Refine
Year of publication
- 2024 (1)
- 2023 (39)
- 2022 (45)
- 2021 (27)
- 2020 (31)
- 2019 (35)
- 2018 (31)
- 2017 (30)
- 2016 (29)
- 2015 (12)
- 2014 (13)
- 2013 (20)
- 2012 (9)
- 2011 (16)
- 2010 (9)
- 2009 (9)
- 2008 (12)
- 2007 (1)
- 2006 (1)
- 2005 (2)
- 2004 (1)
- 2003 (3)
- 2002 (2)
- 2001 (2)
- 2000 (2)
- 1999 (1)
- 1996 (1)
- 1994 (3)
- 1993 (4)
- 1992 (4)
- 1991 (1)
- 1989 (1)
- 1986 (1)
- 1985 (9)
- 1981 (2)
- 1980 (1)
- 1976 (1)
Document Type
- Article (181)
- Bachelor Thesis (90)
- Conference Proceeding (50)
- Master's Thesis (32)
- Part of a Book (17)
- Study Thesis (15)
- Book (14)
- Report (8)
- Doctoral Thesis (6)
- Working Paper (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (425)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (425)
Keywords
- Bibliothek (31)
- Informationsmanagement (17)
- Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek (15)
- Ausbildung (14)
- Öffentliche Bibliothek (14)
- Student (13)
- Digitalisierung (12)
- Informationskompetenz (12)
- Benutzerfreundlichkeit (11)
- Information Retrieval (11)
Institute
- Fakultät III - Medien, Information und Design (425) (remove)
Seit 2011 gerät das Thema Plagiarismus als Form des Wissenschaftsbetrugs durch die Plagiatsfälle prominenter Politiker*innen immer wieder in den Fokus der Öffentlichkeit. Dabei ist das Problem des Plagiarismus in wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten wie Dissertationen gewiss nicht neu. Die vermehrte Zugänglichkeit wissenschaftlicher Texte über das Internet erleichtert die Übernahme fremder Inhalte jedoch erheblich und ermöglicht gleichzeitig eine striktere Kontrolle durch den Einsatz von Plagiatssoftwares. Die Arbeit untersucht die Frage nach dem Umgang mit Plagiaten im eigenen Bestand, die sich in diesem Zusammenhang für wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken, insbesondere für Hochschulbilbiotheken, stellt. Die Handlungsmöglichkeiten von Hochschulbibliotheken im Umgang mit Dissertationen, die sich nachweislich als Plagiate herausgestellt haben, werden dabei vornehmlich unter ethischen Gesichtspunkten analysiert.
Wikidata and Wikibase as complementary research data management services for cultural heritage data
(2022)
The NFDI (German National Research Data Infrastructure) consortia are associations of various institutions within a specific research field, which work together to develop common data infrastructures, guidelines, best practices and tools that conform to the principles of FAIR data. Within the NFDI, a common question is: What is the potential of Wikidata to be used as an application for science and research? In this paper, we address this question by tracing current research usecases and applications for Wikidata, its relation to standalone Wikibase instances, and how the two can function as complementary services to meet a range of research needs. This paper builds on lessons learned through the development of open data projects and software services within the Open Science Lab at TIB, Hannover, in the context of NFDI4Culture – the consortium including participants across the broad spectrum of the digital libraries, archives, and museums field, and the digital humanities.
Ob Veränderungsprojekte in Organisationen erfolgreich sind, hängt entscheidend davon ab, ob und wie die entwickelten Lösungen von den betroffenen Mitarbeitern angenommen und umgesetzt werden. Es sind nicht wirklich die Unternehmen, die sich verändern: Der Wandel muss in und mit den Menschen in den Unternehmen stattfinden. Dies kann aber nur durch Überzeugung gelingen und zwar im wesentlichen herbeigeführt durch Kommunikation. Von Bedeutung sind jedoch nicht so sehr die Massenmedien wie die Mitarbeiterzeitschrift, Broschüren oder das Intranet. Mit ihnen wird der Veränderungsprozess angestoßen und laufend unterstützt. Entscheidend für seinen Erfolg oder Misserfolg ist jedoch die geplante und organisierte persönliche Kommunikation vor allem zwischen dem Management und den Mitarbeitern. Führungskräfte müssen sich ihrer Rolle als Meinungsführer und Meinungsbildner bewusst werden und entsprechend handeln. Dazu gehört auch das Kommunikationsmanagement und der phasengerechte Einsatz von Kommunikationsinstrumenten zum gewünschten Zweck.
Die vorliegende Arbeit befasst sich mit dem Trend "Gamification" und untersucht an Hand einer Szenario-Analyse, wie sich der Trend auf die Standgestaltung der B2B-Messen im Jahr 2030 auswirken wird.
Hierfür wurde intensive Literaturrecherche betrieben zu den Kernthemen: Gamification, Design, B2B-Messe und Trends im Messewesen.
Nach einer Auswertung dieser Themen in Bezug auf deren Kernelemente und Schlüsselkombinationen wurden 15 Zukunftsprojektionen erstellt, welche anschließend in 3 Szenarien zu Zukunftsbildern ausformuliert wurden.
Fazit der Arbeit ist, dass der Trend Gamification zwar an Bedeutung gewinnt, das Standdesign jedoch nur geringfügig beeinflussen wird. Andere Trendthemen wie Nachhaltigkeit, Sicherheit und die generelle Digitalisierung sowie ein Drang zu Kommunikation werden stärkeren Einfluss auf die Zukunft des Messewesens, und dadurch auch die Standgestaltung bei B2B-Messen, nehmen.
