Exporting Citations/Bibliographies in ProQuest and Scopus

[tweetmeme source=”Intellogist” only_single=false]

Creation of citations (or bibliographies, to be specific) within non-patent literature search systems is an important feature for professional searchers. It allows searchers to translate their relevant search results into a convenient format for the recipient of the search. It’s crucial that this process be standardized and easy for the prior art searchers to conduct, so that information is not lost in the process. Another great benefit of a well-developed system is that the search recipient can develop a system to use the results, such as purchasing full versions of what may only have been bibliographic and abstract information. Reflecting these issues, there has been an increase in the profile of reference manager software, such as RefWorks and Zotero. ProQuest and Scopus tap into this development; both systems use technology developed by RefWorks.

To that end, we’ll take a look at how two well established non-patent literature search systems handle the creation of citations/bibliographies: ProQuest and Scopus.

Continue reading

Web of Science vs. Scopus: Which is better? (Part 2)

[tweetmeme source=”Intellogist” only_single=false]

As a student, I enjoy the extreme privilege of being able to access almost any information resources I need for research purposes, thanks to the extensive university library network.  But for those of us in the commercial search world, things aren’t so easy.  Comparing major search products is essential when search resources are limited (which is always!). Last time in this series we examined the number of titles in Web of Science  vs. Scopus, and the overlap between the two.  In this post we’ll discover some other points of comparison in their collection scope and coverage.

Continue reading

Web of Science vs. Scopus: Which is better? (Part 1)

[tweetmeme source=”Intellogist” only_single=false]

At Intellogist, we’ve spent a long time comparing the coverage information for various patent search systems. This is harder to do than it sounds. What patenting authorities are covered? What document types are covered for each collection (e.g. patents, applications, utility models)? What are the earliest years of coverage? Do the documents exist as individual database records, or are they aggregated into patent families? Are machine translations keyword-searchable? Are human translations available? In the Intellogist Quick Comparison tool, we attempted to boil these questions down to their simplest forms. However, when it comes to coverage comparisons for non-patent literature, no such comparison is possible.  So how can these products be compared?  In this new series I’ll be taking a look at some attributes of two major academic literature collections, Web of Science and Scopus.

Continue reading

Are you keeping up with the latest non-patent literature developments?

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter
[tweetmeme source=”Intellogist” only_single=false]

Does anybody else out there read the InfoToday newsbreaks or EcontentMag regularly? Information Today, Inc. hosts these great news services – you can subscribe via e-mail or get them in your RSS reader. Whenever I find out about a new development from a “non-patent” search provider, chances are it’s on their news feeds. There are lots of recent developments in the non-patent arena that I wanted to highlight:  Wiley replaces Interscience with a new platform, Elsevier releases SciVerse to aggregate all of their science search platforms, and ProQuest rolls out the much anticipated “ProQuest Dialog” platform.

Continue reading