Examining biological abstracts on two platforms: What do end users need to know?

Science and Technology Libraries

Volumn 29, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 34-52

  Bandyopadhyay, Aditi ^a  

^a ADELPHI UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Database searching; End users' information seeking behavior; Information retrieval

Indexed keywords

BEST CHOICE; COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION; DATABASE SEARCHING; DIGITAL RESOURCES; END USERS; INFORMATION PROFESSIONALS; INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIORS; NATURAL LANGUAGE QUERIES; SEARCH MECHANISM; SEARCH RESULTS;

ABSTRACTING; DATABASE SYSTEMS; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL SYSTEMS; INFORMATION SERVICES; INFORMATION USE; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; SEARCH ENGINES;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

EID: 77949632093     PISSN: 0194262X     EISSN: 15411109     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01942620903579377     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Black J., and M. Clifford. 2000. Research in education. College & Research Libraries News 61 (1): 16-19.
2. Blair, J. 2005. A comparison of biological abstracts on EBSCO, Ovid, SilverPlatter, and ISI Web of Knowledge. The Charleston Advisor 6 (4): 5-11.
3. Brajnik, G., S. Mizzaro, C. Tasso, and F. Venuti. 2002. Strategic help in user interfaces for information retrieval. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53 (5): 343-358.
4. Drabenstott, K. M. 2003. Do nondomain experts enlist the strategies of domain experts? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54 (9): 836-854.
5. George, C., A. Bright, T. Hurlbert, E. C. Linke, G. St. Claire, and J. Stein. 2006. Scholarly use of information: Graduate students' information seeking behaviour. iR Information Research 11 (4). http://informationr.net/ir/ 11-4/paper272.html (accessed October 17, 2007).
6. Hass, S. W. 2003. Improving the search environment: Informed decision making in the search for statistical information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54 (8): 782-797.
7. Hsieh-Yee, I. 1993. Effects of search experience and subject knowledge on the search tactics of novice and experienced searchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 44 (3): 161-174.
8. Jatkevicius, J. 2000. Biological sciences databases in academic libraries: Comparing Cambridge Scientific Abstracts with BIOSIS. EContent 23 (1): 55-59.
9. Kent, D. 2005. Retrieving scholarly articles: A database comparison. Alki 21 (1): 33-34.
10. Marchlonini, G. 1992. Interfaces for end-user information seeking. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 43 (2): 156-163.
11. Markey, K. 2007. Twenty-five years of end-user searching, Part 1: Research findings. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 58 (8): 1071-1081.
12. Mellinger, M. and J. Nichols. 2007. Subject search disconnect. Contributed paper at the ACRL 13th National Conference, March 29-April 1, Baltimore, Maryland.
13. Othman, R. and N. S. Halim. 2004. Retrieval features for online databases: Common, unique, and expected. Online Information Review 28 (3): 200-210.
14. Sadeh, T. 2007. Time for a change: New approaches for a new generation of library users. New Library World 108 (7/8): 307-316.
15. Schaffer, T. 2001. Databases and political science research. Online Information Review 25 (1): 47-53.
16. Shen, Y. 2007. Information seeking in academic research: A study of the sociology faculty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Information Technology and Libraries 26 (1): 4-13.
17. Thomson ISI. 2007. Biological abstracts: Your key to the world's life sciences journals. http://scientific.thomson.com/products/ba (accessed February 21, 2008).
18. Vilar, P. and M. Zumer. 2005. Comparison and evaluation of the user interfaces of e-journals. Journal of Documentation 61 (2): 203-227.
19. Vine, R. 2001. Real people don't do Boolean: How to teach end users to find highquality information on the Internet. Information Outlook 5 (3): 16-23.
20. Weiler, A. 2005. Information-seeking behavior in generation Y students: Motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 31(1): 46-53.