Using MEDLINE as a knowledge source for disambiguating abbreviations in full-text biomedical journal articles

Author(s):  
Hong Yu ◽  
Won Kim ◽  
V. Hatzivassiloglou ◽  
W. John Wilbur
2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Bretonnel Cohen ◽  
Arrick Lanfranchi ◽  
Miji Joo-young Choi ◽  
Michael Bada ◽  
William A. Baumgartner ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Duffield ◽  
Sarah Fallon ◽  
Jean Stopford

AbstractThe team responsible for Legal Journals Index explain how journal articles are selected, indexed and loaded to this online legal information service provided by Sweet & Maxwell. They outline the history of LJI and discuss the criteria for determining which journals are included in the service; how the Articles team decides which articles will be indexed; the content of an LJI index entry; how an abstract is written; the use of the taxonomy; the full text journals service on Westlaw; and the work of the Document Delivery team.


BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. e021753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Price ◽  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
Helen McAneney

ObjectiveMany journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers.Design and settingWe conducted online surveys (November–December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities.ParticipantsParticipants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers.ResultsWe received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%–77%); 20%–36% and 3%–4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal’s website (80%–83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%–23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal’s website, while 24%–33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere.ConclusionsAuthors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste.Trial registration numberNCT02961036.


2017 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob L. Nash, MSLIS, AHIP ◽  
Karen R. McElfresh, MSLS, AHIP

Objective: The research describes an extensible method of evaluating and cancelling electronic journals during a budget shortfall and evaluates implications for interlibrary loan (ILL) and user satisfaction.Methods: We calculated cost per use for cancellable electronic journal subscriptions (n=533) from the 2013 calendar year and the first half of 2014, cancelling titles with cost per use greater than $20 and less than 100 yearly uses. For remaining titles, we issued an online survey asking respondents to rank the importance of journals to their work. Finally, we gathered ILL requests and COUNTER JR2 turnaway reports for calendar year 2015.Results: Three hundred fifty-four respondents completed the survey. Because of the level of heterogeneity of titles in the survey as well as respondents’ backgrounds, most titles were reported to be never used. We developed criteria based on average response across journals to determine which to cancel. Based on this methodology, we cancelled eight journals. Examination of ILL data revealed that none of the cancelled titles were requested with any frequency. Free-text responses indicated, however, that many value free ILL as a suitable substitute for immediate full-text access to biomedical journal literature.Conclusions: Soliciting user feedback through an electronic survey can assist collections librarians to make electronic journal cancellation decisions during slim budgetary years. This methodology can be adapted and improved upon at other health sciences libraries.


Author(s):  
Jeyakumar Natarajan ◽  
Cliff Haines ◽  
Brian Berglund ◽  
Catherine DeSesa ◽  
Catherine J. Hack ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document