Search (36 results, page 2 of 2)

0.004725861 = product of:
  0.011814652 = sum of:
    0.007078358 = weight(_text_:a in 5383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007078358 = score(doc=5383,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 5383, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5383)
    0.0047362936 = product of:
      0.009472587 = sum of:
        0.009472587 = weight(_text_:information in 5383) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009472587 = score(doc=5383,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5383, 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=5383)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

State of the art review of hypertext systems in use in UK libraries. Systems include public access point of information (POI) systems that provide guidance to users of local resources, and networked document retrieval systems, such as WWW, that enable users to access texts stored on machines linked by the Internet. Particular emphasis is placed on those systems that are produced inhouse by the libraries in which they are used. The review is based on a series of telephone or face to face interviews conducted with representatives of those organizations that a literature review and mailed questionnaire survey identified as current users of hypertext. Considers issues relating to system development and usability, and presents a set of appropriate guidelines for the designers of future systems. Concludes that: the principle application of hypertext systems in UK libraries is in the implementation of POI systems; that such development is most advanced in the academic sector; and that such development is set to increase in tandem with use of the WWW

0.004624805 = product of:
  0.011562012 = sum of:
    0.0076151006 = weight(_text_:a in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076151006 = score(doc=5317,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
    0.003946911 = product of:
      0.007893822 = sum of:
        0.007893822 = weight(_text_:information in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007893822 = score(doc=5317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046368346 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) are characterized by their large scale, wide scope, open-access (OA) business model, and "soundness-only" peer review. The last of these controversially discounts the novelty, significance, and relevance of submitted articles and assesses only their "soundness." This article reports the results of an international survey of authors (n = 11,883), comparing the responses of OAMJ authors with those of other OA and subscription journals, and drawing comparisons between different OAMJs. Strikingly, OAMJ authors showed a low understanding of soundness-only peer review: two-thirds believed OAMJs took into account novelty, significance, and relevance, although there were marked geographical variations. Author satisfaction with OAMJs, however, was high, with more than 80% of OAMJ authors saying they would publish again in the same journal, although there were variations by title, and levels were slightly lower than subscription journals (over 90%). Their reasons for choosing to publish in OAMJs included a wide variety of factors, not significantly different from reasons given by authors of other journals, with the most important including the quality of the journal and quality of peer review. About half of OAMJ articles had been submitted elsewhere before submission to the OAMJ with some evidence of a "cascade" of articles between journals from the same publisher.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 70(2019) no.7, S.754-768

Type

a

0.003082376 = product of:
  0.01541188 = sum of:
    0.01541188 = weight(_text_:a in 2414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01541188 = score(doc=2414,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 2414, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=2414)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.003082376 = product of:
  0.01541188 = sum of:
    0.01541188 = weight(_text_:a in 7504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01541188 = score(doc=7504,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 7504, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7504)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0026379484 = product of:
  0.013189741 = sum of:
    0.013189741 = weight(_text_:a in 3574) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013189741 = score(doc=3574,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.24669915 = fieldWeight in 3574, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3574)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a content analysis framework and from that derive a process model of knowledge construction in the context of virtual product user communities, organization sponsored online forums where product users collaboratively construct knowledge to solve their technical problems. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on a deductive and qualitative content analysis of discussion threads about solving technical problems selected from a series of virtual product user communities. Data are complemented with thematic analysis of interviews with forum members. Findings The research develops a content analysis framework for knowledge construction. It is based on a combination of existing codes derived from frameworks developed for computer-supported collaborative learning and new categories identified from the data. Analysis using this framework allows the authors to propose a knowledge construction process model showing how these elements are organized around a typical "trial and error" knowledge construction strategy. Practical implications The research makes suggestions about organizations' management of knowledge activities in virtual product user communities, including moderators' roles in facilitation. Originality/value The paper outlines a new framework for analysing knowledge activities where there is a low level of critical thinking and a model of knowledge construction by trial and error. The new framework and model can be applied in other similar contexts.

