ScopusScopus- An Overview
Presented by Virginia Chiu
Agenda
1. How did we develop Scopus?
2. Why Scopus?
Agenda
1. How did we develop Scopus?
2. Why Scopus?
How did we develop Scopus
Why Develop Scopus? Navigation is the Next Big Thing:
There is simply too much information available And too little time to search it all On the web, in databases, in libraries
Users and librarians told us they want A simple, single entry-point to the world’s scientific information Easy to use Combining official publications and everything on the web Integrated with other library resources And with the full text only one click away
Elsevier wants to supply researchers with workflow tools that increase their productivity
Starting from the users’ needs
If we understand the
researcher workflow
we can design better
products
So we significantly
invest in user-based
design
?X!
How do users cope with How do users cope with
this complex environment?this complex environment?
WebsitesWebsitesand digital and digital archivesarchives
Peer Peer reviewedreviewed literatureliterature
ScienceScienceMedicineMedicineTechnologyTechnologySocial sciencesSocial sciences
PatentsPatents
Institutional Institutional repositoriesrepositories
Searching the four domains
How we conduct usability testing
Sit together at user’s site Use combination of functional prototype and static
pages One hour structured interview
Discuss professional background, current research, level of computer expertise, information sources they use
Let user explore the prototype, doing searches, minimal prompting
Go through specific parts of the product and let user do specific tasks, stimulate ‘thinking aloud’
User carries out work and explains
Finding new articles in a familiar subject field Finding author-related information
articles by a specific author information that would help in evaluating a
specific author Staying up-to-date Getting an overview or understanding of a new
subject field
Learned to facilitate the major
tasks
Content Selection Criteria Content Selection Committee (consisting of 20
scientist and 10 subject librarians) installed Suggest new titles/sources Yearly approval of title list Contribute to overall strategy
Important criteria At least abstract in English Regular publication Peer review/quality
Scopus for Researchers
Designed and developed with users to meet their needs:
better navigation through the research literature easy evaluation of scientific information
Researchers want to find the information they need,
not become expert searchers They want a tool that’s as easy to use as web search
but delivers precise results That takes them to the full-text article they’re
subscribed to in just one click
Agenda
1. How did we develop Scopus?
2. Why Scopus
用 Google 搜尋 , 超過五百萬筆資料 ?!
用 Google Scholar 搜尋 , 超過十萬筆資料 ?!
WebsitesWebsitesand digital and digital archivesarchives
Peer Peer reviewedreviewed
literatureliterature
ScienceScienceMedicineMedicineTechnologyTechnologySocial sciencesSocial sciences
PatentsPatents
Institutional Institutional repositoriesrepositories
有效的搜尋工具
Linking back to all Linking back to all
four domains from the four domains from the
Abstract pageAbstract page
Author Identifier +
Citation Tracker
Web & Patent Citations
Scopus records now link to Cited By for… Cited By – Web Sources Cited By – Patents
Sources include:
Web Sources
MIT Open Courseware
Toronto T-Space – UofT repository
DiVA – repository of a number of Scandinavian U’s
Caltech – Institutional Repository
NDLTD – Theses and Dissertations
PatentUSPTO – US Patent Office
EPO – European Patent Office
WIPO – World Intellectual Property Organization
Why is it important?
Leads researchers to relevant web and patent information
that might have been missed otherwise
Expands the available content for users
It is an additional quality indicator: Thesis and dissertations Preprint servers Patents – These are high quality sources
It makes a clear distinction between peer-reviewed cited by’s
(Scopus) and non-peer reviewed cited by’s (Web & Patent)
Example I - Lee, C.K.
Example II - Ju, S.P.
Evaluating scientific research output
Why is evaluation so important?Case study – evaluating an author
Why do we evaluate scientific output
Government Funding Agencies Institutions Faculties Libraries Researchers
Funding allocations Grant Allocations Policy Decisions Benchmarking Promotion Collection management
Criteria for effective evaluation
Objective Quantitative Relevant variables Independent variables (avoid bias) Globally comparative
Why do we evaluate authors?
Promotion Funding Grants Policy changes Research tracking
Important to get it right
Broad title coverage Affiliation names Author names Including co-authors References Subject categories ISSN (e and print) Article length (page numbers) Publication year Language Keywords Article type Etcetera …
Data requirements for evaluation
Citation counts Article counts Usage counts
There are limitations that complicate author evaluation
Data limitations
Author disambiguation Normalising Affiliations Subject allocations may vary Matching authors to affiliations Deduplication/grouping Etcetera
Finding/matching all relevant information to evaluate authors is difficult
The Challenge: finding an author
How to distinguish results between those belonging to one author and those belonging to other authors who share the same name?
How to be confident that your search has captured all results for an author when their name is recorded in different ways?
How to be sure that names with unusual characters such as accents have been included – including all variants?
The Solution: Author Disambiguation
We have approached solving these problems by using the
data available in the publication records such as Author Names Affiliation Co-authors Self citations Source title Subject area
… and used this data to group articles that belong
to a specific author
Step 1: Searching for an author
Enter name in Author Search box
Professor Chua-Chin WangNational Sun Yat-sen University組別 : 系統晶片組學術專長 : 積體電路設計、通信界面電路設計、類神經網路實驗室名稱 :VLSI 設計實驗室研究室分機 : 4144
Step 2: Select Professor WangAvailable information
Which author are you looking for?
Step 3: Details of Professor Wang
Unique Author ID & matched documents
No 100% recall…
The same author with different author ID’s
Why were these not matched?
Quality above all: Precision (>99%) was given priority over recall (>95%)
Not enough information to match with enough certainty For instance affiliations missing or different departments, and
all different co-authors or
no co-authors, no shared references
As there are many millions of authors there will be
unmatched papers and authors
Solution: Author Feedback
Feedback loop includes check
by dedicated team to insure accuracy
Dedicated team investigating
feedback requests to guarantee quality
Evaluation Data
Instant citation overview for an author
… we have matched the author to documents – now what?
Step 4: The citation overview
Excluding self citations
Export to excel for further analysis
But not:
Conclusion
Search has had a significant impact on how researchers
work and scientific publishing Scientists have very specific needs and rely heavily on
their ability to find the information they need General web search engines are not the answer
Enable users to get the most out of large content collections
without needing knowledge of syntax Ensure the discovery tool fits with the researcher's workflow
Thank you!
Top Related