메뉴 건너뛰기




Volumn 57, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 234-247

A reputational study of academic publishers

(2)  Metz, Paul a   Stemmer, John a  

a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords


EID: 0030532461     PISSN: 00100870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5860/crl_57_03_234     Document Type: Article
Times cited : (19)

References (5)
  • 1
    • 0002010837 scopus 로고
    • Selection methodology in academic libraries
    • winter
    • Hendrik Edelman, "Selection Methodology in Academic Libraries," Library Resources & Technical Services 23 (winter 1979): 33-38 .
    • (1979) Library Resources & Technical Services , vol.23 , pp. 33-38
    • Edelman, H.1
  • 2
    • 77449139072 scopus 로고
    • Book selection and bounded rationality
    • May
    • Charles A. Schwartz, "Book Selection and Bounded Rationality," College & Research Libraries 50 (May 1989): 328-43 .
    • (1989) College & Research Libraries , vol.50 , pp. 328-343
    • Schwartz, C.A.1
  • 3
    • 0001966307 scopus 로고
    • An index of publisher quality for the academic library
    • May
    • John Calhoun and James K. Bracken, "An Index of Publisher Quality for the Academic Library," College & Research Libraries 44 (May 1983): 257-59.
    • (1983) College & Research Libraries , vol.44 , pp. 257-259
    • Calhoun, J.1    Bracken, J.K.2
  • 4
    • 0001933286 scopus 로고
    • An index to publisher quality revisited: A partial replication
    • fall
    • Edward A. Goedeken, "An Index to Publisher Quality Revisited: A Partial Replication," Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory 17 (fall 1993): 263-68 .
    • (1993) Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory , vol.17 , pp. 263-268
    • Goedeken, E.A.1
  • 5
    • 85033755475 scopus 로고    scopus 로고
    • note
    • Two printing errors should be reported. On the questionnaire sent out in the first mailing, Edwin Meilen was represented as "Edward Mellen" and the "5" score for quality of Stanford University Press was omitted. These errors were corrected for the second mailing. Many respondents provided their own "5" for Stanford's quality score, then circled it. The differences in scores for these publishers were not statistically significant between the two versions. In both, Stanford ranked fourth and Meilen last on quality. Stanford's quality scores closely co-vary with its relevance scores, for which there was no omission.


* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.