Type

a

0.0024368323 = product of:
  0.012184162 = sum of:
    0.012184162 = weight(_text_:a in 2300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012184162 = score(doc=2300,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 2300, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2300)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Summarises the results to date of a continuing programme of research at Sheffield Univ. to investigate the use of nearest-neighbour retrieval algorithms for full text searching. Given a natural language query statement, the research methods result in a ranking of the paragraphs comprising a full text document in order of decreasing similarity with the query, where the similarity for each paragraph is determined by the number of keyword stems that it has in common with the query

Type

a

0.0024368323 = product of:
  0.012184162 = sum of:
    0.012184162 = weight(_text_:a in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012184162 = score(doc=1792,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Presents a summary of the major findings of a survey of the use of hypertext systems and the production of hypertext products in UK libraries. Not surprisingly, academic libraries are found to be both the most enthusiastic users and producers. There are normally 4 principal stages in a library's development of a hypertext system, although the possibility of leapfrogging via WWW is acknowledged

Type

a

0.002311782 = product of:
  0.01155891 = sum of:
    0.01155891 = weight(_text_:a in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01155891 = score(doc=1084,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1084, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1084)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An important stage in the process of retrieval of objects from a hypertext database is the creation of a set of internodal links that are intended to represent the relationships existing between objetcs; an operation that is usually undertaken manually such as the allocation of subject index terms to documents. Reports results of a study in which several different sets of hypertext links were inserted, each by a different person, between the paragraphs of each of a number of full text documents. The similarity between the members of each pair of link sets was then evaluated. Results indicated that little similarity existed among the link sets, a finding comparable with those of studies of inter indexer consistency, which suggests that there is generally only a low level of agreemenet between the sets of index terms assigned to a document by indexers. Concludes with that part of the study designed to test the validity of making these kinds of assumptions in the context of hypertext link sets

0.0021322283 = product of:
  0.010661141 = sum of:
    0.010661141 = weight(_text_:a in 8158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010661141 = score(doc=8158,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 8158, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8158)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Genetic algorithms are a class of non-deterministic algorithms that derive from Darwinian evolution and that provide good, though not necessarily optimal, solutions to combinatorial problems. We describe their application to the identification of characteristics that occur approximately equifrequently in a database, using two different methods for the creation of the chromosome data structures that lie at the heart of a genetic algortihm. Experiments with files of English and Turkish text suggest that the genetic algorithm developed here can produce results superior to those produced by existing non-deterministic algorithms; however, the results are inferior to those produced by an existing deterministic algorithm

Type

a

0.002043346 = product of:
  0.01021673 = sum of:
    0.01021673 = weight(_text_:a in 751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01021673 = score(doc=751,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 751, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=751)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations. Design/methodology/approach - ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets - a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self-citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation - using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database. Findings - ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited and ArticleRank is greatest for the most heavily cited articles in a dataset. Originality/value - This is a novel application of the PageRank algorithm.

Type

a

0.0019071229 = product of:
  0.009535614 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0019071229 = product of:
  0.009535614 = sum of:
    0.009535614 = weight(_text_:a in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009535614 = score(doc=833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0018875621 = product of:
  0.009437811 = sum of:
    0.009437811 = weight(_text_:a in 760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009437811 = score(doc=760,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 760, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=760)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Reports a comparison of the retrieval effectiveness of the AltaVista, Excite and Lycos Web search engines. Describes a method for comparing the recall of the 3 sets of searches, despite the fact that they are carried out on non identical sets of Web pages. It is thus possible, unlike previous comparative studies of Web search engines, to consider both recall and precision when evaluating the effectiveness of search engines

Type

a

0.0016683849 = product of:
  0.008341924 = sum of:
    0.008341924 = weight(_text_:a in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008341924 = score(doc=3548,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific "soundness" and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

Type

a

0.0013622305 = product of:
  0.0068111527 = sum of:
    0.0068111527 = weight(_text_:a in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0068111527 = score(doc=4627,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article. Design/methodology/approach Focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution. Findings A strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers' perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks. Originality/value This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.

Type

a

0.0010897844 = product of:
  0.005448922 = sum of:
    0.005448922 = weight(_text_:a in 939) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005448922 = score(doc=939,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046368346 = queryNorm
        0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 939, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=939)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Databases of historical texts are increasingly becoming available for end user searching via online or CD-ROM databases. Many of the words in these databases are spelt differently from today with resultant loss of retrieval. The project evaluated a range of techniques that can suggest historical variants of modern language query words, the work deriving from earlier work on spelling correction