共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 500 毫秒
1.
ABSTRACT Google Scholar has multiple uses as a reference tool of last resort, including citation completion, an alternative when catalogs are down, and interdisciplinary metasearching and database suggestion. During the reference desk transaction, users can be taught effective Google Scholar search techniques such as advanced search functionality and the nuances of results' groupings. In addition, reference desk interactions with Google Scholar give insight for instructional workshops. 相似文献
2.
Joan Giglierano 《图书馆管理杂志》2013,53(1-2):101-113
ABSTRACT Almost three years after Google Scholar's inception, only a third of Ohio Library and Information Network (OhioLINK) member libraries link to it from their Web sites. This article reports the results of a July 2007 survey of OhioLINK academic librarians, conducted to find out about their attitudes and current practices regarding promotion of Google Scholar. It compares the findings about placement of Google Scholar on Web sites and inclusion in library instruction with previous research, and includes recommendations for libraries about Google Scholar. 相似文献
3.
ABSTRACT The paper discusses and analyzes the coverage of scientific serials in Google Scholar (GS). The focus is on an exploratory study. The study shows deficiencies in the coverage and up-to-dateness of the GS index. Furthermore, the study points up which Web servers are the most important data providers for this search service and which information sources are highly represented. There is a relatively large gap in Google Scholar's coverage of German literature as well as weaknesses in the accessibility of Open Access content. 相似文献
4.
Charlie Potter 《图书馆管理杂志》2013,53(1-2):5-28
ABSTRACT In order to understand better and explain the practices of Google Scholar, this essay takes a rhetorical and holistic look at the search technology, language, and sociopolitical implications of the Google Scholar interface as well as the connection between Google Scholar and the actions of the Google Corporation. The relationship between Google Scholar and the academic library is also explored. In addition, the essay offers ways to encourage students to undertake this kind of critique in the information literacy classroom. 相似文献
5.
Christopher Giuliano Sean McConachie Julie Kalabalik-Hoganson 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(2):212
Objective:The purpose of this study was to compare pharmacy students’ ability to correctly answer drug information questions using Micromedex with Watson, Micromedex without Watson, or Google.Methods:This multicenter randomized trial compared pharmacy student responses to drug information questions using Micromedex with Watson, Micromedex without Watson, or Google from January to March of 2020. First- to fourth-year pharmacy students at two institutions were included. The primary outcome was the number of correct answers. Secondary outcomes were the time taken to answer the questions and differences in number of correct answers by pharmacy student year and institution.Results:The analysis included 162 participants: 52 students in the Micromedex group, 51 students in the Watson group, and 59 students in the Google group. There was a significant difference among groups in the total number of questions answered correctly (p=0.02). Post-hoc analysis revealed that participants in the Micromedex group answered more questions correctly than those in the Google group (p=0.015). There were no significant differences between Micromedex and Watson groups (p=0.52) or between Watson and Google groups (p=0.22). There was also no difference in time to complete the questions among groups (p=0.72).Conclusion:Utilizing Google did not save students time and led to more incorrect answers. These findings suggest that health care educators and health sciences librarians should further reinforce training on the appropriate use of drug information resources. 相似文献
6.
Patrick Obrien Kenning Arlitsch Leila Sterman Jeff Mixter Jonathan Wheeler Susan Borda 《图书馆管理杂志》2013,53(7):854-874
ABSTRACTA primary impact metric for institutional repositories (IR) is the number of file downloads, which are commonly measured through third-party Web analytics software. Google Analytics, a free service used by most academic libraries, relies on HTML page tagging to log visitor activity on Google's servers. However, Web aggregators such as Google Scholar link directly to high value content (usually PDF files), bypassing the HTML page and failing to register these direct access events. This article presents evidence of a study of four institutions demonstrating that the majority of IR activity is not counted by page tagging Web analytics software, and proposes a practical solution for significantly improving the reporting relevancy and accuracy of IR performance metrics using Google Analytics. 相似文献
7.
8.
Previous research has shown that citation data from different types of Web sources can potentially be used for research evaluation. Here we introduce a new combined Integrated Online Impact (IOI) indicator. For a case study, we selected research articles published in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology (JASIST) and Scientometrics in 2003. We compared the citation counts from Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus with five online sources of citation data including Google Scholar, Google Books, Google Blogs, PowerPoint presentations and course reading lists. The mean and median IOI was nearly twice as high as both WoS and Scopus, confirming that online citations are sufficiently numerous to be useful for the impact assessment of research. We also found significant correlations between conventional and online impact indicators, confirming that both assess something similar in scholarly communication. Further analysis showed that the overall percentage for unique Google Scholar citations outside the WoS were 73% and 60% for the articles published in JASIST and Scientometrics, respectively. An important conclusion is that in subject areas where wider types of intellectual impact indicators outside the WoS and Scopus databases are needed for research evaluation, IOI can be used to help monitor research performance. 相似文献
9.
Filiberto Felipe Martínez-Arellano Federico Hernández-Pacheco Efrén Chávez-Hernández 《Cataloging & classification quarterly》2013,51(2-3):91-105
AbstractSubject indexing and classification of law resources is a complex issue due to several factors: specialized meanings of legal terms, meanings across different branches of law, terms in legal systems from diverse countries, and terms in different languages. These issues led to the development of a classification and subject indexing system which will help answer the major challenges of indexing and classifying law resources in the Research Institute Library at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Adopting its own classification required interdisciplinary work between law and information organization specialists, constant updating by legal specialists and others beyond the Legal Research Institute; and the sharing of this classification system with other institutions. Now, this classification system is used by important institutions that specialize in law, such as the network of Libraries of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico. The purpose of this article is to show why and how this law classification and subject system was developed and is continuously being updated by libarians and law scholars in order for it to meet their specific needs. 相似文献
10.
