关键词: Auto-citation generator Ovid MEDLINE PubMed biomedical databases citation on demand information literacy librarians

Mesh : Humans MEDLINE / statistics & numerical data PubMed Bibliometrics Information Storage and Retrieval / methods statistics & numerical data

来  源:   DOI:10.5195/jmla.2024.1718   PDF(Pubmed)

Abstract:
UNASSIGNED: Libraries provide access to databases with auto-cite features embedded into the services; however, the accuracy of these auto-cite buttons is not very high in humanities and social sciences databases.
UNASSIGNED: This case compares two biomedical databases, Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed, to see if either is reliable enough to confidently recommend to students for use when writing papers. A total of 60 citations were assessed, 30 citations from each citation generator, based on the top 30 articles in PubMed from 2010 to 2020.
UNASSIGNED: Error rates were higher in Ovid MEDLINE than PubMed but neither database platform provided error-free references. The auto-cite tools were not reliable. Zero of the 60 citations examined were 100% correct. Librarians should continue to advise students not to rely solely upon citation generators in these biomedical databases.
摘要:
库提供对数据库的访问,这些数据库具有嵌入到服务中的自动引用功能;但是,在人文和社会科学数据库中,这些自动引用按钮的准确性不是很高。
这个案例比较了两个生物医学数据库,OvidMEDLINE和PubMed,看看两者是否足够可靠,可以自信地推荐给学生在写论文时使用。总共评估了60篇引文,每个引文生成器引用30次,基于2010年至2020年PubMed排名前30位的文章。
OvidMEDLINE的错误率高于PubMed,但两个数据库平台均未提供无错误引用。自动引用工具不可靠。所检查的60篇引文中有0篇是100%正确的。图书馆员应继续建议学生不要仅依赖这些生物医学数据库中的引文生成器。
公众号