1 / 12

Deconstructing the literature of fisheries oceanography

or. Deconstructing the literature of fisheries oceanography. Joan Parker MLML/MBARI Research Library. Methods: Database Selection. ASFA Zoological Record Biosis. Web of Science Google Scholar Fish and Fisheries Worldwide Scopus. Methods: Search Strategy.

reece
Download Presentation

Deconstructing the literature of fisheries oceanography

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. or Deconstructing the literature of fisheries oceanography Joan Parker MLML/MBARI Research Library

  2. Methods: Database Selection ASFA Zoological Record Biosis Web of Science Google Scholar Fish and Fisheries Worldwide Scopus

  3. Methods: Search Strategy Why not fisheries oceanography? Only ASFA uses this phrase as a descriptor. Mesoscale variability Sst Sea surface temperature* Oceanic conditions Oceanographic features El nino La nina ENSO Regime shift* Recruitment Community structure Larval assemblages Population dynamics Larval aggregations and Limited to publication years 2000-2004 to avoid currency issue

  4. Methods: Quantitative Index Analysis of overlap using Index of Similarity Si = a/a+b+c Where: a = common to a and b b= found in a but not b c= found in b not a

  5. Methods: Overlap of What? Sources Citations Dropped citations Controlled vocabulary Unique sources Less work Matched citations. Double-checked unmatched citations in each database. Arrived at two measures of similarity: absolute and apparent.

  6. Results: Similarity Index Sample Size Total citations 602 Citations in ASFA 205 Citations in Biosis 99 Citations in ZR 298 Similarity Index Values Absolute Apparent ASFA – Biosis .51 Biosis - Zoo Record .62 ASFA - Zoo Record .66 ASFA – Biosis .47 Biosis - Zoo Record .46 ASFA - Zoo Record .44 Statistically significant?

  7. Results: Unmatched Citations Took unmatched citations and noted source. Categorized as book, grey literature, unique journal or unique citation i.e. issue/article missing from database. 36% of unique items from ASFA 36% of unique items *not* from ASFA 61% of unique items due to missing issue 10% due to unique sources

  8. Results: Unmatched Citations Examined 89 citations, noting source and database. Blank space means citation not found in database.

  9. Results: Unmatched Citations

  10. Results: Core literature

  11. Results: Core literature

  12. more than Discussion Databases more similar than different using the absolute SI values, but not the apparent values. Why? Does Zoological Record have a new indexing policy? How can we help plug holes in ASFA’s coverage of the core? Why not recommend Google Scholar? Are metasearch engines an answer?

More Related