Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Elektronisches Publizieren"
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Loos, A.: Ein Jahr Elsevier-Boykott (2013) 0.03 
    0.032478724 = product of:
  0.06495745 = sum of:
    0.06495745 = product of:
      0.1299149 = sum of:
        0.1299149 = weight(_text_:90 in 945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1299149 = score(doc=945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.4751863 = fieldWeight in 945, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung. 2013, H.2, S.90-97
  2. Wolchover, N.: Wie ein Aufsehen erregender Beweis kaum Beachtung fand (2017) 0.02 
    0.024359938 = product of:
  0.048719876 = sum of:
    0.048719876 = product of:
      0.09743975 = sum of:
        0.09743975 = weight(_text_:22 in 3582) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09743975 = score(doc=3582,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.54716086 = fieldWeight in 3582, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3582)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 4.2017 10:42:05
    22. 4.2017 10:48:38
  3. Loos, A.: ¬Die Million ist geknackt (2015) 0.02 
    0.020670092 = product of:
  0.041340183 = sum of:
    0.041340183 = product of:
      0.08268037 = sum of:
        0.08268037 = weight(_text_:22 in 4208) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08268037 = score(doc=4208,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 4208, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4208)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    7. 4.2015 17:22:03
  4. Kousha, K.; Thelwall, M.: ¬An automatic method for assessing the teaching impact of books from online academic syllabi (2016) 0.02 
    0.020299202 = product of:
  0.040598404 = sum of:
    0.040598404 = product of:
      0.08119681 = sum of:
        0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 3226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08119681 = score(doc=3226,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 3226, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Scholars writing books that are widely used to support teaching in higher education may be undervalued because of a lack of evidence of teaching value. Although sales data may give credible evidence for textbooks, these data may poorly reflect educational uses of other types of books. As an alternative, this article proposes a method to search automatically for mentions of books in online academic course syllabi based on Bing searches for syllabi mentioning a given book, filtering out false matches through an extensive set of rules. The method had an accuracy of over 90% based on manual checks of a sample of 2,600 results from the initial Bing searches. Over one third of about 14,000 monographs checked had one or more academic syllabus mention, with more in the arts and humanities (56%) and social sciences (52%). Low but significant correlations between syllabus mentions and citations across most fields, except the social sciences, suggest that books tend to have different levels of impact for teaching and research. In conclusion, the automatic syllabus search method gives a new way to estimate the educational utility of books in a way that sales data and citation counts cannot.
  5. Wakeling, S.; Creaser, C.; Pinfield, S.; Fry, J.; Spezi, V.; Willett, P.; Paramita, M.: Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors : results of a large-scale survey (2019) 0.02 
    0.020299202 = product of:
  0.040598404 = sum of:
    0.040598404 = product of:
      0.08119681 = sum of:
        0.08119681 = weight(_text_:90 in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08119681 = score(doc=5317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2733978 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.29699144 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.376119 = idf(docFreq=555, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  6. Schleim, S.: Warum die Wissenschaft nicht frei ist (2017) 0.01 
    0.013780061 = product of:
  0.027560122 = sum of:
    0.027560122 = product of:
      0.055120245 = sum of:
        0.055120245 = weight(_text_:22 in 3882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055120245 = score(doc=3882,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3882, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3882)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    9.10.2017 15:48:22
  7. Müller, S.: Schattenbibliotheken : Welche Auswirkungen haben Sci-Hub und Co. auf Verlage und Bibliotheken? (2019) 0.01 
    0.012057554 = product of:
  0.024115108 = sum of:
    0.024115108 = product of:
      0.048230216 = sum of:
        0.048230216 = weight(_text_:22 in 765) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048230216 = score(doc=765,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 765, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=765)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.5, S.397-404
  8. Benoit, G.; Hussey, L.: Repurposing digital objects : case studies across the publishing industry (2011) 0.01 
    0.012057554 = product of:
  0.024115108 = sum of:
    0.024115108 = product of:
      0.048230216 = sum of:
        0.048230216 = weight(_text_:22 in 4198) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048230216 = score(doc=4198,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4198, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4198)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2011 14:23:07
