排序方式： 共有183条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
2.
化学文摘网络版SciFinder Scholar的功能及开发利用 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
邓克武 《图书馆工作与研究》2006,(3):50-52
SciFinder Scholar较光盘版的化学文摘具有更加强大的检索和分析功能。本文通过二者的比较，初步探讨在图书馆服务中如何充分开发利用化学文摘网络版SciFinder Scholar的强大功能。 相似文献
3.
SciFinder Scholar的检索及其特点 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
任平 《现代图书情报技术》2006,(2):91-95
Sc iF inder Scholar是美国CAS推出的网络版化学文献数据库,也是目前世界上最大的化学化工资料库。本文详细介绍了该数据库平台的概况、检索方法及特点。 相似文献
4.
学术数据库与普及型搜索引擎的合作研究 总被引：7，自引：0，他引：7
毛力 《现代图书情报技术》2006,1(9):13-17
以维普资讯数据库与Google Scholar的合作实例，阐述学术数据库在跨界合作领域的探索和研究，包括观念前提、技术机制、品牌互动以及现实意义。就我国学术数据库在网络时代的发展战略提出思考。跨界合作双方需要统一观念，能够平衡社会价值与商业价值。跨界合作产生的互换网络广告、文献应用评价以及建立开放的信息传递机制将学术数据库行业引入新的发展领域。 相似文献
5.
Google Scholar Beta检索性能的初步分析 总被引：6，自引：1，他引：6
利用多个医学提问，通过对Google Scholar Beta、PubMed、ISI Science Citation Index Expanded、CrossRef Search、Scirus等工具检索结果的对比，分析 Google Scholar Beta 测试版搜索引擎在学术信息检索中的性能表现，特别是检索的查全率、结果的相关性、文献被引用检索等方面的性能，指出其存在的不足，并对该搜索引擎对图书馆跨库查询方案的影响进行初步探讨。 相似文献
6.
口述史学与以文字书写的传统史学在技术路线上固然有所不同,然而有一点却是相同的,这就是历史细节的发掘与描写。历史事件都是由细节构成的,没有细节,就没有可信的历史。文章认为,学者是人类文明的创造者、记录者、传承者,对学者进行口述史采访,尤其应当注重细节发掘。《史记》之所以成为中国历史上一部具有划时代意义的史学巨著,与司马迁特别注重历史细节的记录与描写有关。通过学者口述史采访,我们一方面可以记录历史事件的具体发展过程,还原历史真相,补充第一手珍贵的历史资料;另一方面,还能感受到他们的道德情怀与人文精神,有助于传承与弘扬中华优秀传统文化。文章还结合中国记忆项目实践,介绍了对冯其庸、顾方舟、黄能馥、黄明信等学者进行口述史采访的具体细节。 相似文献
7.
Carmen Cole Angela R. Davis Vanessa Eyer John J. Meier 《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2018,44(3):419-425
In 2008 Meier and Conkling first tested Google Scholar's coverage of the engineering literature against citations gathered from the Compendex database. Since that time, other studies have used the same methodology and found improvement in Google Scholar's coverage. This study uses engineering dissertations from Proquest Dissertations & Theses to create a data set of citations for the comparison of fee-based databases, Compendex and Scopus, against Google Scholar. From 1950 to 2017 Google Scholar outperformed both Compendex and Scopus in discoverability of citations in nine engineering subjects. These results have implications for collection management and information literacy program planning for librarians. 相似文献
8.
Many studies demonstrate differences in the coverage of citing publications in Google Scholar (GS) and Web of Science (WoS). Here, we examine to what extent citation data from the two databases reflect the scholarly impact of women and men differently. Our conjecture is that WoS carries an indirect gender bias in its selection criteria for citation sources that GS avoids due to criteria that are more inclusive. Using a sample of 1250 U.S. researchers in Sociology, Political Science, Economics, Cardiology and Chemistry, we examine gender differences in the average citation coverage of the two databases. We also calculate database-specific h-indices for all authors in the sample. In repeated simulations of hiring scenarios, we use these indices to examine whether women's appointment rates increase if hiring decisions rely on data from GS in lieu of WoS. We find no systematic gender differences in the citation coverage of the two databases. Further, our results indicate marginal to non-existing effects of database selection on women's success-rates in the simulations. In line with the existing literature, we find the citation coverage in WoS to be largest in Cardiology and Chemistry and smallest in Political Science and Sociology. The concordance between author-based h-indices measured by GS and WoS is largest for Chemistry followed by Cardiology, Political Science, Sociology and Economics. 相似文献
9.
《Journal of Informetrics》2020,14(1):100988
This paper proposes a simple, flexible, axiom-based mechanism for facilitating the comparison between a scholar's citation count and the visibility of the journals wherein the scholar's articles were published. The goal is to help research review bodies easily grasp the distinction these two forms of scholarly accomplishment and to provide a transparent way to articulate expectations about them to scholars. The approach is demonstrated using a widely applied and cooperative functional form that can reflect, via different parameter values, a wide range of possible beliefs about the relative merits of citation counts and journal visibility. 相似文献
10.
百度国学和CNKI是国内两个重要的中文学术搜索引擎,Google Scholar和Scirus是国际公认的专业学术搜索引擎,介绍了它们各自的特点及其功能,分别从数据库、检索功能、检索结果与用户界面3个方面来比较分析了它们各自的异同点,并对学术搜索引擎的发展趋势做了展望。 相似文献