• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Science & Technology Libraries >Wikipedia, Scholarpedia, and References to Books in the Brain and Behavioral Sciences: A Comparison of Cited Sources and Recommended Readings in Matching Free Online Encyclopedia Entries
【24h】

Wikipedia, Scholarpedia, and References to Books in the Brain and Behavioral Sciences: A Comparison of Cited Sources and Recommended Readings in Matching Free Online Encyclopedia Entries

机译：Wikipedia，Scholarpedia和大脑和行为科学书籍参考：匹配免费在线百科全书条目时引文来源和推荐读物的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

We provide a comparative analysis of the references to books in two free online encyclopedias that have very different philosophies about authorship and editorial oversight that may affect the nature and academic respectability of the books they list. These encyclopedias are the loosely edited, non-refereed Wikipedia, where anonymous authors, whose credentials are uncertain, compile the reference list and where many equally anonymous readers can later alter the reference lists, and its peer-reviewed companion Scholarpedia, which features signed articles by invited experts who control its reference lists. We compared 47 entries dealing with the brain or behavioral sciences that had exactly matching titles. We report relative number of book references overall, the age of these references, and those titles that were multiply cited, either through citations in both online encyclopedias or multiple entries in either one of them. We compare the percentages of book references allotted to matching subject categories. We note the distributions of references according to book publishers and compare propensities for citing high-level research volumes versus introductory textbooks and popularizations. Finally, we examine the credentials of the authors of the cited works, providing information on the universities and disciplines in which their authors or editors received their doctoral degrees and their most current academic or professional affiliation. We conclude that in thisrncomparison of a small but carefully matched set of entries in the brain and behavioral sciences, both encyclopedias offer references to solid materials and that any differences in quality indicators represent matters of degree rather than any clear-cut advantage that is exclusive to one or the other. Finally, we provide as an annotated checklist for librarians serving the brain and behavioral sciences of the books multiply cited by these encyclopedias at the time of this study.
机译：我们对两个免费的在线百科全书中的参考书进行了比较分析，这些百科全书对作者和编辑监督的观念迥然不同，这可能会影响它们所列出的书的性质和学术上的尊重程度。这些百科全书是松散编辑的，未引用的Wikipedia，其中凭据不确定的匿名作者汇编了参考文献列表，许多同样匿名的读者随后可以更改参考文献列表，其同行评审同伴Scholarpedia具有署名文章由控制其参考列表的受邀专家。我们比较了47个与标题或称谓完全匹配的大脑或行为科学的条目。我们报告了在线参考书目的相对数量，这些参考书的使用年限以及被多次引用的书名，或者通过两种在线百科全书中的引用，也可以通过其中之一被多次引用。我们比较分配给匹配主题类别的书籍参考的百分比。我们注意到参考书的出版商之间的分布情况，并比较了引用高水平研究量与入门级教科书及普及程度的倾向。最后，我们检查所引用作品的作者的资历，并提供有关其作者或编辑获得博士学位和其最新学术或专业联系的大学和学科的信息。我们得出结论，在比较大脑和行为科学中一小部分但经过精心匹配的条目时，两个百科全书都提供了对固体材料的引用，并且质量指标的任何差异都代表程度的问题，而不是任何唯一的明显优势。非此即彼。最后，我们为在本研究中被这些百科全书引用的书籍和行为科学服务的图书管理员的大脑和行为科学提供带注释的清单。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号