  9. Schmale, W.: Strategische Optionen für universitäre Repositorien in den Digital Humanities (2018) 0.01 
    0.012057554 = product of:
  0.024115108 = sum of:
    0.024115108 = product of:
      0.048230216 = sum of:
        0.048230216 = weight(_text_:22 in 3909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048230216 = score(doc=3909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3909, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3909)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 9.2018 12:22:39
  10. Hrachovec, H.: Offen gesagt: Beschwerden eines Archivars (2018) 0.01 
    0.012057554 = product of:
  0.024115108 = sum of:
    0.024115108 = product of:
      0.048230216 = sum of:
        0.048230216 = weight(_text_:22 in 4443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048230216 = score(doc=4443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4443, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4443)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 9.2018 12:22:52
  11. Münch, V.: They have a dream (2019) 0.01 
    0.010335046 = product of:
  0.020670092 = sum of:
    0.020670092 = product of:
      0.041340183 = sum of:
        0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041340183 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    B.I.T.online. 22(2019) H.1, S.25-39
  12. Strecker, D.: Nutzung der Schattenbibliothek Sci-Hub in Deutschland (2019) 0.01 
    0.010335046 = product of:
  0.020670092 = sum of:
    0.020670092 = product of:
      0.041340183 = sum of:
        0.041340183 = weight(_text_:22 in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041340183 = score(doc=596,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 1.2020 13:22:34
  13. Walters, W.H.; Linvill, A.C.: Bibliographic index coverage of open-access journals in six subject areas (2011) 0.01 
    0.008612539 = product of:
  0.017225077 = sum of:
    0.017225077 = product of:
      0.034450155 = sum of:
        0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 4635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034450155 = score(doc=4635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  14. Li, X.; Thelwall, M.; Kousha, K.: ¬The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication (2015) 0.01 
    0.008612539 = product of:
  0.017225077 = sum of:
    0.017225077 = product of:
      0.034450155 = sum of:
        0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 2593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034450155 = score(doc=2593,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  15. Moed, H.F.; Halevi, G.: On full text download and citation distributions in scientific-scholarly journals (2016) 0.01 
    0.008612539 = product of:
  0.017225077 = sum of:
    0.017225077 = product of:
      0.034450155 = sum of:
        0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 2646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034450155 = score(doc=2646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2016 14:11:17
  16. Taglinger, H.: Ausgevogelt, jetzt wird es ernst (2018) 0.01 
    0.008612539 = product of:
  0.017225077 = sum of:
    0.017225077 = product of:
      0.034450155 = sum of:
        0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 4281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034450155 = score(doc=4281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4281, 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=4281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2018 11:38:55
  17. Ortega, J.L.: ¬The presence of academic journals on Twitter and its relationship with dissemination (tweets) and research impact (citations) (2017) 0.01 
    0.008612539 = product of:
  0.017225077 = sum of:
    0.017225077 = product of:
      0.034450155 = sum of:
        0.034450155 = weight(_text_:22 in 4410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034450155 = score(doc=4410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
  18. 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) 0.01 
    0.0068900306 = product of:
  0.013780061 = sum of:
    0.013780061 = product of:
      0.027560122 = sum of:
        0.027560122 = weight(_text_:22 in 3608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027560122 = score(doc=3608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  19. Brown, D.J.: Access to scientific research : challenges facing communications in STM (2016) 0.01 
    0.0068900306 = product of:
  0.013780061 = sum of:
    0.013780061 = product of:
      0.027560122 = sum of:
        0.027560122 = weight(_text_:22 in 3769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027560122 = score(doc=3769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
  20. Costas, R.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A.; Ruiz-Castillo, J.: On the quest for currencies of science : field "exchange rates" for citations and Mendeley readership (2017) 0.01 
    0.0068900306 = product of:
  0.013780061 = sum of:
    0.013780061 = product of:
      0.027560122 = sum of:
        0.027560122 = weight(_text_:22 in 4051) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027560122 = score(doc=4051,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17808245 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050854117 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Languages

  • d 10
  • e 10

Types

  • a 20
  • el 5
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications