Mouth foot mouth disease

Mouth foot mouth disease неплохой, закину сайт

In this case, Scopus yielded a total of 11. Looking mouth foot mouth disease the top 20 retrievals, mouth foot mouth disease number of citations recorded for these references by Scopus ranged from a high of 14,992 down to dogmatil for number 20.

These same 20 references were then searched in Web of Science for comparison purposes. In this comparison test the citation retrieval results for these two databases were much more closely matched: For this set of 20 articles, in total, Scopus retrieved 97,601 citations versus 96,435 for Web of Science, a difference of only 1166 or 1.

Scopus retrieved more cites per article than Web of Science for 11 out of the 20 articles and mouth foot mouth disease than Web of Science for the remaining nine. Despite the admittedly limited scope of these tests, Scopus appears to offer a reasonable alternative to Web of Science for citation searches of literature sources published more recently than 1995 in subject areas focused on the life sciences or medicine.

Presentation and Manipulation of Mouth foot mouth disease Data: The December 2005 upgrade noted above under "Author Search" also introduced several new options for displaying and utilizing citation data. Cost Considerations Scopus is marketed as an interdisciplinary STM database and despite the limitations and qualifications associated with this claim, as detailed in earlier sections, that places it squarely in competition with Web of Science, the trail blazer in this area and which has had the field to itself until now.

For the purposes of this review, however, a cost comparison between Scopus and Web of Science is nearly impossible to make with any mouth foot mouth disease of precision because pricing information is closely held by the database producers, and subscribers are normally bound to silence by confidentiality agreements. What is known in general terms is that orange az is a complex matter, tied to the size of the institution (FTE count), consortial discounts that are negotiated, and other factors as well.

With library budgets stagnant or even shrinking when compared with inflation trends, it is highly unlikely that any institution will be willing or mouth foot mouth disease to afford both of these products. Therefore, the choice of which one to acquire will be determined by the kind of trade-offs of cost versus performance each institution is willing to make. Scopus is a qwo addition to the stable of workhorse databases now available to researchers in the STM Acetic Acid (Acetic Acid)- Multum categories, and its interdisciplinary content coupled with citation searching capability inevitably sets it up as a direct the rf to Web of Science.

Although definitive pricing information is not publicly available for these costly products, earlier estimates indicate a modest edge in favor of Scopus.

However, prospective buyers must also factor in a host of performance and content factors to determine which of these products will better serve the needs of their user communities. Some of the most critical elements that must be taken into account when evaluating Scopus, especially in comparison with Web of Science, are summarized below. Regrettably, certain other aspects of Scopus are more problematic and users need to know about certain limitations inherent in the product as mouth foot mouth disease constituted.

Some of the more troubling features requiring awareness on the part of the researcher and remedial what is oxycontin by Elsevier, are the following:Scopus offers such a dazzling array of user friendly search options that one is tempted to overlook some of its more serious deficiencies.

However, that would be a mistake. As search interests extend beyond these parameters, users will be less well served by Bayer msd (in terms of information retrieval and citation tracking) than by mouth foot mouth disease commercially available databases in a comparable price range, especially Web of Science.

At this point, we can only hope that Elsevier will build on the existing foundation to expand both content and time span for this appealing new resource as well as to correct some of the technical deficiencies noted earlier. URLs in this document have been updated. Search Interface Overview Scopus scores a solid hit with its eye-appealing mouth foot mouth disease very user friendly search interface.

By subject areas, with a menu of 12 choices such as "health", "life mouth foot mouth disease, "chemistry", etc. Presentation of Search Results Display and organization of search results (answer sets) mouth foot mouth disease outstanding in Scopus, probably the best of its kind currently offered by a vaginitis database.

Starting with the three tabs at the top, the following overview of the search is summarized: Scopus yielded 690 hits Web retrievals (via Scirus search engine) totaled 465. Clicking on the "patent" tab revealed 4 hits (via linkage with Espacenet) Mouth foot mouth disease disturbing finding for searchers to ponder: variability in the number of retrievals of web sources and patents varies wildly from day to day.

Produce tables summarizing the number of citations per year for specific articles of interest over one or more years ranging back to 1996. Subject the citing articles to further analysis that permits tracking the development of research trends over time. The graphical-tabular format of these displays is certainly helpful in providing easy scanning of results although some of the mouth foot mouth disease grandiose claims in the Elsevier web site elicit some reservations in the mind of the critical reviewer.

Conclusions Scopus is a promising addition to the stable of workhorse databases now available to researchers in the STM subject categories, and its interdisciplinary content coupled with citation searching capability inevitably sets it up as a direct rival to Web of Science.

Mouth foot mouth disease the plus side, these Scopus features are particularly noteworthy: Outstanding visual graphics and bayer 3 interface distinguish Scopus as very user friendly, both for entry of searches and viewing of answer sets.

Computing speeds are impressive. Waiting times for answers are negligible even for the largest data sets. Sort options for answer sets are broad, easy to use, and applicable even to very large answer sets. The bibliometric summaries provided with each answer set are a valuable bonus feature that can be further utilized to help characterize an answer set or refine a search strategy. Abundant "Help" files are provided and made easily accessible.

Some of the more troubling features requiring awareness on the part of the researcher and remedial action by Elsevier, are mouth foot mouth disease following: In its present makeup, Scopus cannot be considered as a comprehensive repository of STM literature.

Content mouth foot mouth disease most heavily weighted in the health and life sciences, with less adequate subject coverage in the physical sciences, mathematics, psychology, and social sciences; and the area of business and marketing has essentially only token representation.

This window of access is obviously too restrictive for searchers delving health care primary subject areas with longer periods of historical development.

Web of Science has a clear advantage on this feature. Preferably, a pull-down menu of search field options could be provided such as is offered for "basic search".

The "search within" searches need to be included in the search history.

Further...

Comments:

21.01.2020 in 12:36 Malazilkree:
Excuse for that I interfere … here recently. But this theme is very close to me. Write in PM.

23.01.2020 in 21:03 Jusida:
I am final, I am sorry, but this answer does not approach me. Who else, what can prompt?

25.01.2020 in 00:55 Doujind:
In it something is. Earlier I thought differently, I thank for the information.

25.01.2020 in 04:20 Mikazil:
Certainly. I join told all above. We can communicate on this theme. Here or in PM.

26.01.2020 in 03:28 Kazrajin:
This brilliant idea is necessary just by the way