Comparison of Selected Bibliographic Database Subject Overlap for Agricultural Information
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29173/istl1727Abstract
Agricultural researchers and science librarians must understand which research literature databases provide the most comprehensive coverage of agricultural subjects to support their inquiries. Once the domain of a few specialized databases, agricultural research literature is now covered by broad, multidisciplinary databases. The purpose of this study is to determine the most comprehensive database(s) for agricultural literature searching. We compared the coverage of eight bibliographic databases for a range of agricultural sub-topics to determine how much overlap exists and which database(s) best support discovery of agricultural research literature. We found that the multidisciplinary databases provided the most comprehensive coverage, along with one of the agriculture-specific databases. This study will help researchers and librarians determine where to invest their effort and resources when looking to find agricultural research content.
Downloads
References
Bastian, M., Heymann, S. & Jacomy, M. 2009. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: Third International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 2009 May 17-20; San Jose, CA. p. 361-362. [accessed 2017 Oct 16]. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/09/paper/view/154
Baum, C., El-Tohamy, W. & Gruda, N. 2015. Increasing the productivity and product quality of vegetable crops using arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: A review. Scientia Horticulturae 187:131-141. DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.03.002
Baykoucheva, S. 2010. Selecting a database for drug literature retrieval: A comparison of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science. Science and Technology Libraries 29(4):276-288. DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2010.522946
Brown, B.N. 2007. A comparative analysis of ecology literature databases. In: Special Libraries Association: Issues and Innovations in Biomedical and Life Sciences Librarianship Contributed Papers. Denver, CO. [accessed 2017 Oct 16]. http://dbiosla.org/events/sla_conference/papers/brownpaper.pdf
Brunn, S.D. 2014. Cyberspace knowledge gaps and boundaries in sustainability science: Topics, regions, editorial teams and journals. Sustainability 6(10):6576-6603. DOI: 10.3390/su6106576
Choi, S-S., Cha, S-H. & Tappert, C.C. 2010. A survey of binary similarity and distance measures. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics/ 8(1):43-48. [accessed 2017 Jul 17]. http://www.iiisci.org/journal/sci/FullText.asp?var=&id=GS315JG
Griffith, B.C., White, H.D., Drott, M.C. & Saye, J.D. 1986. Tests of methods for evaluating bibliographic databases: An analysis of the National Library of Medicine's handling of literatures in the medical behavioral sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 37(4):261-270. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(198607)37:4<261::AID-ASI12>3.0.CO;2-6
Grindlay, D,J,C,, Brennan, M.L. & Dean, R.S. 2012. Searching the veterinary literature: A comparison of the coverage of veterinary journals by nine bibliographic databases. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 39(4):404-412. DOI: 10.3138/jvme.1111.109R
Hood M.W. & Ebermann, C. 1990. Reconciling the CAB thesaurus and AGROVOC. Quarterly Bulletin of the International Association of Agricultural Information Specialists 35(4):181-185.
IBM Corporation. 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0.
Jaccard, P. 1912. The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone. New Phytologist 11(2): 37-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1912.tb05611.x
Jones, A.D., Hoey, L., Blesh, J., Miller, L., Green, A. & Shapiro, L.F. 2016. A systematic review of the measurement of sustainable diets. Advances in Nutrition: An International Review Journal 7(4):641-664. 10.3945/an.115.011015
Kawasaki, J.L. 2002. Indexing of core agriculture serials. Quarterly Bulletin of the International Association of Agricultural Information Specialists 47(2):33-37.
Kawasaki, J.L. 2004. Agriculture journal literature indexed in life sciences databases. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship 40. DOI: 10.5062/F4M61H61
Shannon, P., Markiel, A., Ozier, O., Baliga, N.S., Wang, J.T., Ramage, D., Amin, N., Schwikowski, B. & Ideker, T. 2003. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Research 13(11):2498-2504. DOI: 10.1101/gr.1239303
Sokal, R.R. & Michener, C.D. 1958. A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 38:1409-1438. [accessed 2017 Jul 17]. https://archive.org/details/cbarchive_133648_astatisticalmethodforevaluatin1902
Stankus, T., Laincz, J. & Linck, R. 2015. Reviews of science for science librarians: Meat science around the world, 1980-2014. Science & Technology Libraries 34(3):167-227. DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2015.1072491
Tenopir, C. 1982. Evaluation of database coverage: A comparison of two methodologies. Online Review 6(5):423-441. DOI: 10.1108/eb024110
Walters, W.H. 2007. Google Scholar coverage of a multidisciplinary field. Information Processing & Management 43(4):1121-1132. DOI: 10.1016/j.ipm.2006.08.006
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Stephanie M. Ritchie, Lauren M. Young, Jessica Sigman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
