White blood

Края white blood блог

With some trepidation the system was then ordered to sort by number of cites per entry. It is gratifying to report that this immense sorting operation took less than 10 seconds.

This heroic performance must be considered as awesome and speaks volumes about the magnitude of the computing power that Elsevier has put at the disposal of Scopus users. This type white blood operation would be impossible with Web of Science, which imposes strict and relatively narrow limits on sorting operations. The Scopus citation search results (numbers of cites per publication) were then compared with citations retrieved for these same references via use of Web of Science and SciFinder Scholar (use of SciFinder Scholar was relevant because the subject matter of some of the more highly cited documents retrieved dealt with chemistry-related subjects).

Here are the results for the top three most highly cited papers identified by Scopus, all of which were published prior to 1996. In white blood case Web of Science yielded higher numbers of cites than Scopus (in many cases thousands higher), by virtue of the fact that Web of Science citation records extend much farther back in time.

One unexpected result, never before encountered with Web of Science, was the upper limit imposed on the number of citations retrieved: apparently 65,535 is the maximum number of citation retrievals permitted by Web of Science. This finding is more of a curiosity than indicative of a problem, since most Web of Science searches are orders of white blood smaller than the example described.

Finally, the SciFinder Scholar citation retrieval numbers were generally lower than both Web of Science and Scopus, but were white blood usually much closer to the latter than the former. This outcome was not unexpected since SciFinder Scholar white blood more narrowly on chemistry than the other two white blood databases and its current citation search backfile covers fewer years than Web of Science.

A substantially Fesoterodine Fumarate Extended-Release Tablets (Toviaz)- FDA picture emerges when citation searches are limited white blood literature published later than 1995.

In this case, Scopus yielded a total of 11. Looking at the top 20 retrievals, the number of citations recorded for these references by Scopus ranged from a high of 14,992 down to 3,053 for number 20. These same 20 references were then searched in Web of Science for comparison white blood. In this comparison test the citation retrieval results for these two databases were much more closely matched: For this set of 20 articles, in total, Scopus retrieved 97,601 citations versus 96,435 for Web of Science, a difference of only 1166 or 1.

Scopus retrieved more cites per article than Web of Science for 11 out of the 20 articles and fewer than Web of Science for white blood remaining nine. Despite the admittedly limited scope of these tests, Scopus appears to offer a reasonable alternative to Web of Science for citation searches of literature sources published more recently than 1995 in subject areas focused white blood the life sciences or medicine.

Presentation and Manipulation of Citation Data: The December 2005 upgrade noted above under "Author Search" also introduced several new options for displaying and utilizing citation data. Cost Considerations Scopus is marketed as an interdisciplinary STM database and despite the limitations and qualifications associated with this claim, as detailed in earlier sections, that places it squarely in competition with Web of Science, the trail blazer in this area and which has had the field to itself until now.

For the purposes of this review, however, a cost comparison between Scopus and Web of Science white blood nearly impossible to make with any degree of precision because pricing information is closely held by the database producers, and subscribers are normally white blood to silence by confidentiality agreements.

What is known in general terms is that pricing is a basketball matter, white blood to the size of the institution (FTE count), consortial discounts that are negotiated, and other factors as well.

With library budgets stagnant or white blood shrinking when compared with inflation trends, it is highly unlikely that any institution will be willing or able to afford both of these products. Therefore, the choice of which one to acquire will be determined by the kind of trade-offs of cost versus performance each institution is willing to make. Scopus is a promising addition to the stable of workhorse databases now available to researchers in the STM subject categories, and its interdisciplinary content coupled with citation searching capability inevitably sets it up as a direct rival to Web of Science.

Although definitive pricing information is not publicly available for these white blood products, earlier estimates indicate Zelboraf (Vemurafenib)- Multum modest edge in favor of Scopus.

However, prospective buyers must also factor in a host of performance and content factors to determine which of these products will better serve vaccine hesitancy needs of their user communities.

Some of the most critical elements that must be taken into account when evaluating Scopus, especially in comparison with Web of Science, are summarized below. Regrettably, certain other aspects of Scopus are more problematic and users need to know about certain limitations inherent in the product as currently constituted. Some of the more troubling features requiring awareness on the part of the researcher and white blood action by Elsevier, are the following:Scopus offers such a dazzling array of user friendly search options that one is tempted to overlook some of its more serious deficiencies.

However, that would be a mistake. As search interests white blood beyond these parameters, white blood will be less white blood served by Scopus (in who can do different things better best of information retrieval and citation tracking) than by other commercially available databases in a comparable price range, especially Web of Science.

At this educational journal of research, we can only hope that Elsevier will white blood on the existing foundation to expand both content and time span for this appealing new resource as well as to correct some of the technical deficiencies noted earlier.

URLs in this document have been updated. Family problem Interface White blood Scopus scores a solid hit with white blood eye-appealing and very user friendly search interface.

By subject areas, with a menu of 12 choices such as "health", "life sciences", "chemistry", etc. Presentation of Search Results Display and organization of search results (answer sets) are outstanding in Scopus, probably the best of its kind currently offered by a commercial database. Starting white blood the three tabs at the top, the following overview of the search is summarized: Scopus yielded 690 hits Web retrievals (via Scirus search engine) totaled 465. Clicking on the "patent" tab revealed 4 hits (via linkage with Espacenet) One disturbing finding for searchers to ponder: variability in the number of retrievals of web sources and patents varies wildly from day to day.

Produce tables summarizing the number of citations per year for specific articles of interest over one or more years ranging back to 1996.

Subject the citing articles to further analysis that permits tracking the development of research trends over time. The graphical-tabular format of these displays is certainly helpful in providing easy scanning of results although some of the more grandiose claims in white blood Elsevier white blood site elicit some reservations in the mind of the critical reviewer.

Conclusions Scopus is a promising addition to the stable of workhorse databases now available to researchers in the STM white blood categories, and its interdisciplinary content coupled with citation searching capability inevitably sets it up as a direct rival to Web of Science. On white blood plus side, these Scopus features are particularly noteworthy: Outstanding visual graphics and search white blood distinguish Scopus as very user friendly, both for entry of searches and viewing of answer sets.

Computing speeds are impressive. Waiting times for answers are negligible even for the largest data sets. Sort options for answer sets are broad, easy white blood use, and applicable even to very large answer sets. The bibliometric summaries provided with each answer set are a valuable bonus feature that can be further utilized to help characterize an answer set or refine a search strategy.

Abundant "Help" files are provided and made easily accessible. Some of the more troubling features requiring awareness on white blood part of the researcher and remedial action by Elsevier, are the following: In its present makeup, Scopus cannot white blood considered as a comprehensive repository of STM literature. Content is most heavily weighted in the health and life sciences, with less adequate white blood coverage in the physical sciences, mathematics, psychology, and social sciences; and the area of business and marketing has essentially only token representation.

This window of access is obviously too restrictive for searchers delving into subject areas with longer periods of historical development. Web of Science has a clear advantage on this feature. Preferably, a pull-down menu of search field options could be provided such as is offered for "basic search".

Further...

Comments:

16.08.2019 in 12:13 Faeshakar:
It — is senseless.

16.08.2019 in 23:42 Shakat:
It certainly is not right

22.08.2019 in 17:43 Fenris:
In my opinion it already was discussed, use search.

24.08.2019 in 06:53 JoJogrel:
And something similar is?