Archive for the ‘literature’ Category
Most academic journals insist that papers submitted to them conform to the journals own, idiosyncratic citation style. This has led to a proliferation of thousands of different citation styles, often with only minuscule differences in the placement of commas, or the use of quotation marks and italics. To support their users in this arduous task, modern reference management tools like Mendeley ship with 2,789 different citation styles that can be used when formatting a bibliography in Word or Open Office.
It turns out that 2,789 was still not enough. Being able to edit and create new citation styles easily was the top-ranked feature request by a wide margin on Mendeley’s user feedback board. Users frequently lamented that the one particular style they needed was not covered, or that they were unable to switch from tools such as EndNote or RefWorks as long as a particular style was lacking. The citation styles in EndNote or RefWorks are built in a closed, proprietary format, which prevents their re-use in other referencing tools. In response, scholars have created the open source CSL (Citation Style Language) standard, which has since been implemented in tools such as Mendeley, Zotero, Papers, Docear, and Qiqqa. (…)
Mendeley’s global community of 2 million academics have collectively uploaded more than 300 million research documents to the platform, making it one of the world’s largest academic databases. Now, Mendeley will apply the same principle of crowdsourcing to citation styles.
Mendeley Introduces Open Source Citation Style Editor. Information Today, the 6th of December 2012.
According this study, PubMed searches and Google Scholar searches often identify different articles. In this study, Google Scholar articles were more likely to be classified as relevant, had higher numbers of citations and were published in higher impact factor journals.
Nourbakhsh, E., Nugent, R., Wang, H., Cevik, C. and Nugent, K. (2012), Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 29: 214–222.
Skepticism of Google Scholar is merited. Google Scholar is lacking as a scholarly search tool because, first and foremost, it is not an abstracting and indexing service like the bibliographic databases frequently recommended by librarians. Those databases have literature indexed, often by humans, allowing it to be categorized with a controlled vocabulary and subject headings. Google Scholar is a search engine and as such it searches the full text, bibliographic information, and metadata of electronic documents. The computer programming that allows this to happen lacks the objective eye of a human indexer and, consequently, data is interpreted incorrectly and questionable sources pass through algorithms. Google Scholar’s methods of document retrieval are contrary to librarians’ understanding and expectation of information organization. Google Scholar’s inability or unwillingness to elaborate on what documents its system crawls and the uncertain quality of Google Scholar’s performance provides further reasons for information professionals and researchers to be wary of this tool, especially when so many quality databases exist and seem to sufficiently meet scientific information needs.
Gray, Jerry E. Scholarish: Google Scholar and its Value to the Sciences. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Summer 2012. Available from: http://www.istl.org/12-summer/article1.html
UK-based start-up Mendeley has announced that the number of queries to its database from external applications has surpassed 100 million per month. More than 240 applications received for research collaboration, measurement, visualisation, semantic markup and discovery – all of which have been developed in the past year – receive a constant flow of data from Mendeley.
The information fuelling this ecosystem has been crowdsourced by the scientific community itself, somewhat like Wikipedia. Using Mendeley’s suite of document management and collaboration tools, in just three years its global community of 1.9 million researchers has created a shared database containing 65 million unique documents.
This, according to recent studies, covers 97.2 to 99.5 percent of all research articles published. Commercial databases by Thomson Reuters and Elsevier contain 49 million and 47 million unique documents respectively, but access to their databases is licensed to universities for tens of thousands of dollars per year.
More information at:
Commercial info from QUOSA, a company recently acquired by Elsevier:
You need a consolidated literature archive capturing all of the full-text articles, conference abstracts, patents and related documents relevant to your products or project, perhaps complete with tagging specific to your company.
- Automated alerts and import of the full-text literature, integrated with your preferred search platforms
- A robust, copyright-compliant archive structure with fully configurable meta-data and tagging architecture
- Easy- to-use access options, including browser-based search, email and RSS Alerts, dynamic links, and automatically generated reporting templates
BibliMed is a free search interface that accesses MEDLINE data and provides unique search and viewing features like a tag cloud of MeSH term suggestions to add to your search and a list of books relevant to your query.
BibliMed may not include the command line search option that makes PubMed attractive to expert searchers, but the intuitive and creative search features on BibliMed will be very useful for students and novice searchers who aren’t comfortable crafting complex queries and using MeSH terms…
Read Further at:
Mornini, Joelle. The Intuitive Alternative to PubMed: Search MEDLINE on BibliMed. Intellogist, 1st of July 2012. Available from: http://intellogist.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/the-intuitive-alternative-to-pubmed-search-medline-on-biblimed/[Accessed 10th July 2012]
Joelle Mornini, from the great Intellogist webiste, has listed a few recent changes that happened in PubMed.
In a few words, nothing revolutionary… Her conclusion is:
“The filters sidebar replaces a cumbersome “limits” page that took a few extra clicks to access and apply to the search results. Now, users can instantly refine their search directly from the results list. The “sorted by computed author” search and the versioned citations both help users more quickly rank and identify the most relavent results or versions of a result. The “Save items” portlet and “Citation manager” option allow the user to quickly compile and export the most relevant results into a concise list that can be manipulated through any type of citation manager software. These subtle changes to the PubMed interface may not seem like enormous improvements, but they can save a prior art searcher time when every second counts“
See the full article at:
Mornini, Joelle. 5 recent changes to the PubMed interface, Intellogist, 19 June 2012. Available from: http://intellogist.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/5-recent-changes-to-the-pubmed-interface/ [Accessed 20 June 2012]
Personaly, I would rather say that switching to great alternatives such as GoPubMed, PubGet or Biblimed, instead of using this poor PubMed will save precious minutes!!! See my previous post…