Search results

Publishers of some scientific journals and the ISO standard require or recommend specific information to be present in abstracts. However, little is known whether this is what scientists give when they write abstracts. The aim of this paper is to test the structure of abstracts in Czech, Slovenian and international scientific journals in the English language in the areas of library and information science (IS) and materials science (MS).

A total of 100 research paper abstracts were selected from each journal, and content analysis was performed both manually and using Weft QDA qualitative analysis software.

The results show that neither the ISO nor the Emerald structure is entirely appropriate. Abstracts in IS usually have the following structure: Ikaros (CZ): background, purpose of the research project; Knjižnica (SI): background, results only indicated; Journal of Documentation: results, methods, and purpose. In MS, the abstracts usually report on the following. Czech MS journals: background, methods, results; Materiali in Tehnologije (SI): methods, background; Materials Science and Technology (international): methods, results. The differences can in part be attributed to the varying disciplines and to the different roles of journals in professional societies and to cultural differences in perception regarding the role of abstracts.

It seems that purpose and results are usual for information science, while methods and results are more frequent for materials science.

This relatively small sample gives the first insight into the culture of writing abstracts in smaller research communities.

An empirical study has shown that the real process of subject cataloging does not correspond entirely to theoretical descriptions in textbooks and international standards. The purpose of this is paper is to address the issue of whether it be possible for catalogers who have not received formal training to perform subject cataloging in a different way to their trained colleagues.

A qualitative study was conducted in 2001 among five Slovenian public library catalogers. The resulting model is compared to previous findings.

First, all catalogers attempted to determine what the book was about. While the American catalogers tried to understand the topic and the author's intent, the Slovenian catalogers appeared to focus on the topic only. Slovenian and American academic library catalogers did not demonstrate any anticipation of possible uses that users might have of the book, while this was important for American public library catalogers. All catalogers used existing records to build new ones and/or to search for subject headings. The verification of subject representation with the indexing language was the last step in the subject cataloging process of American catalogers, often skipped by Slovenian catalogers.

The small and convenient sample limits the findings.

Comparison of subject cataloging processes of Slovenian and American catalogers, two different groups, is important because they both contribute to OCLC's WorldCat database. If the cataloging community is building a universal catalog and approaches to subject description are different, then the resulting subject representations might also be different.

This is one of the very few empirical studies of subject cataloging and indexing.

The subject description of novels in library catalogues is traditionally limited to the classification number with no description of the story. On the other hand, enthusiastic readers describe novels by tags or reviews in Web services. The purpose of this paper is to analyse readers' descriptions of novels and suggest an enhancement of the catalogue record which would be useful to the readers.

The original research involved a content analysis of tags and reviews written by users in the online bookstore Amazon.com, the online reader advisory service LibraryThing, and the reading promotion project Primorci beremo. The results were compared to previously published results.

The characteristics that most frequently elicit comments by readers are: the names of the creators and literary characters, geographic names and the titles of works, the time frame in which the story takes place, and the literary genre. Their evaluation of a novel was expressed with an opinion, an analysis, or a professional review. Awards were mentioned, and readers often also expressed their personal experience with the novel. They connected the novel with a sequel or series, with otherwise related novels, movies, etc. Often, pictures of the cover and other factual data were included.

Research was limited to readers' experiences and descriptions of literary works written in prose.

It is suggested that the time frame, genre and awards received should be included in the functional requirements models.

Original research was conducted over a longer period of time. The results were re‐evaluated and compared to previously published results from studies by different researchers.

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the logical structure of abstracts in the areas of materials science and technology and library and information science comply with the ISO 214 or IMRAD formats, while also suggesting guidelines for components of abstracts.

In the first part of the research the components of abstracts are analysed. The results showed that not all the proposed structural elements are present in the abstracts. Therefore also the improved prototypes and recommended abstracts are developed to examine the satisfaction of readers with different forms of abstracts. According to the results of satisfaction of readers with different forms of abstracts, uniform guidelines for the components of abstracts in accordance with the IMRAD format are proposed.

The introduction (I) should include three sentences of background information. The method (M) should include three sentences of method. The results (R) should include three sentences of results. The discussion (D) should include two sentences of conclusions. The conclusions should present the implications of the results on subjects that were not part of the study, suggestions for possible application of the findings, suggestions for further research work and an evaluation of the research.

It is important to emphasize that even if the guidelines for writing abstracts by the individual journal exist, authors do not always take them into account. Therefore, it is important that the abstracts that are actually published in journals were analysed. It is also important that the opinion of researchers was taken into account.

Library online public access catalogues (OPACs) are considered to be unattractive in comparison with popular internet sites. In 2000, the authors presented some suggestions on how library catalogues should change. Have librarians actually made their OPACs more user‐friendly by adopting techniques and technologies already present in other information resources? This paper aims to address these issues.

The characteristics of four OPACs, one online bookstore and two internet search engines are analyzed. The paper reviews some of the changes and directions suggested by researchers and adds some of authors own. All this is in the hope that library catalogues will survive “Google attack.”

Changes are identified in the information services studied over a seven‐year period. Least development is found in library catalogues. Suggestions are made for library catalogues of the future.

A library catalogue, a web search engine and an internet bookstore cannot be compared directly because of differences in scope. But features from each could be fruitfully used in others.

OPACs must be both attractive and useful. They should be at least as easy to use as their competitors. With the results of research as well as the knowledge librarians have many years, the profession should be able to develop better OPACs than we have today and regain lost ground in the “competition” for those with information needs.

A comparison of OPAC features in 2000 and 2007, even if subjective, can provide a panoramic view of the development of the field.