共查询到17条相似文献，搜索用时 187 毫秒
1.
著者号优于种次号已成功图书馆界的共识。然而实际情况是,在目前全国图书情报机构中,采用种次号的约占８０％,采用著者号的仅占１０％左右。本文从剖析书次号认识的误区入手,探讨了问题的深层次原因,提出了著者号与种次号优势互补,长期共存的新观点。 相似文献
2.
也谈著者号与种次号孰优孰劣的问题 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
著者号优于种次号已成为图书馆界的共识.然而实际情况是,在目前全国图书情报机构中,采用种次号的约占80%,采用著者号的仅占10%左右.本文从剖析书次号认识的误区入手,探讨了问题的深层次原因,提出了著者号与种次号优势互补,长期共存的新观点. 相似文献
3.
书次号是表示同类书先后次序的号码，是各馆进行同类书排列的依据。按同类书区分方法的不同，存在著者号、种次号、书名号、出版年代号、登录号、页码号等多种书次号。但是在图书馆界用得最多的还是种次号和著者号，尤其是种次号。当前80％左右的大、中、小型图书馆使用种次号．10％左右的老馆、大馆使用著者号，还有10％左右的小型图书馆使用登录号、出版年代号、ISBN号等为书次号。 相似文献
4.
5.
本文就种次号和著者号各自的利弊,分析了在数据共享及集中编目条件下书次号是否应该统一。基于发挥二者的优势互补,为实现各馆的日常排架及日后的编目数据共享,提出今后在书次号的设置上应同时设置两种书次号:以种次号作为显性书次号适应对内排架,以著者号作为隐性书次号适应对外检索。 相似文献
6.
本文分析了手工取种次号的弊端,著者号自动标引的优越性,认为著者号法将取代其它书次号法是书次号发展的必然趋势,浅谈本馆改种次号为著者号自动标引的具体方案、方法. 相似文献
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
批驳分类法、分类号不统一和书次号不需统一的不恰当观点;指出标准化书次号的推广价值不在于统一分类检索与实现资源共享。从高校图书馆合并、整合文献资源过程中遇到的因书次号不同,难以组织藏书排架体系的尴尬局面以及从社会化编目飞速发展的角度出发,阐明书次号标准化有利于统一各馆分类排架标识,并提出相应对策。 相似文献
13.
14.
李华 《现代图书情报技术》2007,2(12):82-85
以著者的四角号码为取号依据，设计编写“汉语著者号自动生成系统”，对该系统测试后发现，编目人员运用此系统可以快速、准确地生成符合成都大学图书馆要求的著者号。 相似文献
15.
Library and information science (LIS) dissertations cite a wide variety of literature, reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of the field. A review of 76 LIS dissertations was undertaken to determine whether the disciplinary background of the dissertation adviser influences the citing behaviors of the dissertation author. Of the 76 dissertations, 38 were advised by individuals with a disciplinary background in LIS and 38 were advised by individuals with a disciplinary background outside of LIS. The Library of Congress subclass for each citation was determined according the venue of publication. The most cited authors overall and by each group were determined, as well as the percentage of citations to LIS literature over time. LIS-advised dissertations were found to have cited a wide variety of literature. The percentage of citations in LIS-advised dissertations to LIS literature has declined from a peak of 59% to 21%. Citations to the most-cited authors in each group were largely exclusive to the LIS-advised dissertations, and nonLIS-advised dissertations generally do not appear to cite the same bodies of academic literature. 相似文献
16.
17.
Considering the expansion of research output across the globe, along with the growing demand for quantitative tracking of research outcomes by government authorities and research institutions, the challenges of author identity are increasing. In recent years, a number of initiatives to help solve the author “name game” have been launched from all areas of the scholarly information market space. This article introduces the various author identification tools and services Thomson Reuters provides, including Distinct Author Sets and ResearcherID—which reflect a combination of automated clustering and author participation—as well as the use of other data types, such as grants and patents, to expand the universe of author identification. Industry-wide initiatives such as the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) are also described. Future author-related developments in ResearcherID and Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge are also included. 相似文献