Search (357 results, page 18 of 18)

0.0010344192 = product of:
  0.0113786105 = sum of:
    0.0113786105 = weight(_text_:und in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0113786105 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066381104 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029950412 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

Im klassischen Buchhandel tut sich etwas. Immer öfter finden die Käufer CD-ROMs statt gedruckter Werke in den Regalen. Der Einzug der Datenbanken ist der Branche nur recht. Der Börsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels hofft, daß seine Mitglieder zur Jahrhundertwende ein Fünftel ihres Umsatzes mit 'runder Literatur' erzielen. Doch die Pioniere an der Verkaufsfront merken: Mit den silbernen Scheiben handeln sie sich nicht nur goldene Zahlen ein. Die glatte Oberfläche der CD-ROMs hat bereits häßliche Schrammen bekommen. Saftige Presie und minderwertige Produkte schrecken Kunden ab

0.0010344192 = product of:
  0.0113786105 = sum of:
    0.0113786105 = weight(_text_:und in 2833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0113786105 = score(doc=2833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066381104 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029950412 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 2833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2833)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

0.0010344192 = product of:
  0.0113786105 = sum of:
    0.0113786105 = weight(_text_:und in 4875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0113786105 = score(doc=4875,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066381104 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029950412 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 4875, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4875)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

Schon lange wird spekuliert, wie wir in Zukunft Zeitung lesen werden. Werden wir am Frühstückstisch wie gewohnt in einer Zeitung aus Papier schmökern oder werden wir die Zeitung als biegsame Folie beschrieben mit elektronischer Tinte in Händen halten? Wird die Zeitung mit anderen Medien wie Radio und Fernsehen verschmelzen? Viele Varianten sind denkbar. Heute lässt sich schon ein Trend ablesen: Immer mehr Leser entdecken die Online-Zeitung als Informationsmedium, eine Voraussetzung für die Nutzung neuer Technologien in der Zeitung der Zukunft. In diesem Kapitel stellen wir Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten der Online-Zeitung dar, wie sie im Social Semantic Web möglich werden.

0.0010344192 = product of:
  0.0113786105 = sum of:
    0.0113786105 = weight(_text_:und in 792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0113786105 = score(doc=792,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066381104 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029950412 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 792, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=792)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

Vor dem Hintergrund einer Bestandsaufnahme bezüglich der Verbreitung von Open-Access-Zeitschriften, dem so genannten "goldenen Weg" zu Open Access, werden Faktoren vorgestellt, die die Akzeptanz von Open Access unter Autor/inn/en beeinflussen. Bei einer Umfrage hat sich gezeigt, dass technische Maßnahmen nur wenig dazu beitragen, die Akzeptanz zu erhöhen; organisatorische Maßnahmen wie die Erhöhung der Publikationsgeschwindigkeit wirken eher förderlich, aber die Frage der Qualität von Zeitschriften und des damit verbundenen Renommees steht eindeutig im Mittelpunkt des Interesses.

0.0010344192 = product of:
  0.0113786105 = sum of:
    0.0113786105 = weight(_text_:und in 4111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0113786105 = score(doc=4111,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066381104 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029950412 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 4111, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4111)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

Die TIB - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Technik und Naturwissenschaften hat ein Positionspapier zum Open Research Knowledge Graph veröffentlicht. Auer, Sören; Blümel, Ina; Ewerth, Ralph; Garatzogianni, Alexandra; Heller, Lambert; Hoppe, Anett; Kasprzik, Anna; Koepler, Oliver; Nejdl, Wolfgang; Plank, Margret; Sens, Irina; Stocker, Markus; Tullney, Marco; Vidal, Maria-Esther; van Wezenbeek, Wilma (2018): Towards an Open Research Knowledge Graph.

0.0010344192 = product of:
  0.0113786105 = sum of:
    0.0113786105 = weight(_text_:und in 5501) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0113786105 = score(doc=5501,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066381104 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029950412 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 5501, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5501)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag erörtert die Arbeit an der Forschungsinfrastruktur als eine zentrale informationswissenschaftliche Zukunftsaufgabe. Zu diesem Zweck werden aktuelle Open-Access-Entwicklungen - die DEAL-Verhandlungen und Overlay-Journals - als Form der Infrastrukturgovernance diskutiert. Der Beitrag geht von der Grundthese aus, dass sich der Autonomieanspruch einer diskreten Wissenschaftsgovernance auch auf Forschungsinfrastruktur beziehen lässt, wenn man davon ausgeht, dass die Wissenschaft selbst für die Verwaltung ihres Wissens, damit auch für die wissensschaffenden Forschungsinfrastruktur, verantwortlich ist.

0.0010344192 = product of:
  0.0113786105 = sum of:
    0.0113786105 = weight(_text_:und in 599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0113786105 = score(doc=599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066381104 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029950412 = queryNorm
        0.17141339 = fieldWeight in 599, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=599)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

Es ist ausgezeichnet, dass geisteswissenschaftliche Kernzeitschriften des deutschsprachigen Raums online im Rahmen von Digizeitschriften: http://digizeitschriften.de/ (unsicher!) zur Verfügung stehen. Seit einer gefühlten Ewigkeit bin ich aber ein scharfer Kritiker der Art und Weise, wie das geschieht. Kürzlich hat es offenbar einen Relaunch der Website gegeben, der neben einigen Verbesserungen katastrophale Verschlechterungen für die Nutzer mit sich brachte. Es wäre an der Zeit, dass die zahlenden Nutzer des Angebots, die Institutionen, die eine Masse Geld zahlen müssen, endlich gegen den maßlos schlechten Service rebellieren. Die meisten bisherigen Links führen ins Leere.

