latter agreed. The results clearly showed for both groups, when the data presented were suitable for such a layout, that the text tables were much preferred to the original sentences. The main conclusion from this work, therefore, is that scientific authors should use text tables whenever appropriate.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 63(2012) no.1, S.108-113

5.7655195E-4 = product of:
  0.008071727 = sum of:
    0.008071727 = weight(_text_:information in 1140) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008071727 = score(doc=1140,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1140, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1140)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.12, S.2591-2594

5.0960475E-4 = product of:
  0.0071344664 = sum of:
    0.0071344664 = weight(_text_:information in 3058) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071344664 = score(doc=3058,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3058, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3058)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Spam has become an issue of concern in almost all areas where the Internet is involved, and many people today have become victims of spam from publishers and individual journals. We studied this phenomenon in the field of scholarly publishing from the perspective of a single author. We examined 1,024 such spam e-mails received by Marcin Kozak from publishers and journals over a period of 391 days, asking him to submit an article to their journal. We collected the following information: where the request came from; publishing model applied; fees charged; inclusion or not in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ); and presence or not in Beall's (2014) listing of dubious journals. Our research showed that most of the publishers that sent e-mails inviting manuscripts were (i) using the open access model, (ii) using article-processing charges to fund their journal's operations; (iii) offering very short peer-review times, (iv) on Beall's list, and (v) misrepresenting the location of their headquarters. Some years ago, a letter of invitation to submit an article to a particular journal was considered a kind of distinction. Today, e-mails inviting submissions are generally spam, something that misleads young researchers and irritates experienced ones.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.8, S.2009-2015

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=996)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 64(2013) no.10, S.2182-2186

4.32414E-4 = product of:
  0.0060537956 = sum of:
    0.0060537956 = weight(_text_:information in 1242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0060537956 = score(doc=1242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.052020688 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029633347 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1242, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1242)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.4, S.812-820