Thesis (Ph. D.)--Brigham Young University. Dept. of Educational Leadership and Foundations, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 139-145).

Thesis--PlanA (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wales. / Microfiche. Oxford : Micromedia Ltd., 1976? -- 3 cards ; 11 x 15 cm. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 241-248 on microfiche).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Texas Woman's University, 1991. / Includes vita and abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 124-130).

No description available.

This project studies the ways recent changes in cultural theory and information technology are influencing the delivery of texts, and how these changes signal a need for innovation in editing practice. The word incunabulum describes the material objects produced in the early stages of the development of a technology; most commonly, it refers to printing during the period just before the turn of the sixteenth century when material textuality in the west was changing from a manuscript to a print base. According to critics of digital culture like Janet Murray the current shift to digital media entails many of the same changes. Following this, I will refer to this period as the second incunabulum. Given the limitations of HTML and SGML markup and storage technologies used in early digitization projects, scholars realize that the second incunabular period, much like the first, will not be a simple linear change succession. Just as the shift from manuscript to print involved a multifaceted series of complex social and practical transformations over decades, our current technological transition generates a wide variety of communicative, cultural, and political implications. As a critical point of entry, the comparison of the first and second incunabular periods offers insight into the ways in which past practices can help us approach our textual future. As a broad study of highly particular textual practices, the current work presents something of a paradox. However, through a series of focused historical readings and formal applications, this trans-historical study provokes questions that may lead to effective new work in the field. In Theories of the Text, leading editorial theorist D.C. Greetham points out the need to study the same three projects that I examine: William Langland's Piers Plowman, The Oxford Shakespeare, and James Joyce's Ulysses. By examining the editorial practices underlying each work, I develop a theory of editing based on a form of philological critique that engages with problems faced by many current research projects and which provides suggestions for further research. / Graduate

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, Berkeley, 1994. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 199-208).

Project Report (M.Pub.) - Simon Fraser University, 2005. / Project Report (Master of Publishing Program) / Simon Fraser University.