0.0010238094 = product of:
  0.011261904 = sum of:
    0.011261904 = weight(_text_:und in 3589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011261904 = score(doc=3589,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.066381104 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029950412 = queryNorm
        0.16965526 = fieldWeight in 3589, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3589)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt VÖB 63(2010) H.1/2, S.149-155 (B. Bauer): "Wie schon die erste Auflage thematisiert auch die neue, deutlich erweitere Ausgabe den Wandel vom traditionellen Publikationsmodell (print-only) zu einem hybriden (print and digital) bzw. zu einem ausschließlich elektronischen Publikationsmodell. Aufgrund der rasanten Entwicklung des elektronischen Publikationssektors in den letzten zehn Jahren wurde eine Überarbeitung erforderlich. So war etwa in der ersten Auflage die Bedeutung der CD-ROM-Technologie übertrieben dargestellt worden, während die Auswirkungen des Internet und des Web unterschätzt worden waren. Brown & Boulderstone beschreiben in ihrem Buch, wie das Thema "elektronisches Publizieren" Verlage und Bibliotheken in den letzten Jahren in mehreren Phasen beeinflusst hat: In Phase 1 - von den frühen 1990er Jahren bis zum Erscheinen der ersten Auflage 1996 - gab es zwar schon elektronische Medien, aber noch dominierten gedruckte Medien. Phase 2 - von Mitte der 1990er Jahre bis zu den frühen 2000er Jahren - war eine Periode der Konfusion, die durch das Erscheinen des Internet und durch die damit einhergehenden neuen Möglichkeiten verursacht wurde. Phase 3 - seit den frühen 2000er Jahren - ist gekennzeichnet von einem starken Aufschwung des elektronischen Publizierens; der Stellenwert der digitalen hat gegenüber den entsprechenden analogen Versionen deutlich zugenommen. In diesem Abschnitt werden, gegliedert in drei Kategorien, 14 Einflussfaktoren, die die Entwicklung hin zum elektronischen Publizieren beschleunigen, vorgestellt.

9.2224265E-4 = product of:
  0.010144669 = sum of:
    0.010144669 = product of:
      0.020289337 = sum of:
        0.020289337 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020289337 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10488124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029950412 = 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)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

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.

9.2224265E-4 = product of:
  0.010144669 = sum of:
    0.010144669 = product of:
      0.020289337 = sum of:
        0.020289337 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020289337 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10488124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029950412 = 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)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

9.2224265E-4 = product of:
  0.010144669 = sum of:
    0.010144669 = product of:
      0.020289337 = sum of:
        0.020289337 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020289337 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10488124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029950412 = 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)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Date

22. 1.2016 14:11:17

9.2224265E-4 = product of:
  0.010144669 = sum of:
    0.010144669 = product of:
      0.020289337 = sum of:
        0.020289337 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020289337 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10488124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029950412 = 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)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

7.377941E-4 = product of:
  0.008115735 = sum of:
    0.008115735 = product of:
      0.01623147 = sum of:
        0.01623147 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01623147 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10488124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029950412 = 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)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

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.

7.377941E-4 = product of:
  0.008115735 = sum of:
    0.008115735 = product of:
      0.01623147 = sum of:
        0.01623147 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01623147 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10488124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029950412 = 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)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

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

7.377941E-4 = product of:
  0.008115735 = sum of:
    0.008115735 = product of:
      0.01623147 = sum of:
        0.01623147 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01623147 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10488124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029950412 = 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)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

7.377941E-4 = product of:
  0.008115735 = sum of:
    0.008115735 = product of:
      0.01623147 = sum of:
        0.01623147 = weight(_text_:22 in 4631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01623147 = score(doc=4631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10488124 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.029950412 = 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)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Date

20. 1.2015 18:30:22

4.4332247E-4 = product of:
  0.004876547 = sum of:
    0.004876547 = weight(_text_:und in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004876547 = score(doc=1195,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066381104 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.029950412 = queryNorm
        0.07346288 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

Sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research with funding of 800.000 EURO, the German Network of Expertise in long-term storage of digital resources (nestor) began in June 2003 as a cooperative effort of 6 partners representing different players within the field of long-term preservation. The partners include: * The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) as the lead institution for the project * The State and University Library of Lower Saxony Göttingen (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) * The Computer and Media Service and the University Library of Humboldt-University Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) * The Bavarian State Library in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) * The Institute for Museum Information in Berlin (Institut für Museumskunde) * General Directorate of the Bavarian State Archives (GDAB) As in other countries, long-term preservation of digital resources has become an important issue in Germany in recent years. Nevertheless, coming to agreement with institutions throughout the country to cooperate on tasks for a long-term preservation effort has taken a great deal of effort. Although there had been considerable attention paid to the preservation of physical media like CD-ROMS, technologies available for the long-term preservation of digital publications like e-books, digital dissertations, websites, etc., are still lacking. Considering the importance of the task within the federal structure of Germany, with the responsibility of each federal state for its science and culture activities, it is obvious that the approach to a successful solution of these issues in Germany must be a cooperative approach. Since 2000, there have been discussions about strategies and techniques for long-term archiving of digital information, particularly within the distributed structure of Germany's library and archival institutions. A key part of all the previous activities was focusing on using existing standards and analyzing the context in which those standards would be applied. One such activity, the Digital Library Forum Planning Project, was done on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research in 2002, where the vision of a digital library in 2010 that can meet the changing and increasing needs of users was developed and described in detail, including the infrastructure required and how the digital library would work technically, what it would contain and how it would be organized. The outcome was a strategic plan for certain selected specialist areas, where, amongst other topics, a future call for action for long-term preservation was defined, described and explained against the background of practical experience.