Quick - what's the answer to 25.31 x 45.73? Don't have a calculator close by? Don't care to interest yourself in a long multiplication problem? No problem, Google can do the math for you!
GOOGLE QUICK TIP #14
The following symbols stand for these standard math operations:
Addition +
Subtraction -
Multiplication *
Division /
Exponent ^
Percentage of % of
Say for example, I want to calculate 15.87% of the total of 2.31 times 45.0 to the 5.99th power. I'd type in the following into Google to find the answer:
15.87% of (2.31*45.9)^5.99
More tips at http://www.google.com/help/calculator.html
Now that you know these tips, hide them from your school age children who are properly learning what we as adults no longer have the patience to do by hand or handheld calculator!
Friday, November 21, 2008
Using Eigenfactor to Measure Journal Ranking
Eigenfactor is a free tool developed by Carl Bergstrom's lab at the University of Washington. It measures the impact of a journal based on the number of citations as well as journal pricing. They describe themselves as:
(1)
(2) Eigenfactor.orgTM reports journal prices as well as citation influence.
(3) Eigenfactor.orgTM contains 115,000 reference items.
Eigenfactor.org not only ranks scholarly journals in the natural and social sciences, but also lists newsprint, PhD theses, popular magazines and more. In so doing, it more fairly values those journals bridging the gap between the social and natural sciences.
(4) Scores adjust for citation differences across disciplines.
(5) Scores rely on 5-year citation data.
(6) Scores are completely free and completely searchable.
Read more detailed explanations at http://www.eigenfactor.org/whyeigenfactor.htm
I especially like their visual mapping search display that animates the relevancy of topics and journals. You can get to this interface by clicking on the "mapping" tab and choosing the "interactive browser" option. In the right side of each visual map result, the top ten journals in that field are listed. Clicking on a journal title will reveal its Eigenfactor score.
The Journal Citation Reports (JCR) is a paid database from ISI Web of Knowledge that the Eigenfactor is comparing itself to, but they claim with added value. View the publisher's tutorial of how to search JCR. (Note: click on the white arrow in the bottom green menu bar to forward to the next page of the tutorial).
Read a more scholarly description of the Eigenfactor at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/07/23/eigenfactor/
Wikipedia: Love It or Leave It?
Wikipedia - honestly, who can say they have NEVER searched it before? The convenience and relative ease of finding information from Wikipedia is too tempting to bypass. Plus, Google floats Wikipedia pages pretty high up on a list of results.
For example, if you search myasthenia gravis in Google, Wikipedia is the FIRST result to appear. This entry beats out results from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and from the Mayo Clinic! What is at the top of a Google results list is the most linked to page on the search topic, not necessarily the most accurate or relevant page.
Over the past two years, I've noticed that some medical students cite Wikipedia as their source in writing up a short assignment. As an education librarian, this makes me twinge just the slightest bit and sigh. I teach students that Wikipedia can be a good place to start to get an overview of information, but it's NOT a resource you should cite. This is especially true if you are researching a health topic. But again, convenience wins out and some students cite Wikipedia anyway.
Wikipedia is a bit like the game of telephone that we played as children. The first person whispers the sentence to the person next to them, and as we all know, by the time the last person has received the information, it has morphed itself. That's the thing with Wikipedia and health information - most of it is quite good, but to cite it as your main resource could be risky. If by chance the information you gathered is inaccurate, you run a risk of doing harm with this information if you choose to make a medical decision for a patient based on what you find in Wikipedia.
So how then to make Wikipedia useful for finding more reliable information?
Thankfully, a well built Wikipedia entry has bread crumbs to lead you down the path to better sources of information.
(1) Look for the References link in the Contents box to see what resources were cited
(2) If a piece of information sounds interesting, look for a reference citation number (and click on it) at the end of that sentence.
(3) If it's a well-researched topic, you will see research articles listed. Clicking on the PMID or PMC link at the end of an article title will get you to the abstract in PubMed.
(4) Under the External links at the bottom, there may also be useful associations and other websites
Want to know how often a page has been edited?
Click on the history tab at the top of the page. You can see how busy people have been editing this information. Frequent editing should be a red flag of how much you can trust the information to be accurate.
Reuter's published an interesting article this month entitled Wikipedia often omits important drug information.
What's my final say on Wikipedia?
- If you find yourself on a Wikipedia result, it can be a lauching pad for finding better resources to link to and to cite those reliable resources instead of Wikipedia.
- It's a good place to get a gist of a topic.
I'm glad to see in the presentation below that a doctoral student in Communications at the University of Buffalo (SUNY) expressed his views on Wikipedia and how it can be used in education:
For example, if you search myasthenia gravis in Google, Wikipedia is the FIRST result to appear. This entry beats out results from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and from the Mayo Clinic! What is at the top of a Google results list is the most linked to page on the search topic, not necessarily the most accurate or relevant page.
Over the past two years, I've noticed that some medical students cite Wikipedia as their source in writing up a short assignment. As an education librarian, this makes me twinge just the slightest bit and sigh. I teach students that Wikipedia can be a good place to start to get an overview of information, but it's NOT a resource you should cite. This is especially true if you are researching a health topic. But again, convenience wins out and some students cite Wikipedia anyway.
Wikipedia is a bit like the game of telephone that we played as children. The first person whispers the sentence to the person next to them, and as we all know, by the time the last person has received the information, it has morphed itself. That's the thing with Wikipedia and health information - most of it is quite good, but to cite it as your main resource could be risky. If by chance the information you gathered is inaccurate, you run a risk of doing harm with this information if you choose to make a medical decision for a patient based on what you find in Wikipedia.
So how then to make Wikipedia useful for finding more reliable information?
Thankfully, a well built Wikipedia entry has bread crumbs to lead you down the path to better sources of information.
(1) Look for the References link in the Contents box to see what resources were cited
(2) If a piece of information sounds interesting, look for a reference citation number (and click on it) at the end of that sentence.
(3) If it's a well-researched topic, you will see research articles listed. Clicking on the PMID or PMC link at the end of an article title will get you to the abstract in PubMed.
(4) Under the External links at the bottom, there may also be useful associations and other websites
Want to know how often a page has been edited?
Click on the history tab at the top of the page. You can see how busy people have been editing this information. Frequent editing should be a red flag of how much you can trust the information to be accurate.
Reuter's published an interesting article this month entitled Wikipedia often omits important drug information.
What's my final say on Wikipedia?
- If you find yourself on a Wikipedia result, it can be a lauching pad for finding better resources to link to and to cite those reliable resources instead of Wikipedia.
- It's a good place to get a gist of a topic.
I'm glad to see in the presentation below that a doctoral student in Communications at the University of Buffalo (SUNY) expressed his views on Wikipedia and how it can be used in education:
PubMed Quick Tip #8
Ever used the Sort by feature in PubMed? This much overlooked feature can actually prove quite handy when viewing a set of search results.
For example:
- if you re-sorted the results by Author, you might find what authors publish more often on a certain topic
- if you re-sorted by Journal, you can see which publications come up multiple times. This can help you decide where you might want to publish your research in this related field or what other journals you should consider searching for more information.
View this short video demo
For example:
- if you re-sorted the results by Author, you might find what authors publish more often on a certain topic
- if you re-sorted by Journal, you can see which publications come up multiple times. This can help you decide where you might want to publish your research in this related field or what other journals you should consider searching for more information.
View this short video demo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)