Search results

Google Scholar Citations (GSC) provides an institutional affiliation link which groups together authors who belong to the same institution. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain whether this feature is able to identify and normalize all the institutions entered by the authors, and whether it is able to assign all researchers to their own institution correctly.

Systematic queries to GSC’s internal search box were performed under two different forms (institution name and institutional e-mail web domain) in September 2015. The whole Spanish academic system (82 institutions) was used as a test. Additionally, specific searches to companies (Google) and world-class universities were performed to identify and classify potential errors in the functioning of the feature.

Although the affiliation tool works well for most institutions, it is unable to detect all existing institutions in the database, and it is not always able to create a unique standardized entry for each institution. Additionally, it also fails to group all the authors who belong to the same institution. A wide variety of errors have been identified and classified.

Even though the analyzed sample is good enough to empirically answer the research questions initially proposed, a more comprehensive study should be performed to calibrate the real volume of the errors.

The discovered affiliation link errors prevent institutions from being able to access the profiles of all their respective authors using the institutions lists offered by GSC. Additionally, it introduces a shortcoming in the navigation features of Google Scholar which may impair web user experience.

Some institutions (mainly universities) are under-represented in the affiliation feature provided by GSC. This fact might jeopardize the visibility of institutions as well as the use of this feature in bibliometric or webometric analyses.

This work proves inconsistencies in the affiliation feature provided by GSC. A whole national university system is systematically analyzed and several queries have been used to reveal errors in its functioning. The completeness of the errors identified and the empirical data examined are the most exhaustive to date regarding this topic. Finally, some recommendations about how to correctly fill in the affiliation data (both for authors and institutions) and how to improve this feature are provided as well.

This paper presents M-PoP, a method to model large, complex, and dynamic business processes. These processes have sometimes resulted from alliances of organizations (i.e. joint ventures and mergers and acquisitions) and are referred to as Processes-of-Business Processes (PoP). Due to the difficulty of modeling these dynamic processes, alliances of organizations have often lost opportunities, competitiveness, and profitability, so requiring suitable modeling methods.

The authors proposed M-PoP that can model PoP through three views in different abstraction levels and using well-known techniques in industry and academia, mainly those from Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN). For this, M-PoP presents three main steps: identification of PoP elements, modeling of PoP, and verification of PoP models. To evaluate M-PoP, we applied it in a real-world business process in the health domain.

The evaluation results point out the capability and viability of M-PoP to deal with dynamic business processes.

M-PoP still needs to be applied in various real-world scenarios to gather evidence of its productivity, efficiency, and scalability.

This novel method could change the way organizations model their business processes and, as a consequence, it could leverage strategic business opportunities.

M-PoP is the first method that makes it possible to model large and complex business processes and, most importantly, dynamic processes.

This article describes a model for the standardisation of names in bibliographic databases. A prototype that was developed to demonstrate the feasibility of the model is described. Lastly, the impact of implementing this model is investigated. It was found that the new model will revolutionise name authority control. The literature supports such a change. It was also found that the prototype developed verifies the technical feasibility of its implementation.

Gene term variation is a shortcoming in text‐mining applications based on biomedical literature‐based knowledge discovery. The purpose of this paper is to propose a technique for normalizing gene names in biomedical literature.

Under this proposal, the normalized forms can be characterized as a unique gene symbol, defined as the official symbol or normalized name. The unification method involves five stages: collection of the gene term, using the resources provided by the Entrez Gene database; encoding of gene‐naming terms in a table or binary matrix; design of a parametrized finite‐state graph (P‐FSG); automatic generation of a dictionary; and matching based on dictionary look‐up to transform the gene mentions into the corresponding unified form.

The findings show that the approach yields a high percentage of recall. Precision is only moderately high, basically due to ambiguity problems between gene‐naming terms and words and abbreviations in general English.

The major limitation of this study is that biomedical abstracts were analyzed instead of full‐text documents. The number of under‐normalization and over‐normalization errors is reduced considerably by limiting the realm of application to biomedical abstracts in a well‐defined domain.

The system can be used for practical tasks in biomedical literature mining. Normalized gene terms can be used as input to literature‐based gene clustering algorithms, for identifying hidden gene‐to‐disease, gene‐to‐gene and gene‐to‐literature relationships.

Few systems for gene term variation handling have been developed to date. The technique described performs gene name normalization by dictionary look‐up.

No comprehensive set of data elements for describing computer software has previously been developed. Applications determine the need for specific data elements. This article presents a comprehensive profile of data elements, and identifies their probable application in library catalogs, bibliographic references, program documentation, program front matter, program packaging, software catalogs and eye‐legible labels. The data elements are correlated with existing MARC tags, providing compatibility with current usage.

The purpose of this paper is to examine two research questions: What search engine queries lead users to the Auburn University electronic theses and dissertations (AUETDs) collection? Do these queries vary for users in different locations and, if so, how?

Search engine queries used to locate the AUETDs collection were obtained from Google Analytics and were separated into groups based on user location. These queries were assigned to empirically derived categories based on their content.

