IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1000204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools for the Next Generation Web

Author

Listed:
  • Duncan Hull
  • Steve R Pettifer
  • Douglas B Kell

Abstract

Many scientists now manage the bulk of their bibliographic information electronically, thereby organizing their publications and citation material from digital libraries. However, a library has been described as “thought in cold storage,” and unfortunately many digital libraries can be cold, impersonal, isolated, and inaccessible places. In this Review, we discuss the current chilly state of digital libraries for the computational biologist, including PubMed, IEEE Xplore, the ACM digital library, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Citeseer, arXiv, DBLP, and Google Scholar. We illustrate the current process of using these libraries with a typical workflow, and highlight problems with managing data and metadata using URIs. We then examine a range of new applications such as Zotero, Mendeley, Mekentosj Papers, MyNCBI, CiteULike, Connotea, and HubMed that exploit the Web to make these digital libraries more personal, sociable, integrated, and accessible places. We conclude with how these applications may begin to help achieve a digital defrost, and discuss some of the issues that will help or hinder this in terms of making libraries on the Web warmer places in the future, becoming resources that are considerably more useful to both humans and machines.

Suggested Citation

  • Duncan Hull & Steve R Pettifer & Douglas B Kell, 2008. "Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools for the Next Generation Web," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1000204
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barbara Cohen, 2004. "PLoS Biology in Action," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(1), pages 1-1, January.
    2. Wolfgang Glänzel & Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Journal impact measures in bibliometric research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(2), pages 171-193, February.
    3. Gunther Eysenbach, 2006. "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-1, May.
    4. Susanne DeRisi & Rebecca Kennison & Nick Twyman, 2003. "The What and Whys of DOIs," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 1(2), pages 1-1, November.
    5. Peter Murray-Rust, 2008. "Chemistry for everyone," Nature, Nature, vol. 451(7179), pages 648-651, February.
    6. Tim Brody & Stevan Harnad & Leslie Carr, 2006. "Earlier Web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(8), pages 1060-1072, June.
    7. Tim Berners-Lee & James Hendler, 2001. "Publishing on the semantic web," Nature, Nature, vol. 410(6832), pages 1023-1024, April.
    8. Mark Gerstein & Michael Seringhaus & Stanley Fields, 2007. "Structured digital abstract makes text mining easy," Nature, Nature, vol. 447(7141), pages 142-142, May.
    9. Philip E Bourne & J Lynn Fink & Mark Gerstein, 2008. "Open Access: Taking Full Advantage of the Content," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-3, March.
    10. Catriona J MacCallum & Hemai Parthasarathy, 2006. "Open Access Increases Citation Rate," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-1, May.
    11. Rachel Courtland, 2008. "Programs promise to end PDF paper-chase," Nature, Nature, vol. 453(7191), pages 12-12, May.
    12. Don R. Swanson & Neil R. Smalheiser & Vetle I. Torvik, 2006. "Ranking indirect connections in literature‐based discovery: The role of medical subject headings," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(11), pages 1427-1439, September.
    13. Steve Lawrence, 2001. "Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact," Nature, Nature, vol. 411(6837), pages 521-521, May.
    14. Catriona J MacCallum, 2007. "When Is Open Access Not Open Access?," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-3, October.
    15. Jane Qiu, 2008. "Scientific publishing: Identity crisis," Nature, Nature, vol. 451(7180), pages 766-767, February.
    16. Matthew E Falagas, 2006. "Unique Author Identification Number in Scientific Databases: A Suggestion," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(5), pages 1-1, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    2. Tanya Araújo & Elsa Fontainha, 2018. "Are scientific memes inherited differently from gendered authorship?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 953-972, November.
    3. Frank Mueller-Langer & Marc Scheufen, 2013. "Academic publishing and open access," Chapters, in: Ruth Towse & Christian Handke (ed.), Handbook on the Digital Creative Economy, chapter 32, pages 365-377, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "The alleged citation advantage of video abstracts may be a matter of self-citations and self-selection bias. Comment on “The impact of video abstract on citation counts” by Zong et al," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 751-757, January.
    5. Barbara McGillivray & Mathias Astell, 2019. "The relationship between usage and citations in an open access mega-journal," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 817-838, November.
    6. Gianfranco Carotenuto & Francesca Nicolais, 2023. "One Secret for a High Citation Rate," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-3, April.
    7. Jo Royle & Louisa Coles & Dorothy Williams & Paul Evans, 2007. "Publishing in international journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(1), pages 59-86, April.
    8. Juan Miguel Campanario, 2018. "Are leaders really leading? Journals that are first in Web of Science subject categories in the context of their groups," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 111-130, April.
    9. Dangzhi Zhao & Andreas Strotmann, 2020. "Telescopic and panoramic views of library and information science research 2011–2018: a comparison of four weighting schemes for author co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 255-270, July.
    10. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2010. "Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: could the latter ever be preferable?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 821-833, September.
    11. Christophe Boudry & Ghislaine Chartron, 2017. "Availability of digital object identifiers in publications archived by PubMed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(3), pages 1453-1469, March.
    12. Jian Zhang & Michael S. Vogeley & Chaomei Chen, 2011. "Scientometrics of big science: a case study of research in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 86(1), pages 1-14, January.
    13. Johannes Sorz & Wolfgang Glänzel & Ursula Ulrych & Christian Gumpenberger & Juan Gorraiz, 2020. "Research strengths identified by esteem and bibliometric indicators: a case study at the University of Vienna," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1095-1116, November.
    14. Alexander Cuntz & Frank Mueller-Langer & Alessio Muscarnera & Prince C. Oguguo & Marc Scheufen, 2024. "Access to science and innovation in the developing world," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 78, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division.
    15. Bárbara S. Lancho-Barrantes & Vicente P. Guerrero-Bote & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2010. "The iceberg hypothesis revisited," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 443-461, November.
    16. Jerome K. Vanclay, 2012. "Impact factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 211-238, August.
    17. Tang, Xuli & Li, Xin & Ding, Ying & Song, Min & Bu, Yi, 2020. "The pace of artificial intelligence innovations: Speed, talent, and trial-and-error," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    18. Juan Miguel Campanario & Jesús Carretero & Vera Marangon & Antonio Molina & Germán Ros, 2011. "Effect on the journal impact factor of the number and document type of citing records: a wide-scale study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 75-84, April.
    19. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2023. "Correlating article citedness and journal impact: an empirical investigation by field on a large-scale dataset," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1877-1894, March.
    20. Bertoli-Barsotti, Lucio & Lando, Tommaso, 2019. "How mean rank and mean size may determine the generalised Lorenz curve: With application to citation analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 387-396.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1000204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.