Three versions of a a??filtera?? used to identify papers on cancer research, as defined by Cancer Research, UK, and interpreted by four experts, have been compared. The first filter was based only on specialist journals and had unacceptably low recall. The second filter was based both on journals and on title words, and had both precision and recall above 0.9. The third filter was based additionally on words in the abstract and/or keywords provided in the paper: it improved the recall to almost unity but the precision was severely degraded, with many false positives. The three filter versions were compared in terms of the outputs of 15 countries in the Web of Science in recent years, and in some instances, gave differing indicators of their performance (numbers of papers and citations) which could give conflicting messages for science policy. http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/djlit.31.5.1189.
展开▼
机译：过滤器的三个版本比较了用于确定英国癌症研究定义并由四位专家解释的有关癌症研究的论文。第一个过滤器仅基于专业期刊，召回率低得令人无法接受。第二个过滤器基于期刊和标题词，并且精度和召回率均高于0.9。第三个过滤器还基于本文中提供的摘要和/或关键字中的单词：它使查全率提高到几乎统一，但精度严重下降，有许多误报。近年来，根据15个国家/地区在Web of Science中的输出对这三个过滤器版本进行了比较，并在某些情况下给出了其性能的不同指标（论文和引文数量），这可能会为科学政策提供相互矛盾的信息。 http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/djlit.31.5.1189。
展开▼