Most local users’ queries contained person names, variants for thesis or dissertation, and variants for Auburn University. Over a third were queries for the AUETDs collection, while the remainder were seeking theses and dissertations from specific Auburn researchers. Most out-of-state users’ queries contained title and subject keywords and appeared to be seeking specific research studies. Queries from users located within the state but outside of the local area were intermediate between these groups.

Over two-thirds of visits to the AUETDs collection were made by search engine users which reinforces the importance of having repository content indexed by search engines such as Google. The specificity of their queries indicates that full-text indexing will be more helpful to users than metadata indexing alone.

This is the first detailed analysis of search engine queries used to locate an ETDs collection. It may also be the last, as query content for the major search engines is no longer available from Google Analytics.

The purpose of this article is to examine “first time use” (FTU) name headings in the context of outsourced authorities processing and NACO participation, with consideration given to workflow and management issues in cataloging operations, and to the concept of achieving authority control in a catalog.

For this study, a report was produced from an integrated library system of 295 “headings used for first time” (FTU) on one day in a month during which more than 10,000 bibliographic records were cataloged system‐wide. Of these FTU headings, 100 were from fields used for author names (field 1xx, 7xx) in 80 bibliographic records. This represents a snapshot of FTU headings rather than a random sample but is typical of reports from this system. Issues addressed include FTU headings as errors; matching of bibliographic headings to existing authority records in the LC/NACO national file; and the need for NACO contribution when the heading has no supporting authority record.

Describes “first time use” headings in relation to bibliographic records cataloged (original or copy, language, etc.) and the match rate of about two‐thirds of the headings to existing authority records in the international LC/NACO authority file by the authorities processing vendor. This is a slight increase over time, assumed to be due to the growth of the NACO program. Approximately one‐third of the name headings are candidates for authority records via NACO.

The sample size was small but findings are similar to related research, for example regarding match rate of headings on bibliographic records to the LC/NACO authority file. However, there is no agreed‐upon benchmark with respect to this match rate. The questions remain about the need for all headings to have authority records and what constitutes a given catalog being “under authority control.”

Similar academic libraries likely can depend on authorities processing vendors to deliver matching name authority records for about two‐thirds of headings and also expect that approximately one‐third of name headings will lack authority records. If not a NACO participant, locally created authority records might be a choice. For NACO members, administrative decisions about workflow and authority record creation are needed. The resulting utility of the catalog, if matching authority records are included in the system, is a factor that should be considered.

This paper reports findings regarding authority records for name headings in relation to vendor processing of bibliographic records and subsequent catalog utility if matching authority records are founding the LC/NACO file and used in the system. The concept of establishing a benchmark for a satisfactory “match rate” of headings to existing authority records and for a catalog that may be said to be under authority control is raised.

Within standards for bibliographic description, common usage has served as a prominent design principle, guiding the choice and form of certain names and titles. In practice, however, the determination of common usage is difficult and lends itself to varying interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to explore the presence and role of common usage in bibliographic description through an examination of previously unexplored connections between common usage and the concept of warrant.

A brief historical review of the concept of common usage was conducted, followed by a case study of the current bibliographic standard Resource Description and Access (RDA) employing qualitative content analysis to examine the appearances, delineations and functions of common usage. Findings were then compared to the existing literature on warrant in knowledge organization.

Multiple interpretations of common usage coexist within RDA and its predecessors, and the current prioritization of these interpretations tends to render user perspectives secondary to those of creators, scholars and publishers. These varying common usages and their overall reliance on concrete sources of evidence reveal a mixture of underlying warrants, with literary warrant playing a more prominent role in comparison to the also present scientific/philosophical, use and autonomous warrants.

This paper offers new understanding of the concept of common usage, and adds to the body of work examining warrant in knowledge organization practices beyond classification. It sheds light on the design of the influential standard RDA while revealing the implications of naming and labeling in widely shared bibliographic data.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a modification of the Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD) model to accommodate names in non-Roman languages with diverse writing systems.

The model modifies and clarifies the attributes and relationships regarding non-Roman languages of the current FRAD model, based on the definitions of transliteration, transcription, and Romanization in ISO 5127:2001. The modified model overcomes the problems inherent in the current FRAD model when handling writing systems in non-Roman languages.

The proposed model clearly shows the hierarchy of Controlled Access Points (CAPs). CAPs are either based directly on names or derived from other CAPs. For name or person identification, a CAP and its derivations should be treated as a set. The proposed model also resolves ambiguity in the definition of the word transliteration in the current FRAD model.

By establishing new relationships and amending the attributes of the FRAD model, the proposed model better expresses personal names in non-Roman languages as well as names in western languages. It also organizes complex writing systems of non-Roman languages. The proposed model could lead to an improved format for authority data and will facilitate international sharing of data.

The purpose of this paper is to develop and evaluate a workflow for establishing name authority in uncontrolled collections.

The authors developed a workflow incorporating command-line tools and tested it in the electronic theses and dissertations (ETDs) collection. The authors narrowed the scope of the study to born-digital ETDs in the collection and to contributor names, including chairs and committee members.

This workflow can save staff time and allows for flexible implementation depending on staff numbers and skills as well as institutional needs.

This workflow could be used by other institutions with little or no modification, as it does not rely on specialized software or extensive expertise.