A Comparison of Selected Bibliographic Database Search Retrieval for Agricultural Information

Q3 Social Sciences Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship Pub Date : 2019-12-06 DOI:10.29173/istl48
S. Ritchie, Kelly Banyas, Carol Sevin
{"title":"A Comparison of Selected Bibliographic Database Search Retrieval for Agricultural Information","authors":"S. Ritchie, Kelly Banyas, Carol Sevin","doi":"10.29173/istl48","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Search result retrieval was compared across eight research literature databases (AGRICOLA, AGRIS, BIOSIS, CAB Direct, FSTA, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science) for three topics from different agricultural disciplines to compare retrieval results based on searcher experience. Precision, recall, and uniqueness were analyzed by rating search results (~2400 citations) for relevancy. A generalized linear model statistical analysis determined that AGRICOLA ranked highest for precision and was statistically more likely to produce a relevant result than four other databases. CAB and Web of Science ranked highest for recall and both overlapped with AGRICOLA for statistical likelihood of producing a relevant result. Google Scholar retrieved the most unique content, but almost half of that content was not judged relevant. AGRICOLA, BIOSIS and CAB retrieved the most unique and relevant content. This study will help researchers and librarians working in the agricultural disciplines to select the bibliographic databases that will provide the most relevant search results and are most likely to meet their research need. It may also serve as a template for future bibliographic research in other disciplines.","PeriodicalId":39287,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.29173/istl48","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/istl48","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Search result retrieval was compared across eight research literature databases (AGRICOLA, AGRIS, BIOSIS, CAB Direct, FSTA, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science) for three topics from different agricultural disciplines to compare retrieval results based on searcher experience. Precision, recall, and uniqueness were analyzed by rating search results (~2400 citations) for relevancy. A generalized linear model statistical analysis determined that AGRICOLA ranked highest for precision and was statistically more likely to produce a relevant result than four other databases. CAB and Web of Science ranked highest for recall and both overlapped with AGRICOLA for statistical likelihood of producing a relevant result. Google Scholar retrieved the most unique content, but almost half of that content was not judged relevant. AGRICOLA, BIOSIS and CAB retrieved the most unique and relevant content. This study will help researchers and librarians working in the agricultural disciplines to select the bibliographic databases that will provide the most relevant search results and are most likely to meet their research need. It may also serve as a template for future bibliographic research in other disciplines.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
农业信息精选书目数据库检索比较
对来自不同农业学科的三个主题的八个研究文献数据库(AGRICOLA、AGRIS、BIOSIS、CAB Direct、FSTA、Google Scholar、Scopus和Web of Science)的搜索结果检索进行了比较,以根据搜索者的经验比较检索结果。通过对搜索结果(~2400次引用)的相关性进行评级来分析准确性、召回率和唯一性。广义线性模型统计分析确定,AGRICOLA的精度最高,在统计上比其他四个数据库更有可能产生相关结果。CAB和Web of Science在召回方面排名最高,在产生相关结果的统计可能性方面均与AGRICOLA重叠。谷歌学者检索到了最独特的内容,但几乎一半的内容被认为不相关。AGRICOLA、BIOSIS和CAB检索到了最独特、最相关的内容。这项研究将帮助农业学科的研究人员和图书馆员选择能够提供最相关搜索结果、最有可能满足他们研究需求的书目数据库。它也可以作为其他学科未来书目研究的模板。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship
Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
The Value of Faculty Book Donations: A Case Study of Botany Books at Marx Science and Social Science Library, Yale University Librarian Support in Teaching Open Science Research Practices in Higher Education Addressing Equity and Affordability in Digital Study Tools for STEM and the Health Sciences: Possibilities for Library Involvement A Survey of Student Employment and Geospatial Services in Academic Libraries The Use of Preprints in Doctorate Programs: A Citation Analysis Study of Trends in Chemistry and Physics Dissertations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1