Die vorliegende Arbeit bietet eine Einführung in die am weitesten verbreiteten Methoden der Usability Evaluation, die heuristische Evaluation und den Usability Test. Beide Methoden werden vorgestellt und anhand von vier Bibliothekskatalogen angewendet. Untersuchungsgegenstand sind die Bibliothekskataloge der Stadtbücherei Bamberg, der Stadtbücherei Würzburg, der Stadtbücherei Augsburg und der Stadtbücherei Osnabrück.
Background
The business of clinical research has changed in the past two decades, shifting from industrialised Western countries to so-called emerging markets such as Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa. An appraisal of the trends could identify associated factors that may have implications for the local populations and their endemic diseases.
Objectives
To identify potential reasons why emerging countries have become attractive places for international sponsors to conduct their clinical trials.
Methods
Using ClinicalTrials.gov, the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, the National Health Research Database and the Nigeria Clinical Trials Registry, trend data on clinical research development were determined for two emerging African markets, Nigeria and South Africa (SA), from 2010 to 2018. Also, health data on the two countries from the fact sheets of health statistics of the World Health Organization were compared, as well as regulatory and ethical conditions. Available data were analysed using descriptive statistics and trend analysis.
Results
The impact of globalisation is evident from the upward trend in clinical trials in SA before 2010, and the clear downward trend thereafter. One reason for this change could be the alignment of SA’s regulatory and ethical frameworks with the Western world. In contrast,
the upward trend is only just beginning in Nigeria, with the introduction of ethical/regulatory frameworks, and supportive institutions making the business of clinical research more attractive on an international level. Although the number of international and local sponsors increased in Nigeria from 2010 to 2018, only the latter increased in SA, with the former decreasing over the same period. Overall, there is a mismatch between country-specific diseases and the drugs being tested, to the extent that leprosy, which is endemic in Nigeria, and tuberculosis in SA were not in the list of top 10 study areas in either country.
Conclusions
The globalisation trend is evident in the clinical trials business, but cannot be generalised to all emerging countries. Timing and intensity vary from country to country relative to factors that advance the existing profit-orientated business models of the sponsors. Furthermore, various diseases have been localised, which entails a diversely increasing need for research.
Objectives:
The aim was to identify theoretically expected as well as actually reported benefits from drug development and the importance of individual patient benefits compared to the collective benefits to society in general.
Background:
Ethical guidelines require that clinical research involving humans offer the potential for benefit. A number of characteristics can be applied to define research benefit. Often benefit is categorized as being either direct or indirect. Indirect benefits can involve collective benefits for society rather than any benefits to the trial patient or subject. The purpose of this review was to examine which potential individual and societal benefits were mentioned as being expected in publications from government experts and which were mentioned in publications describing completed drug development trial results.
Methods:
Literature on research benefit was first identified by searching the PubMed database using several combinations of the key words benefit and clinical research. The search was limited to articles published in English. A Google search with the same combinations of key words but without any language limitation was then performed. Additionally, the reference lists of promising articles were screened for further thematically related articles. Finally, a narrative review was performed of relevant English- and German-language articles published between 1996 and 2016 to identify which of several potential benefits were either theoretically expected or which were mentioned in publications on clinical drug development trial results.
Results:
The principal benefits from drug development discussed included 2 main types of benefit, namely individual benefits for the patients and collective benefits for society. Twenty-one of an overall total of 26 articles discussing theoretically expected benefits focused on individual patient benefits, whereas 17 out of 26 articles mentioned collective benefits to society. In these publications, the most commonly mentioned theoretically expected individual patient benefit was the chance to receive up-to-date care (38.1%). A general increase in knowledge about health care, treatments, or drugs (70.6%) was the most commonly mentioned theoretically expected benefit for society. In contrast, all 13 publications reporting actual benefits of clinical drug development trials focused on personal benefits and only 1 of these publications also mentioned a societal benefit. The most commonly mentioned individual benefit was an increased quality of life (53.9%), whereas the only mentioned collective benefit to society was a general gain of knowledge (100.0%).
Conclusions:
Both theoretically expected and actually reported benefits in the majority of the included publications emphasized the importance of individual patient benefits from drug development rather than the collective benefits to society in general. The authors of these publications emphasized the right of each individual patient or subject to look for and expect some personal benefit from participating in a clinical trial rather than considering societal benefit as a top priority. From an ethical point of view, the benefits each individual patient receives from his or her participation in a clinical trial might also be seen as a societal benefit, especially when the drug or device tested, if approved for marketing, would eventually be made available for other similar patients from the country in which the clinical trial was conducted.
The NOA project collects and stores images from open access publications and makes them findable and reusable. During the project a focus group workshop was held to determine whether the development is addressing researchers’ needs. This took place before the second half of the project so that the results could be considered for further development since addressing users’ needs is a big part of the project. The focus was to find out what content and functionality they expect from image repositories.
In a first step, participants were asked to fill out a survey about their images use. Secondly, they tested different use cases on the live system. The first finding is that users have a need for finding scholarly images but it is not a routine task and they often do not know any image repositories. This is another reason for repositories to become more open and reach users by integrating with other content providers. The second finding is that users paid attention to image licenses but struggled to find and interpret them while also being unsure how to cite images. In general, there is a high demand for reusing scholarly images but the existing infrastructure has room to improve.