Digital libraries and multi-disciplinary research skills

Libres

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2004, Pages

  Thelwall, Mike ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 6944226178     PISSN: 10586768     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Almind, T.C., & Ingwersen, P. (1997). Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: Methodological approaches to "webometrics." Journal of Documentation, 53 (4), 404-426.
2. Arms, W.Y. (2001). Uniform resource names: Handles, PURLs, and digital object identifiers. Communications of the ACM, 44(5), 68.
3. BBC. (2003). Baccalaureate could replace A-levels, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2680099.stm
4. Bessant, J., Birley, S., Cooper, C., Dawson, S., Gennard, J., Gardiner, M., Gray, A., Jones, P., Mayer, C., McGee, J., Pidd, M., Rowley, G., Saunders, J., & Stark, A. (2003). The state of the field in UK management research: Reflections of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) panel. British Journal of Management, 14 (1), 51-68.
5. Borgman, C., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science & Technology36, 3-72.
6. Bradford, S.C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. British Journal of Engineering, 137, 85-86.
7. Cruickshank, J. (2002). The role of scientific literature in scholarly communication. Science & Technology Libraries, 22(3-4), 71-100.
8. Davis, M. (1997). Scientific papers and presentations. London: Academic Press.
9. du Gay, P., Evans, J., & Redman, P. (2000). Identity: A reader. London: Sage.
10. du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (1997). Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman. London: Sage.
11. Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of a process: A critique and a proposal. College Composition and Communication, 48, 527-542.
12. Foster, A., & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: An empirical study. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 321-340.
13. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. NY: Pantheon.
14. Fox, E.A., & Urs, S.R. (2002). Digital libraries. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 503-589.
15. Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178, 471-479
16. Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
17. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage.
18. Gross, A.G., Harmon, J.E., & Reidy, M.S. (2002). Communicating Science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press Inc.
19. Halliday, L., & Oppenheim, C. (2001). Developments in digital journals. Journal of Documentation, 57(2), 260-283.
20. Harnad, S., & Carr, L. (2000). Integrating, navigating, and analysing open eprint archives through open citation linking (the OpCit project). Current Science, 79(5), 629-638.
21. Hess, D.J. (1995). Science and technology in a multicultural world: The cultural politics of facts and artefacts. New York: Columbia University Press.
22. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
23. House, E.R. (1994). Integrating the quantitative and qualitative. In: C. S. Reichhardt & S. F. Rallis (Eds.) The qualitative-quantitative debate: New Perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (pp. 13-22).
24. Howell, D.C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology. Duxbury: Pacific Grove, USA.
25. Hyland, K. (2000), Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow: Longman.
26. Hyland, K. (2003). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 251-259.
27. Jascó, P. (2003). Savvy searching. Online Information Review, 27(3), 207-210.
28. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences in the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1306-1320.
29. Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd. edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
31. Magueijo, J. (1998). Electronic archives and the death of journals, available at: http://theory.ic.ac.uk/~magueijo/com.pdf
32. McNay, I. (2003). Assessing the assessment: An analysis of the UK Research Assessment Exercise, 2001, and its outcomes, with special reference to research in education. Science and Public Policy30(1), 47-54.
33. Meadows, A.J. (1998). Communicating research. Boston: Academic Press.
34. Merton, R.K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Nicholas, D., Huntington, P., & Watkinson, A. (2003). Digital journals, Big Deals and online searching behaviour: A pilot study. Aslib Proceedings55(1/2), 84-109.
36. Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. Columbia University Press.
37. Rees, M. (2002). Not worth the paper. New Scientist, 2370, 27.
38. Small, H. (1999). Visualising science through citation mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(9), 799-812.
39. Storey, J. (1996). What is cultural studies?: A reader. London: Edward Arnold.
40. Swales, J. M., & Lindemann, S. (2001). Teaching the literature review to international graduate students. In: A. Johns, (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Swanson, D.R., & Smalheiser, N.R. (1997). An interactive system for finding complementary literatures: A stimulus to scientific discovery. Artificial Intelligence, 91(2), 183-203.
42. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology. London: Sage.
43. Vaughan, L., & Shaw, D. (2003). Bibliographic and web citations: What is the difference? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54 (14), 1313-1322.
44. Wager, E., Godlee F., & Jefferson, T. (2002). How to survive peer review. London: BMJ Books.
45. Weigold, M.F. (2001). Communicating science: A review of the literature. Science Communication, 23(2), 164-193.
46. Withey, R. (2003). (Mis)understanding the digital media revolution. Aslib Proceedings55(1/2), 18-22.
47. Woolgar, S. (1988). Science: The very idea. London: Routledge.