Feature
As publishers and platform hosts root out discovery issues one by one, the path to clear- cut discovery is unfolding, writes Rebecca Pool
For many researchers searching for scholarly content, databases such as Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar, are the springboard. Each database is practical to use, offers numerous search facilities, and in the case of PubMed and Google Scholar, is free. Crucially, each houses a staggeringly
vast array of different types of content, which Jessica Turner, head of scientific research business at Web of Science provider, Clarivate Analytics, believes will always be key to discovery. As she points out, a hefty 96 million
records over 32,000 journals are contained within the Web of Science, with some dating back to 1900. ‘This includes a core collection of globally significant literature but also regional citation indexes such as the Chinese Science Citation Database and SciELO for Latin America,’ she says. ‘We also have specialist databases in many subject areas as well as books, proceedings and data-sets to cover the full scholarly communication life-cycle.’ Citation indexes are a key feature of
Web of Science, with citation analysis – tracking the number of times an article has been cited by other articles – offering invaluable insight to article impact. Indeed, Turner reckons such a citation network lies at the foundations of discovery, allowing researchers to make so much more with their list of search results. ‘This provides a much broader
discovery experience, so researchers can look at relevant work across disciplines and regions,’ she says. ‘We like to think this supports serendipitous discovery, enabling researchers to look at less obvious relationships and expand scientific discovery.’
www.researchinformation.info | @researchinfo
But according to Turner, the quality of the metadata collected by the Web of Science is also instrumental to discovery, with every journal in the database being indexed ‘cover to cover’. ‘We collect information accurately about every institution, which allows our analytics to be as accurate as possible,’ she adds. Content discovery manager, Mike
Roberts, at Emerald Publishing, UK, couldn’t agree more. Having recently taken part in the company’s strategic content discovery program, intended to increase the visibility of research output, he believes the quality and timeliness of metadata records significantly influence discoverability. ‘Our MARC and KBART records were
always quite good, but now they’re very good,’ he says. ‘One thing we had fallen down on though, was we weren’t releasing these to librarians quickly enough, so we now have workflows to optimise delivery of all metadata as soon as possible after publication.’ ‘It’s also extremely important to ensure that metadata held at Crossref is as complete and up-to-date as possible,’ he adds. ‘There are so many services built on, and using, Crossref data that it’s absolutely fundamental to content discovery.’ As part of the strategy program, Roberts
and colleagues have also been working on ways to publicise the company’s discovery activities, using product-specific checklists well as the Open Discovery Initiative from the National Information Standards Organisation, NISO. ‘We’re also establishing close working
relationships outside of Emerald, with, for example, Google Scholar, ProQuest, EBSCO and WorldCat, to make sure that g
“The quality of the metadata collected by the Web of Science is also instrumental to discovery”
June/July 2017 Research Information 5
Mopic/
Shutterstock.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
