Literature search

The paper seeks to highlight the complexity of literature searching in online bibliographic databases and the importance of developing advanced search skills towards greater search efficiency. The lack of knowledge of the content, structure and operation of databases, poor search skills, and superficiality in assessing search results are discussed as the major obstacles to efficient literature searching. It is suggested that despite technical improvements towards adjusting search engines to natural language processing, the knowledge of traditional search strategies remains highly relevan

A plea for minimally biased naturalistic philosophy

Naturalistic philosophers rely on literature search and review in a number of ways and for different purposes. Yet this article shows how processes of literature search and review are likely to be affected by widespread and systematic biases. A solution to this problem is offered here. Whilst the tradition of systematic reviews of literature from scientific disciplines has been neglected in philosophy, systematic reviews are important tools that minimize bias in literature search and review and allow for greater reproducibility and transparency. If naturalistic philosophers wish to reduce bias in their research, they should then supplement their traditional tools for literature search and review by including systematic methodologies

A comparative analysis of 21 literature search engines

With increasing number of bibliographic software, scientists and health professionals either make a subjective choice of tool(s) that could suit their needs or face a challenge of analyzing multiple features of a plethora of search programs. There is an urgent need for a thorough comparative analysis of the available bio-literature scanning tools, from the user’s perspective. We report results of the first time semi-quantitative comparison of 21 programs, which can search published (partial or full text) documents in life science areas. The observations can assist life science researchers and medical professionals to make an informed selection among the programs, depending on their search objectives. 
Some of the important findings are: 
1. Most of the hits obtained from Scopus, ReleMed, EBImed, CiteXplore, and HighWire Press were usually relevant (i.e. these tools show a better precision than other tools). 
2. But a very high number of relevant citations were retrieved by HighWire Press, Google Scholar, CiteXplore and Pubmed Central (they had better recall). 
3. HWP and CiteXplore seemed to have a good balance of precision and recall efficiencies. 
4. PubMed Central, PubMed and Scopus provided the most useful query systems. 
5. GoPubMed, BioAsk, EBIMed, ClusterMed could be more useful among the tools that can automatically process the retrieved citations for further scanning of bio-entities such as proteins, diseases, tissues, molecular interactions, etc. 
The authors suggest the use of PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and HighWire Press - for better coverage, and GoPubMed - to view the hits categorized based on the MeSH and gene ontology terms. The article is relavant to all life science subjects.
&#xa

In search of the right literature search engine(s)

*Background*
Collecting scientific publications related to a specific topic is crucial for different phases of research, health care and ‘effective text mining’. Available bio-literature search engines vary in their ability to scan different sections of articles, for the user-provided search terms and/or phrases. Since a thorough scientific analysis of all major bibliographic tools has not been done, their selection has often remained subjective. We have considered most of the existing bio-literature search engines (http://www.shodhaka.com/startbioinfo/LitSearch.html) and performed an extensive analysis of 18 literature search engines, over a period of about 3 years. Eight different topics were taken and about 50 searches were performed using the selected search engines. The relevance of retrieved citations was carefully assessed after every search, to estimate the citation retrieval efficiency. Different other features of the search tools were also compared using a semi-quantitative method.
*Results*
The study provides the first tangible comparative account of relative retrieval efficiency, input and output features, resource coverage and a few other utilities of the bio-literature search tools. The results show that using a single search tool can lead to loss of up to 75% relevant citations in some cases. Hence, use of multiple search tools is recommended. But, it would also not be practical to use all or too many search engines. The detailed observations made in the study can assist researchers and health professionals in making a more objective selection among the search engines. A corollary study revealed relative advantages and disadvantages of the full-text scanning tools.
*Conclusion*
While many studies have attempted to compare literature search engines, important questions remained unanswered till date. Following are some of those questions, along with answers provided by the current study:
a)	Which tools should be used to get the maximum number of relevant citations with a reasonable effort? ANSWER: _Using PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and HighWire Press individually, and then compiling the hits into a union list is the best option. Citation-Compiler (http://www.shodhaka.com/compiler) can help to compile the results from each of the recommended tool._
b)	What is the approximate percentage of relevant citations expected to be lost if only one search engine is used? ANSWER: _About 39% of the total relevant citations were lost in searches across 4 topics; 49% hits were lost while using PubMed or HighWire Press, while 37% and 20% loss was noticed while using Google Scholar and Scopus, respectively._ 
c)	Which full text search engines can be recommended in general? ANSWER: _HighWire Press and Google Scholar._
d)	Among the mostly used search engines, which one can be recommended for best precision? ANSWER: _EBIMed._
e)	Among the mostly used search engines, which one can be recommended for best recall? ANSWER: _Depending on the type of query used, best recall could be obtained by HighWire Press or Scopus.

Literature Search Resources

https://openworks.mdanderson.org/mozart/1011/thumbnail.jp

Observations of Uranus' satellites: Bibliography and literature search

A literature search has yielded more than 10,000 observations of the satellites of Uranus made from 1787 to 1985. The type (photographic, micrometer) and the number of observations are tabulated in 5 year increments and a complete bibliography is provided

Results of literature search on dielectric properties and electron interaction phenomena related to spacecraft charging

The objective of the literature search was to determine the required material properties and electron interaction parameters needed for modeling charge buildup and breakdown in insulators. A brief overview of the results of the literature search is given. A partial list of the references covered is included in a bibliography. Although inorganic insulators were also considered in the search, coverage is limited to the organics, primarily Kapton and Teflon

Strategic management of research and development: A literature search

Each abstract was reviewed as to its described contents and potential applicability to the topics expected to be addressed at the 1988 National Conference on strategic management of research and development. In each section the citations are listed alphabetically by senior or corporate author. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of organizations from which the listed material may be requested, are provided

Hard x ray imaging graphics development and literature search

This report presents work performed between June 1990 and June 1991 and has the following objectives: (1) a comprehensive literature search of imaging technology and coded aperture imaging as well as relevant topics relating to solar flares; (2) an analysis of random number generators; and (3) programming simulation models of hard x ray telescopes. All programs are compatible with NASA/MSFC Space Science LAboratory VAX Cluster and are written in VAX FORTRAN and VAX IDL (Interactive Data Language)