Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Who dunnit? : Metatags and hyperauthorship (2001)
0.01
0.0072560436 = product of:
0.01814011 = sum of:
0.012614433 = weight(_text_:a in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012614433 = score(doc=6031,freq=14.0), product of:
0.053464882 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
0.005525676 = product of:
0.011051352 = sum of:
0.011051352 = weight(_text_:information in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011051352 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08139861 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046368346 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 6031, 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=6031)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- Multiple authorship is a topic of growing concern in a number of scientific domains. When, as is increasingly common, scholarly articles and clinical reports have scores or even hundreds of authors-what Cronin (in press) has termed "hyperauthorship" -the precise nature of each individual's contribution is often masked. A notation that describes collaborators' contributions and allows those contributions to be tracked in, and across, texts (and over time) offers a solution. Such a notation should be useful, easy to use, and acceptable to communities of scientists. Drawing on earlier work, we present a proposal for an XML-like "contribution" mark-up, and discuss the potential benefits and possible drawbacks
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.770-773
- Type
- a