近些年來，一些論文數據庫(特別是Libra) 變得公開化并已經開始提供給用戶他們請求獲得的信息。這使得我們可以將學術社區當做一個社會網絡來進行研究，不僅分析對作者的著作進行一些統計學的分析，還研究一個作者選擇性與其他作者合著的關係，以及一個作者對其他作者的影響。我們的研究即是定義一些基於社會網絡的方法來測試前面所說的影響關係及合著關係等。 / 我們設計的算法中，最主要的是作者影響力排名算法(AIR) 。該算法類似于著名的網頁排名算法(PageRank) ，並且把我們提取的三種關係都考慮在內。而其他的算法，都是基於某種關係或是某些關係的組合。這些算法包括:聯繫( Connection，利用合著關係、)， 追隨者數量(Follower Count ，利用發表關係)，追隨者(Follower ，利用引用關係)和平均引用數量(Balanced Citation Count ，利用合著關係和引用關係)。 / 這對這些算法，我們設計并研究了一些簡單的特例，通過算法之間橫向與縱向的比較來分析這些算法的特性。在不同的情形下，同一算法的表現并不一致，這是我們引入一個新的變量以便於靈活調整的原因。通過設定不同的變量值，我們利用距離衡量工具來度量這些算法結果的變化。 / 更進一步，我們利用不同的數據集合作為輸入來比較不同算法的表現，并利用一種距離測量工具(Spearman Footrule Distance) 來做算法之間的兩兩比較。在算法的比較中，基於排名值，我們能推斷出關於這些算法的一些結論。而基於累積值的比較，一方面驗證了這些結論的正確性，另一方面也展現出作者影響力排名算法(AIR) 的優越性。同時， 一些來源於現實生活中的排名結果，也可以用來串串證作者影響力排名算法(AIR) 的準確度。 / In recent years, some of the publications database become more publically accessible, and are starting to provide additional information users can query (this is specially the case with Libra). This allows us to study the author community as a social network, analyzing not only the statistics about papers published by an author, individually at a time, but also an author’s choice and extent in connecting to other authors (co-authoring), and an author’s influence on other authors. Our approach is todesign various social network type of metrics to measure the traits defined above. / The main algorithm Author Influence Ranking (AIR), which is analogous to PageRank algorithm, is defined by taking all three relationships into consideration. Other algorithms, based on a single relationship or combination of different relationships, include: Connection, ranking algorithm using coauthor-ship; Follower Count, ranking algorithm using the number of authors who cite papers of a particular author; Follower, ranking algorithm using citation-ship; Balanced Citation Count, ranking algorithm using citation counts normalized by coauthors. / To show properties of different algorithms and do comparison among them, we design and study primitive cases. For some algorithms, the teleportation vector leads to the deviation at certain extent. Therefore, we study different teleportation vectors by tuning a parameter β(details discussed in Chapter 4) from 0 (uniformly distributed) to 1 (proportional to authors’ productivity). With different β, we define Distance to measure the changes in results of these algorithms. / Furthermore, comparisons among these algorithms are conducted by using different publication dataset and we choose Spearman Footrule Distance in our experiment to do comparison for pair of algorithms. Rank value and cumulative value are used in the comparisons: based on the comparisons using rank value, we conclude several observations regarding these algorithms. While the comparisons based on cumulative value help us confirm the "efficiency" of AIR. For using AIR metric, we can find out those really influential researchers who may not be ranked high by other metrics. We study the influence of Turing award winners and all the Turing Award winners scored at least "B", from which we can see AIR’s "accuracy". We also apply AIR metric in the real situation. We study researchers who have Grade "A"(the grade will be discussed in Chapter 6) in Influence and find most of them have good positions in reality, which help us justify the validity of AIR.("efficiency", "accuracy" and "validity" will be discussed more in Chapter 6.) / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Song, Qianqian. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 78-82). / Abstracts also in Chinese. / Abstract --- p.i / Acknowledgement --- p.iv / Chapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1 / Chapter 1.1 --- Motivation --- p.1 / Chapter 1.2 --- Background --- p.2 / Chapter 1.3 --- Our Contribution and Organization --- p.5 / Chapter 2 --- Academic Ranking Algorithms --- p.8 / Chapter 2.1 --- Publication Statistics Algorithms --- p.10 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- Citation Count --- p.10 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- Balanced Citation Count --- p.11 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- Follower Count --- p.12 / Chapter 2.2 --- PageRank-like Algorithms --- p.13 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- The PageRank Algorithm --- p.13 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- Author Influence Ranking --- p.15 / Chapter 2.2.3 --- Science Author Rank Algorithm --- p.17 / Chapter 2.2.4 --- Connection --- p.20 / Chapter 2.2.5 --- Follower --- p.21 / Chapter 3 --- Analysis of Metrics Based on Primitive Cases --- p.22 / Chapter 3.1 --- The Original Case --- p.23 / Chapter 3.2 --- Case for Three General Authors --- p.24 / Chapter 3.3 --- Case for Productive Authors --- p.26 / Chapter 3.4 --- Cases for Productive Author and Coauthor-ship --- p.28 / Chapter 3.4.1 --- Type i --- p.28 / Chapter 3.4.2 --- Type ii --- p.30 / Chapter 3.5 --- Case for Coauthor-ship --- p.32 / Chapter 3.6 --- Cases for Citation Count and Balanced Citation Count --- p.34 / Chapter 3.6.1 --- Type i --- p.34 / Chapter 3.6.2 --- Type ii --- p.36 / Chapter 4 --- Key Parameter in PageRank-like Algorithms --- p.39 / Chapter 4.1 --- The Key Parameter β --- p.39 / Chapter 4.2 --- Comparison Based on β --- p.40 / Chapter 4.3 --- Discussion --- p.43 / Chapter 5 --- Algorithms Comparison --- p.46 / Chapter 5.1 --- The Description of Our Comparisons --- p.46 / Chapter 5.2 --- Similarity Between Different Metrics --- p.47 / Chapter 5.3 --- Two Dimensions Comparison --- p.51 / Chapter 5.3.1 --- Comparison in Algorithms Dimension --- p.51 / Chapter 5.3.2 --- Comparison in Time Dimension --- p.54 / Chapter 6 --- Case Study and Validation --- p.56 / Chapter 6.1 --- AIR v.s Other Metrics --- p.57 / Chapter 6.1.1 --- AIR v.s Citation Count --- p.58 / Chapter 6.1.2 --- AIR v.s Follower Count --- p.59 / Chapter 6.1.3 --- AIR v.s Follower --- p.61 / Chapter 6.1.4 --- AIR v.s Connection --- p.62 / Chapter 6.1.5 --- AIR v.s the First Active Year --- p.64 / Chapter 6.2 --- AIR v.s Rank in Reality --- p.65 / Chapter 6.2.1 --- Ranking Award Recipients --- p.65 / Chapter 6.2.2 --- Top AIR Ranking in Society --- p.65 / Chapter 7 --- Conclusion --- p.76 / Bibliography --- p.78

Open access (OA) to scholarly publishing is encouraged and enabled by new technologies such as the Internet, the World Wide Web, their standards and protocols, and search engines. Institutional repositories (IR) as the most recent technological incarnations of OA enable researchers and their institutions to make accessible the outputs of research. While many OA repositories are being implemented, researchers are surprisingly slow in adopting them. While activists promote OA as emanating from the ideals of scholarship, others revile OA as undermining of scholarly publishing's economic base and therefore undermining quality control and peer review. Change is occurring but there are contested views and actions. This research seeks to increase understanding of the issues by addressing the research questions: "How and why is open access reassembling scholarly publishing?" and "What role does introducing an open access institutional repository to researchers play in this reassembly?" This thesis contributes to answering these questions by investigating two IR implementations and the research communities they serve. The research was conducted as an Actor-Network Theory (ANT) field study, where the actors were followed and their relations and controversies explored in action as their landscape was being contested. The research found that central to our understanding of the reassembling of scholarly publishing is the agency emerging from the sociomaterial relations of the OA vision, IR technology and researchers. Being congruent with the aims of scholarship, and also being flexible and mutable, the OA vision enrols researchers to enact it through OA IR, thus transforming scholarly communications. This is counteracted by publishers aligned with the academic reward network within traditional publishing networks. In this delicate choreography the OA IR, its developers, researchers, university administrators and policy makers are merging as critical actors with their more or less congruent vision of OA enacted in their network. The comparative ANT account of the two IR life stories shows how such enactment depends on the degree to which different OA visions could converge, enrol and mobilise other actors, in particular institutional actors, such as a mandate, in transforming researchers' publishing behaviour. This thesis contributes to a novel and in-depth understanding of OA and IR and their roles in reassembling scholarly publishing. It also contributes to the use of ANT in information systems research by advancing a sociomaterial ontology which recognises the intertwining of human and material agency.