ningbi的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/ningbi

博文

SCI数据库与Google Scholar居然合作了 精选

已有 7773 次阅读 2013-11-13 22:29 |个人分类:文献情报|系统分类:论文交流|关键词:Google,SCI| google, SCI

本狭隘地以为,SCI和Google Scholar是竞争关系,SCI做的是引文数据库,Google Scholar也做了引文,直接竞争呀~没想到二者居然合作了已经!

一个英文的新闻:Thomson Reuters-Google Scholar Linkage Offers Big Win for STM Users and Publishers, 网址:http://www.against-the-grain.com/2013/11/newsflash-thomson-reuters-google-scholar-linkage-offers-big-win-for-stm-users-and-publishers/,核心内容:

Outsell reports that “A new partnership promises tomake citation research and analysis easier for researchers and libraries alike.ImportantDetails: Doing citation research and analysis just got awhole lot easier. Thomson Reuters’ Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar areannouncing a major new partnership between their services at this week’s Charleston Conference. Thissummer, the two companies piloted linking their content at more than 125leading university research institutions worldwide. When Google Scholar usersat the participating institutions hit the Scholar search results page, they seea new Web of Science link directly in the results, under the article preview,as part of Scholar’s familiar navigation bar. On Web of Science, subscribersnow can move directly from a Web of Science record to a Scholar search on thesame item. Thomson Reuters’ reports it saw a 2-3 times spike in its traffic atthe pilot sites, perhaps not surprising given Scholar’s role as the startingpoint for many researchers. The two companies had discussions over the yearsabout closer interlinking from open web search to the Web of Science’s articlecitation records. But the deal did not materialize until earlier this year withThomson Reuters’ Scholarly and Scientific Research Managing Director GordonMacomber’s arrival at the Thomson Reuters Intellectual Property & Science businessunit. Thomson Reuters conducted specific market research on end-user andlibrarian needs. The linkage to Google Scholar was near the top of the list. Macomberobserved that if users weren’t one click away from connecting their researchtools to researcher needs, a service like Web of Science could become much lessrelevant. With this philosophy, the deal between the two giants occurredquickly. The program is designed to work in conjunction with Google’s Library Links,article-level links to subscription full text for patrons affiliated with aparticipating library. The new reciprocal linking functionality will roll outto the 4,000+ Web of Science academic customer base over the next two to threemonths with the goal of January 2014 completion. While Thomson Reuters is thefirst STM player to work with Google in this highly integrated manner, therelationship is non-exclusive. So, the door is now open to the other majorscientific index players, Elsevier’sScopus and NIH’sPubMed Central, toenter into a reciprocal linking arrangement. (Scholar already indexes PubMedCentral and provides easy links from search to the service, but PMC does notfacilitate the return to Google Scholar.) The partnership specifically benefitsscientists and researchers performing in-depth citation history research. Theseend-users need such functionality to understand how a particular piece ofcontent ’” journal article, conference proceeding or research data ’” impactsother researchers. Citation metrics are particularly useful in helpingresearchers find the right co-authors and collaborators for funding. Implications: Whodoes this relationship benefit more ’” Google Scholar or Thomson Reuters? Theanswer is both, in spades. But, most importantly, relationships such as thisone benefit STM end-users, who face myriad issues when conducting basicresearch in today’s complex and cross-disciplinary scientific informationlandscape (see Outsell’s Market Report, Research Analytics in STM: Current Issues & Outlook, published April 1, 2013). Study after studycomparing Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed Central show thateach service has its particular strengths and weaknesses in terms of coverage.So, the STM researcher must either know ’” or learn the hard way ’” thesedifferences, conducting repetitive searches on different services. In today’stime-crunched world, researchers usually do not tolerate this approach for verylong, so biases creep into their search behaviors. Google Scholar has naturallybenefited from its position as a free, easy-to-use service. But using Scholaralone for research impact analysis is not always the best or most thoroughapproach because its indexed content base is purposefully less filtered. Forexample, it includes pre-print and non-peer reviewed content ’” all potentiallyuseful, but sometimes adding to the noise for researchers. Users typically findmore than they need on Google Scholar and have to de-dupe and sort through theresults. Thomson Reuters recognizes the next best approach to adifficult-to-achieve “one stop” service is the Google Scholar “one-click’ partnership. It is likely to please the company’s end-users and librarycustomer base. Moreover, the company is not charging a separate fee for theintegration, understanding that the traffic benefits to its Web of Scienceplatform will pay off at renewal time when institutional customers measuresubstantially increased usage. The partnership is a win-win for all parties vs.a competitive threat. It addresses the realities of today’s scientific researchenvironment for researchers and the librarians who support them. It is hard notto imagine that the other major players in the space, Elsevier’s Scopus andNIH’s PubMed Central, as well as smaller specialized abstracts and indexes willwant to do the same thing. Of course, Google Scholar’s utility increases withsuch partnerships. Some STM publishers still fear being disintermediated,despite Scholar’s history of driving large amounts of traffic to theirwebsites. In fact, a large chunk of STM transactional revenue might not evenoccur without Google Scholar. Scholarly publishers’ real concern ought to be aGoogle decision to kill Scholar, which has now existed for 10 years without avisible business model. Despite Google’s denials and “no-comments,’ Scholar is still susceptible to a potential cutback. On the other hand,with the new Web of Science relationship and others like it, Google Scholarreinforces its position as a singular discovery tool ’” and that fulfills onGoogle’s ongoing mission to organize the world’s information.”



http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-408109-741515.html

上一篇:贺Petroleum Exploration and Development被SCI收录
下一篇:Plos One的文章并不主要来自中国(数据至20131122)

12 蔡小宁 曹聪 许培扬 方晓汾 王桂颖 占礼葵 王贤文 苏力宏 任胜利 王启云 孟庆勋 LetPub编辑

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (6 个评论)

数据加载中...
扫一扫,分享此博文

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2019-1-16 18:59

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部