Why Do You Still Use Dewey?

Shorten, Jay; Seikel, Michele; Ahrberg, Janet H.

doi:10.5860/lrts.49n2.123

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Those systems are the most prominent because the databases to which they are mainly applied are central in research discovery, and accordingly, researchers rely on the subject filters based on those classifications. Next to WOS and ASJC, other prominent classification systems include OECD’s Field of Science and Technology (FOS) (OECD, 2007 ), or the Dewey system that was continuously replaced by the Library of Congress classification used in libraries (Shorten et al, 2005 ). These classification systems mostly rely on manual curation mechanisms at the journal level to classify records (Waltman & van Eck, 2012 ).…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases

Gusenbauer

2022

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper introduces a novel scientometrics method and applies it to estimate the subject coverages of many of the popular English-focused bibliographic databases in academia. The method uses query results as a common denominator to compare a wide variety of search engines, repositories, digital libraries, and other bibliographic databases. The method extends existing sampling-based approaches that analyze smaller sets of database coverages. The findings show the relative and absolute subject coverages of 56 databases—information that has often not been available before. Knowing the databases’ absolute subject coverage allows the selection of the most comprehensive databases for searches requiring high recall/sensitivity, particularly relevant in lookup or exploratory searches. Knowing the databases’ relative subject coverage allows the selection of specialized databases for searches requiring high precision/specificity, particularly relevant in systematic searches. The findings illustrate not only differences in the disciplinary coverage of Google Scholar, Scopus, or Web of Science, but also of less frequently analyzed databases. For example, researchers might be surprised how Meta (discontinued), Embase, or Europe PMC are found to cover more records than PubMed in Medicine and other health subjects. These findings should encourage researchers to re-evaluate their go-to databases, also against newly introduced options. Searching with more comprehensive databases can improve finding, particularly when selecting the most fitting databases needs particular thought, such as in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This comparison can also help librarians and other information experts re-evaluate expensive database procurement strategies. Researchers without institutional access learn which open databases are likely most comprehensive in their disciplines.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases

Gusenbauer

2022

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Libraries prefer to spend money on other projects rather than reclassification exercises, even if resources are available. 11 Shorten et al's study has indicated that about 29% of the libraries surveyed considered reclassification between 1980 and 2003. 12 This is quite consistent with the results of another survey on the status of reclassification in academic research libraries conducted by Steele and Foote in 2009, which showed that 17 out of the 57 members of the Association of Research Libraries (30%) were investing staff time and resources in reclassification of some type in spite of gloomy economic times for many libraries.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 96%

Why Change to the Chinese Classification Scheme? A Case Study in an Academic Library

Liu

Kwok

Chan

2012

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a background for the change of the classification system for Chinese language materials at an academic library. It describes how the decision was made; how choices on partial reclassification or total reclassification were made; and how matters such as project planning, implementation, and vision for the future are being handled. It is hoped that the authors' experience can offer tips for other libraries contemplating reclassification projects. By making use of the Chinese Library Classification (CLC) numbers from various sources in Mainland China, the authors envisage increased cataloging efficiency and cost saving in the long run.

show abstract

Bibliography

2014

From Knowledge Abstraction to Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why Do You Still Use Dewey?

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases

Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases

Why Change to the Chinese Classification Scheme? A Case Study in an Academic Library

Bibliography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About