In a press release, CAS Science spotlight ratings show journals‘ significance for scientists. Real-Time Document Requests (RDR) for full-text articles transmitted via CAS search services sollen eine bessere Evaluierung von Zeitschriftenartikeln ermöglichen. Gleichzeitig wird ein (kostenfreier) Zitationstool angeboten: The Medical Sciences category identifies the most highly cited medical science documents appearing in the 1999-2003 published literature and appearing in journals covered by CAS. Leider werden nur die obersten 10 Journale angezeigt, von daher ist die folgende CAS-Aussage irreführend: Visitors […] can compare the „Most Cited“ articles of 2003 versus the „Most Requested“ articles of 2003. Typically, there is little if any correlation between the two lists – possibly indicating authors sometimes cite articles mainly because they have been cited by other researchers. aus STLQ
Das folgende Paper untersucht die Nutzung elektronischer und gedruckter Ressourcen an 4 Academic Health Sciences Libraries in den USA: B.Franklin & T.Plum: „Library usage patterns in the electronic information environment“ In: Information Research, Vol. 9 No. 4, July 2004. Eine von mehreren interessanten Resultaten/Empfehlungen dieser Studie: Further, many libraries are re-inventing their library as a place to attract grant funded researchers and scientists into the library. It may be felt that the lack of researchers or grant-funded scientists physically present in the library is a result of dissatisfaction with or disinterest in library services. The data presented here support the notion that the library is indeed doing its job, and delivering resources electronically to its patrons, even though they do not come into the library. To reach funded researchers, the library should offer more electronic services in a virtual library, and not worry about their lack of attendance in the physical library. Aus dem Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog.
Ist das Open Choice Modell von Springer (gebloggt am 5.7.2004) derartig hochpreisig und unfreundlich gestaltet worden, nur um den Mißerfolg von Autorengebühren und damit von Open Access zu „beweisen“? Aus dem Sept. 2004-Heft (Seite 7) von Cites & Insights: One rival says Springer’s plan represents little more than a ‚public relations initiative.‘ It is an accusation Mr. Haank [CEO von Springer] would likely deny, although he does appear to relish the challenge he is presenting to some academics to put their money where their protest are. „Let’s see how serious they really are…we expect that not more than 10 percent will be interested in this option,“ he says. As Suber notes, „Haank sounds as if his plan is designed more to generate low uptake, and ground a rebuke to OA advocates, than to test the waters in good faith.“ Sure sounds that way to this interested observer.
In MedlinePlus gibt es nun eine neue Kategorie Understanding Medical Research mit sehr lesenswerten Artikeln. Basiswissen für Medizinbibliothekare!
In accordance with the Washington Principles, Cell Press is pleased to announce that access to the recent online archive of Cell and the other premier journals of the Cell Press collection will become freely available beginning in January 2005. The recent archive of these journals includes content that is 12 months old or older and dating back to content from 1995. Each month as new issues are published, the year old issues will be added to the freely accessible recent archive.
Das waren die guten Neuigkeiten und hier kommen die nicht-so-guten: The archive from 1994 and earlier is available for a one time purchase [Cell Press Backfiles on ScienceDirect]. This material consists of the following journals:
- Cell 1974-1994
- Neuron 1988-1994
- Immunity 1994
- Current Biology 1990-1994
- Structure 1993-1994
- Chemistry & Biology 1994
This material is only available as a bundle and has only recently been created by scanning hard copies of the journals and extracting the metadata for each article. As you may imagine, this was not an inexpensive exercise and is priced differently from the standard ScienceDirect approach of 2.5% of the price of the printed volume. Keith Wollman, personal communication. Ja, der Preis, der Preis! 1€ pro Artikel ist mir dann doch zu teuer…