共查询到18条相似文献，搜索用时 765 毫秒
1.
目的：比较SCIE、Scopus与SciFinder的收录范围、检索结果与引证关系。方法：对3个数据库的基本信息、引证分析功能,以及从关键词、机构与期刊名称3个字段进行实例检索得到的结果进行对比分析。结果：SCIE入选期刊最严格,Scopus收录期刊最多,SciFinder文献类型最全面。结论：SciFinder作为专业检索数据库,检索课题更全面,对检索结果的处理功能更强大。SCIE和Scopus更侧重期刊评价和引文分析,方便特定课题的溯源与追踪,也是写作和投稿很好的参考工具。 相似文献
2.
Lexis.com和Westlaw International是美国两个著名的法律数据库,其文献收录覆盖范围广、文献类型多样、检索技术复杂,从内容到功能上十分类似。对两者收录内容、检索方式、检索技术、检索功能等进行比较和分析,可使用户对其结构和检索技巧有更深刻的了解,方便学习者和研究者有效利用这两大法律数据库。 相似文献
3.
Lexis.com和Westlaw International是美国两个著名的法律数据库,其文献收录覆盖范围广、文献类型多样、检索技术复杂,从内容到功能上十分类似。对两者收录内容、检索方式、检索技术、检索功能等进行比较和分析,可使用户对其结构和检索技巧有更深刻的了解,方便学习者和研究者有效利用这两大法律数据库。 相似文献
4.
SCIE和Scopus数据库的比较研究 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
以SCIE和Scopus数据库为对象,从收录数据、检索功能、检索结果处理、个性化服务及检索效果等方面对两者进行比较分析,指出其异同。认为从总体上看,SCIE和Scopus均是功能强大的二次文献数据库,具有完善的检索功能、查找引文功能和链接整合功能,对检索结果的处理科学合理,检索结果令人满意。 相似文献
5.
6.
李志明 《图书馆研究与工作》2009,(4):32-34
从收录情况、版本和检索功能中的导航功能、检索方式、检索途径、检索结果、检索界面以及个性化服务方面分析比较我国龙源期刊网与博看网两大人文社科期刊数据库的特点和优势,可供图书馆在选择、订购与利用这两大数据库提供参考;也为数据库的改进和完善、为用户的有效利用提供参考。 相似文献
7.
8.
SCIE和MathSciNet数据库都具有引文检索的功能,就这两个数据库在数学类期刊的收录范围、检索方法、检索算符、检索结果的对比以及特色服务的异同点进行对比,结果表明,在进行数学类专业的引文检索的时候,要考虑同时检索这两个数据库以保证检索结果的查全率。 相似文献
9.
10.
EBSCO网络数据库综合评价 总被引：9，自引：0，他引：9
张晓芬 《现代图书情报技术》2000,16(6):72-74
从EBSCO 网络数据库的数据来源; 数据库提供的用户界面、检索功能和检索输出格式; 数据库的管理等方面, 对EBSCO 的ASE 和BSP 两个网络数据库进行了综合评价, 并指出它们的使用特点。 相似文献
11.
介绍了用虚拟光碟镜像服务器替代光盘镜像服务器 ,实现局域网上检索数据库的实践方法和经验 ,为图书馆更好地发挥各种数据库的作用提供借鉴 相似文献
12.
网络SciFinder Scholar与光盘CA检索的比较研究 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
本文在介绍SciFinder Scholar网上检索和CA光盘检索的基础上，从收载内容量、更新速度、检索方法、链接功能、多用户检索和操作性等几个方面对这两个数据库进行了详细的比较分析，认为SciFinder Scholar是更加方便、快捷、高效的检索工具。 相似文献
13.
Expert searching in health librarianship: a literature review to identify international issues and Australian concerns 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
Lasserre K 《Health information and libraries journal》2012,29(1):3-15
Background: The traditional role of health librarians as expert searchers is under challenge. Objectives: The purpose of this review is to establish health librarians’ views, practices and educational processes on expert searching. Methods: The search strategy was developed in LISTA and then customised for ten other databases: ALISA, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. The search terms were (expert search* OR expert retriev* OR mediated search* OR information retriev*) AND librar*. The searches, completed in December 2010 and repeated in May 2011, were limited to English language publications from 2000 to 2011 (unless seminal works). Results: Expert searching remains a key role for health librarians, especially for those supporting systematic reviews or employed as clinical librarians answering clinical questions. Conclusions: Although clients tend to be satisfied with searches carried out for them, improvements are required to effectively position the profession. Evidence‐based guidelines, adherence to transparent standards, review of entry‐level education requirements and a commitment to accredited, rigorous, ongoing professional development will ensure best practice. 相似文献
14.
This paper presents the results of a bibliometric study of the scientific publications that are affiliated with Russia and
included in multidisciplinary databases, such as Science Citation Index and Scopus, as well as in the specialized Chemical
Abstracts database, in the period from 2005 to 2009. Major bibliometric indicators, including citation indexes, are explored.
It is shown that the Scopus database contains most of the Russian publications in the period from 2005 to 2009. While a gradual
decrease in the number of peer-reviewed Russian-language journals constitutes a general trend for all three databases, the
Chemical Abstracts database leads in terms of the coverage of these journals. It is found that despite the large number of
translated versions of journals, Russian publications are still significantly late in their coverage by foreign databases,
which has a significant impact on their citation levels. 相似文献
15.
以F1000数据库中生物信息学和免疫学近2 000篇文献为样本,多角度探讨WoS与Scopus数据库的优劣,其中包括两个数据库中被引频次的相关性、与F1000因子的相关性、主要评价指标数值及排序的相关性、历年被引累积量与被引总量相关性、多维空间感知图下的指标间相关性。结论指出：虽然各项指标源于WoS与Scopus不同的数据库,但是就被引频次及与F1000因子关系而言,两库具有较好的一致性;两库的主要评价指标,无论是数值抑或是排序,均体现出高度相关。上述结果可为科研评价中两个数据库的替代性和选择性提供借鉴,同时为定位在开源Scopus系统的利用提供有力依据。 相似文献
16.
Bernd W. Becker 《Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian》2013,32(3):181-184
As an outgrowth of its course in online literature searching, the University of Washington School of Librarianship has recently added a course on numeric databases to its professional degree program. It emphasizes the relationship of these files to bibliographic databases and their application to general library service, rather than concepts of data management or statistical techniques, although attention was also given to these topics. Hands-on experience in searching socioeconomic databases provides students without research experience with an awareness of the character and capability of these resources. The course serves both as an introduction to a career specialization in data management as well as an examination of the role of numeric databases in library reference services. Given the increasing importance of statistical analysis in the social sciences, academic concern for training in the use of numeric databases is of a particular concern to the behavioral or social science librarian. 相似文献
17.
18.
Scopus and Web of Science are the two major citation databases that collect and disseminate bibliometric statistics about research articles, journals, institutions, and individual authors. Liaison librarians are now regularly called upon to utilize these databases to assist faculty in finding citation activity on their published works for tenure and promotion, grant applications, and more. But questions about the accuracy, scope, and coverage of these tools deserve closer scrutiny. Discrepancies in citation capture led to a systematic study on how Scopus and Web of Science compared in a real-life situation encountered by liaisons: comparing three different disciplines at a medical school and nursing program. How many articles would each database retrieve for each faculty member using the author-searching tools provided? How many cited references for each faculty member would each tool generate? Results demonstrated troubling differences in publication and citation activity capture between Scopus and Web of Science. Implications for librarians are discussed. 相似文献