Carole Gall

Bio: Carole Gall is an academic researcher from Indiana University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Citation & MEDLINE. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 5 publications receiving 95 citations.

EndNote and Reference Manager Citation formats compared to "instructions to authors" in top medical journals

Abstract: The study compared citation format in EndNote version 7 and Reference Manager version 11 with the citation format for references found in the instructions to authors from the most significant medical literature. The resulting information should be very useful to those who depend on citation management software to format and organize their references for publication in medicine, and librarians and others who teach the use of citation management software.

Zotero: A Product Review

Abstract: Zotero is a free and open source Firefox extension that exists within the Web browser and allows one to collect, manage, store, and cite resources in a single location. 1 Zotero automatically imports citation information from a number of sources, including nonsubscription, newspaper, and commercial Web sites, and Web-based databases such as PubMed and MedlinePlus. Zotero offers more options for note taking than the better-known citation management system EndNote. Sixteen citation styles are available when Zotero is initially downloaded, with many more freely available. Users can install a plug-in that allows Zotero to integrate with Microsoft Word. Even though Zotero does not have an on-demand customer support service, its Web site offers a wealth of information for users. The authors highly recommend Zotero.

Retrieval comparison of EndNote to search MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed) versus searching them directly.

Abstract: Using EndNote version 7.0, the authors tested the search capabilities of the EndNote search engine for retrieving citations from MEDLINE for importation into EndNote, a citation management software package. Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed were selected for the comparison. Several searches were performed on Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed using EndNote as the search engine, and the same searches were run on both Ovid and PubMed directly. Findings indicate that it is preferable to search MEDLINE directly rather than using EndNote. The publishers of EndNote do warn its users about the limitations of their product as a search engine when searching external databases. In this article, the limitations of EndNote as a search engine for searching MEDLINE were explored as related to MeSH, non-MeSH, citation verification, and author searching.

Do local citation patterns support use of the impact factor for collection development

Abstract: The Impact Factor and Collection Development The journal impact factor (IF) is reported by ISI in Journal Citation Reports (JCR). “A journal's impact factor is based on 2 elements: the numerator, which is the number of citations in the current year to any items published in a journal in the previous 2 years, and the denominator, which is the number of substantive articles (source items) published in the same 2 years” [1]. Much research has been done on IF as a measure of local journal use for collection development. Blecic used a comparison of three methods: in-house use, circulation, and citation to determine journal use, finding a “significant correlation” between the three methods and arguing that because of this correlation, only one type of data was necessary to make retention decisions [2]. MacDonald's study of online journal usage in relation to citation analysis examined whether online journal use (as measured by an academic library) and a library's publisher-reported full-text downloads predicted citations, finding that “citation is clearly related to usage” [3]. Using Biosis Previews, Davis identified core journals in the life sciences by analyzing the journals in which Cornell University authors published [4]. Davis concluded that the “generic metrics of the JCR simply cannot provide the campus-level data crucial to making informed decisions about the local importance of individual titles,” as argued earlier by Pan [5] and Chrzastowski [6].

Web-based citation management compared to EndNote: options for medical sciences.

Abstract: The authors of this article analyzed the differences in output when searching MEDLINE direct and MEDLINE via citation management software, EndNote X1®, EndNote Web®, and RefWorks©. Several searches were performed on Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed directly. These searches were compared against the same searches conducted in Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed using the search features in EndNote X1, EndNote Web, and RefWorks. Findings indicated that for in-depth research users, should search the databases directly rather than through the citation management software interface. The search results indicated it would be appropriate to search databases via citation management software for citation verification tasks and for cursory keyword searching.

Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature

Abstract: The majority of academic papers are scarcely cited while a few others are highly cited. A large number of studies indicate that there are many factors influencing the number of citations. An actual review is missing that provides a comprehensive review of the factors predicting the frequency of citations. In this review, we performed a search in WoS, Scopus, PubMed and Medline to retrieve relevant papers. In overall, 2087 papers were retrieved among which 198 relevant papers were included in the study. Three general categories with twenty eight factors were identified to be related to the number of citations: Category one: "paper related factors": quality of paper; novelty and interest of subject; characteristics of fields and study topics; methodology; document type; study design; characteristics of results and discussion; use of figures and appendix in papers; characteristics of the titles and abstracts; characteristics of references; length of paper; age of paper; early citation and speed of citation; accessibility and visibility of papers. Category two: "journal related factors": journal impact factor; language of journal; scope of journal; form of publication. Category three: "author(s) related factors": number of authors; author's reputation; author's academic rank; self-citations; international and national collaboration of authors; authors' country; gender, age and race of authors; author's productivity; organizational features; and funding. Probably some factors such as the quality of the paper, journal impact factor, number of authors, visibility and international cooperation are stronger predictors for citations, than authors' gender, age and race; characteristics of results and discussion and so on.

Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies.

Abstract: Systematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies. A literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through ‘pearl growing’, citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors’ topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of ‘key stages’ in the process of literature searching. Eight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process. Eight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.

Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review

Abstract: Objective: What roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles that librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians’ systematic reviews services. Methods: For this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts. Results: We identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles. Conclusion: Librarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations. This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program .

A Review of Citation Analysis Methodologies for Collection Management

Abstract: While there is a considerable body of literature that presents the results of citation analysis studies, most researchers do not provide enough detail in their methodology to reproduce the study, nor do they provide rationale for methodological decisions. In this paper, we review the methodologies used in 34 recent articles that present a “user study” citation analysis with a goal of informing collection management. We describe major themes and outliers in the methodologies and discuss factors that require careful thought and analysis. We also provide a guide to considerations for citation analysis studies, so that researchers can make informed decisions.