http://precedings.nature.com/tags/citation%20retrieval Recently posted documents tagged with 'citation retrieval' Nature Publishing Group en Nature Precedings http://precedings.nature.com/images/header_logo.gif http://precedings.nature.com http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npre.2009.3867.1 The exponentially increasing number of published papers (1.4 million per year by one estimate) makes it more and more difficult for us to manage the flood of scientific information. Each of us has acquired some protocol to find and organize journal articles and other references over the course of our careers. Most of those protocols are likely to have been formed by old routines or idleness rather than a structured approach to save time and frustration over the long run. Furthermore, with the Web 2.0 revolution, new ways of handling information are emerging (O’Reilly 2005). For example, traditional standalone tools for reference management like EndNote are being supplemented by centralized resources like RefWorks and social bookmarking sites as described subsequently. This fusion of personal and public information offers the promise of efficiency through better organization, which in turn leads to better science.How can seasoned scientists do better using these tools and those newer to the field start off in the right way? To start to answer that question, I present ten simple rules to master the search and organization of new literature. This is not meant to be comprehensive. It represents the experiences of a few and I welcome your thoughts, through comments to this article, on what you do to keep your references organized. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npre.2009.3867.1 Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:50:12 UTC Ten Simple Rules for Searching and Organizing the Scientific Literature doi:10.1038/npre.2009.3867.1 2009-10-16 Denis C. Bauer Nature Precedings 2009-10-16T08:50:12Z Manuscript Bioinformatics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2101/version/2 With increasing number of bio-literature search engines, scientists and health professionals either make a subjective choice of tool(s) or face a challenge of analyzing multiple features of a plethora of bibliographic software. There is an urgent need for a thorough comparative analysis of the available literature scanning tools, from the user’s perspective. We report results of the first time semi-quantitative comparison of 21 search programs, which can search published (partial or full text) documents in life science areas. The observations can assist life science researchers and medical professionals to make an informed selection among the programs, depending on their search objectives. Some of the important findings are: 1. Most of the hits obtained from Scopus, ReleMed, EBImed, CiteXplore, and HighWire Press were usually relevant (i.e., these tools showed a better precision than other tools). 2. But a very high number of relevant citations were retrieved by HighWire Press, Google Scholar, CiteXplore and Pubmed Central (they had better recall). 3. HWP and CiteXplore seemed to have a good balance of precision and recall efficiencies. 4. PubMed Central, PubMed and Scopus provided the most useful query systems. 5. GoPubMed, BioAsk, EBIMed, ClusterMed could be more useful among the tools that can automatically process the retrieved citations for further scanning of bio-entities such as proteins, diseases, tissues, molecular interactions etc). The authors suggest the use of PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and HighWire Press – for better coverage, and GoPubMed – to view the hits categorized based on the MeSH and gene ontology terms. http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2101/version/2 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:38:26 UTC How do you choose your literature search tool(s)? hdl:10101/npre.2008.2101.2 2008-07-24 Kshitish K. Acharya Nature Precedings 2008-07-24T15:38:26Z Manuscript Bioinformatics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2101/version/1 With increasing number of bibliographic software, scientists and health professionals either make a subjective choice of tool(s) that could suit their needs or face a challenge of analyzing multiple features of a plethora of search programs. There is an urgent need for a thorough comparative analysis of the available bio-literature scanning tools, from the user’s perspective. We report results of the first time semi-quantitative comparison of 21 programs, which can search published (partial or full text) documents in life science areas. The observations can assist life science researchers and medical professionals to make an informed selection among the programs, depending on their search objectives. Some of the important findings are: 1. Most of the hits obtained from Scopus, ReleMed, EBImed, CiteXplore, and HighWire Press were usually relevant (i.e. these tools show a better precision than other tools). 2. But a very high number of relevant citations were retrieved by HighWire Press, Google Scholar, CiteXplore and Pubmed Central (they had better recall). 3. HWP and CiteXplore seemed to have a good balance of precision and recall efficiencies. 4. PubMed Central, PubMed and Scopus provided the most useful query systems. 5. GoPubMed, BioAsk, EBIMed, ClusterMed could be more useful among the tools that can automatically process the retrieved citations for further scanning of bio-entities such as proteins, diseases, tissues, molecular interactions, etc. The authors suggest the use of PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and HighWire Press – for better coverage, and GoPubMed – to view the hits categorized based on the MeSH and gene ontology terms. The article is relavant to all life science subjects. http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2101/version/1 Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:50:58 UTC A comparative analysis of 21 literature search engines hdl:10101/npre.2008.2101.1 2008-07-22 Kshitish K. Acharya Nature Precedings 2008-07-22T10:50:58Z Manuscript Bioinformatics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/