Dissertations can be the single most important scholarly outputs of junior researchers. Whilst sets of journal articles are often evaluated with the help of citation counts from the Web of Science or Scopus, these do not index dissertations and so their impact is hard to assess. In response, this article introduces a new multistage method to extract Google Scholar citation counts for large collections of dissertations from repositories indexed by Google. The method was used to extract Google Scholar citation counts for 77,884 American doctoral dissertations from 2013 to 2017 via ProQuest, with a precision of over 95%. Some ProQuest dissertations that were dual indexed with other repositories could not be retrieved with ProQuest-specific searches but could be found with Google Scholar searches of the other repositories. The Google Scholar citation counts were then compared with Mendeley reader counts, a known source of scholarly-like impact data. A fifth of the dissertations had at least one citation recorded in Google Scholar and slightly fewer had at least one Mendeley reader. Based on numerical comparisons, the Mendeley reader counts seem to be more useful for impact assessment purposes for dissertations that are less than two years old, whilst Google Scholar citations are more useful for older dissertations, especially in social sciences, arts and humanities. Google Scholar citation counts may reflect a more scholarly type of impact than that of Mendeley reader counts because dissertations attract a substantial minority of their citations from other dissertations. In summary, the new method now makes it possible for research funders, institutions and others to systematically evaluate the impact of dissertations, although additional Google Scholar queries for other online repositories are needed to ensure comprehensive coverage. 相似文献
11.
12.
《College & Undergraduate Libraries》2013,20(1):15-24
Abstract Many academic institutions are creating electronic libraries and reorganizing technology units, such as computing centers, libraries, media centers, and telecommunications offices, into central administrative reporting structures. Usually, these are larger institutions. This article is a case study of how a smaller academic institution, Carthage College, merged the library and computing center in a short time to create an electronic teaching library. 相似文献
13.
《College & Undergraduate Libraries》2013,20(1):103-105
Abstract These brief remarks not only introduce the following two articles on internships, but also provide a list of questions that those in college libraries might consider before deciding to participate in an internship program. 相似文献
14.
The paper presents comparative analyses of two publication point systems, The Norwegian and the in-house system from the interdisciplinary Danish Institute of International Studies (DIIS), used as case in the study for publications published 2006, and compares central citation-based indicators with novel publication point indicators (PPIs) that are formalized and exemplified. Two diachronic citation windows are applied: 2006-07 and 2006-08. Web of Science (WoS) as well as Google Scholar (GS) are applied to observe the cite delay and citedness for the different document types published by DIIS, journal articles, book chapters/conference papers and monographs. Journal Crown Indicator (JCI) calculations was based on WoS. Three PPIs are proposed: the Publication Point Ratio (PPR), which measures the sum of obtained publication points over the sum of the ideal points for the same set of documents; the Cumulated Publication Point Indicator (CPPI), which graphically illustrates the cumulated gain of obtained vs. ideal points, both seen as vectors; and the normalized Cumulated Publication Point Index (nCPPI) that represents the cumulated gain of publication success as index values, either graphically or as one overall score for the institution under evaluation.The case study indicates that for smaller interdisciplinary research institutions the cite delay is substantial (2–3 years to obtain a citedness of 50%) when applying WoS for articles. Applying GS implies a shorter delay and much higher citedness for all document types. Statistical significant correlations were only found between WoS and GS and the two publication point systems in between, respectively. The study demonstrates how the nCPPI can be applied to institutions as evaluation tools supplementary to JCI in various combinations, in particular when institutions include humanistic and social science disciplines. 相似文献
15.
《Journal Of Archival Organization》2013,11(2):89-92
Abstract The three preceding articles identify the existence of a body of archival recordsof higher education institutions that can support historical investigation into the varied aspects of student life for women. Following a summary of those presentations, the author poses a series of historical questions relating to women's collegiate institutions and student life that scholars and students of women's higher education history might ask to gain a broader view of women's higher learning and “build meaningful contexts in which the evolution of women's higher learning can truly be appreciated.” An examination of the archival records of private, parochial, and public institutions of higher education for women may assist with answering specific and nagging questions and help arrive at a “fuller, more inclusive history of women's higher education.” 相似文献
16.
ABSTRACT The Google Book Search Library Project has partnered with an array of impressive libraries, including Harvard University, the University of California System, University of Michigan, and the New York Public Library. The reasons for collaborating with Google to further book digitization are different for each library. Moreover, the exact way in which these libraries will use their own digital copies has yet to be decided for many of the libraries involved. While the Google Book Search Library Project remains controversial, the Google library partners are seizing an unprecedented opportunity to amplify the scale of their pre-existing digitization initiatives. 相似文献
17.
Barbara Quint 《图书馆管理杂志》2013,53(1-2):77-79
ABSTRACT Provides new insights into the growth and development of Google Scholar, based on an interview with its designer, Anurag Acharya. 相似文献
18.
19.
20.
《College & Undergraduate Libraries》2013,20(2):99-106
Abstract To determine if research findings from large academic, research libraries on the number of public access terminals needed apply to smaller libraries, the author compared results of a study done at a large research institution to one done at a mid-sized university. The data were different. This is important because the active automation market is currently thriving at smaller libraries, not larger ones, and because environment/size does seem to be critical to the consideration of automation parameters. Thus, smaller libraries should establish their own parameters and employ models generated at large institutions only as a general recipe. 相似文献