DOCSLIB.ORG

Citeulike Y Connotea: Herramientas 2.0 Para El Descubrimiento De La Información Científica

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Citeulike Y Connotea: Herramientas 2.0 Para El Descubrimiento De La Información Científica Julio Alonso-Arévalo, José A. Cordón-García y Helena Martín-Rodero CiteULike y Connotea: herramientas 2.0 para el descubrimiento de la información científica Por Julio Alonso-Arévalo, José A. Cordón-García y Helena Martín-Rodero Resumen: Los gestores de re- ferencias sociales automatizan una tarea repetitiva y tediosa como es la gestión bibliográfi- ca, y ofrecen una alternativa a los motores de búsqueda y ba- ses de datos tradicionales en favor de la mediación social y el descubrimiento científico. Se hace una reflexión sobre las im- plicaciones del etiquetado so- cial en los procesos de gestión de información bibliográfica personal en el entorno 2.0 y se Julio Alonso-Arévalo es el José A. Cordón-García, Helena Martín-Rodero es analizan dos de las aplicaciones responsable de la biblioteca profesor titular de la Univ. de licenciada en filología romá- más populares, aunque todavía de Traducción y Documenta- Salamanca desde 1987, es nica –especialidad en filo- poco conocidas y utilizadas en ción de la Universidad de Sa- director del Master de edición logía francesa– y licenciada lamanca. Forma parte de dos de esa universidad, y director en filología árabe por la Uni- España: CiteULike y Connotea. proyectos del Grupo RcLIS: de la revista Pliegos de Yuste: versidad de Salamanca. Es Palabras clave: Gestores de re- DoIS y E-LIS. Es el coordina- revista de pensamiento y cul- directora de la biblioteca de dor de la lista de distribución tura europeos. Investigadora la Facultad de Medicina de ferencias sociales, Referencias de biblioteconomía y docu- sobre la industria editorial y la misma universidad desde bibliográficas, Web 2.0 Investi- mentación InfoDoc y es au- las fuentes de información, y 1990. Ha participado en di- gación 2.0, Descubrimiento de tor de diferentes artículos en es autor de varias monogra- versos programas de docto- la información. revistas especializadas sobre fías y numerosos artículos. rado, cursos, y en proyectos acceso abierto y sobre gesto- Preside la Asoc. Española de financiados por el Mº de Edu- Title: CiteULike and Con- res de referencias. Bibliología. cación y Ciencia y la Fecyt. notea: 2.0 tool for discovery of scientific information Abstract: Social reference managers automate repetitive and tedious tasks such as literature management, offering an al- ternative to search engines and traditional databases for social mediation and scientific discovery. In this study we reflect upon the implications of social tagging processes for personal bibliographic management in the 2.0 environment, and we study two of the most famous applications, although still little known and employed in Spain: CiteULike y Connotea. Keywords: Social reference managers, References, Web 2.0 Research 2.0, Information discovery. Alonso-Arévalo, Julio; Cordón-García, José A.; Martín-Rodero, Helena. “CiteULike y Connotea: herramientas 2.0 para el descubrimiento de la información científica”. El profesional de la información, 2010, enero-febrero, v. 19, n. 1, pp. 86-93. DOI: 10.3145/epi.2010.ene.12 EL ETIQUETADO SOCIAL, de comentarios, recursos y etique- servan como propias, pero que son consistente en compartir palabras tas que elaboran los usuarios en la visibles para todos, y que se pre- clave definidas por los usuarios utilización cotidiana de fuentes de sentan como una alternativa muy de un sistema de información, se información de todo tipo. Su de- atractiva para la minería de datos y está planteando como un método nominación, folksonomía o clasi- el descubrimiento científico. popular para la organización de ficación del pueblo, es ilustrativa Los gestores de referencias so- la información en internet. de su naturaleza. Aunque menos ciales funcionan como cualquier Casi todos conocemos servi- conocidas, existen aplicaciones de otro sistema de indización social. cios de la web 2.0 que permiten a gestión de información científica Se trata de una taxonomía genera- los usuarios etiquetar contenidos, basadas en el filtrado colaborativo da por el usuario a medida que va como Flickr, Delicious, Tagzania, que sirven para compartir referen- creando una base de datos de las y otros. El resultado colectivo de cias científicas –en lugar de enlaces referencias de sus documentos que este proceso es un complejo tejido a favoritos–, referencias que se con- al ser compartidas con otros, le va a 86 El profesional de la información, v. 19, n. 1, enero-febrero 2010 CiteULike y Connotea: herramientas 2.0 para el descubrimiento de la información científica permitir navegar libremente por el reducen, en lugar de aumentar, la dad”. Estos pueden ser de utilidad conjunto de etiquetas y de esta ma- eficiencia de la búsqueda debido a para marcar tendencias en determi- nera conocer y compilar referencias la cantidad de sinónimos, homóni- nados ámbitos científicos en los que de los documentos incorporados mos, polisemia, y por la heteroge- las referencias de los artículos más por otros usuarios; esto favorece los neidad y el ruido que introducen populares se ordenan por el número contactos con otros científicos y la (Zanardi; Capra, 2008). de veces que han sido compartidas formación de grupos de investiga- por el resto de investigadores (Ta- ción sobre temas de interés común. raborelli, 2008). Parece razonable que si se está trabajando sobre un “En un área especializada tema del que existe un documento las etiquetas tienen más compartido por centenares de inves- “El etiquetado social se valor intrínseco que en tigadores especialistas en ese tema, está planteando como un contexto general, ese documento será de obligado co- un método popular para donde el término aislado nocimiento; de cualquier modo, si la organización de la podría tener diferentes no se considera una medida de cali- información en internet interpretaciones” dad, sí lo es de popularidad. A pesar de que CiteULike tiene ahora más de 3 millones de referen- cias e incorpora al día unas 5.000 En los sistemas tradicionales es El etiquetado social es el ejem- nuevas, en España apenas ha tenido el indizador, un individuo experto plo más popular de cómo el soft- eco en la literatura profesional. Sólo en las normas y formas de organiza- ware social ha ayudado a superar se pueden mencionar uno o dos tra- ción de información, el que asigna los límites de los enfoques tradi- bajos, destacando la ponencia pre- descriptores para facilitar el acceso cionales de la categorización de sentada en las Jornadas Españolas a la información. En algunas oca- contenidos. Este conjunto de datos de Documentación de 2007 por siones la indización la realizan los a gran escala formado por las men- Jesús Tramullas y Mónica Gimé- propios autores de los artículos a cionadas estructuras conceptuales nez-López (2007) en la que se hace quienes la revista en la que publi- llamadas folksonomías ha llevado una evaluación del software libre can exige la asignación de palabras a algunos autores a formular lo que para la gestión de referencias. clave a sus trabajos. En contrapo- han denominado FolkRank (Hotho sición a esto, en los sistemas de et al., 2006), es decir, un algoritmo etiquetado social son los propios similar al PageRank de Google pero usuarios quienes asignan estas eti- basado en la popularidad que gene- “Las folksonomías quetas. Se han realizado algunos ra la estructura de la folksonomía incluyen términos que estudios comparativos que arrojan en relación a la recuperación, uso nunca aparecerían en una diferencias importantes entre los y descubrimiento de comunidades indización profesional, sistemas de indexación de usuario y científicas dentro del etiquetado. Se pues corresponden al los sistemas de indización profesio- podría decir que en un área especia- nal, pero estas cuestiones deben ser lizada las etiquetas tienen más valor vocabulario real de los consideradas en función de la uti- intrínseco que en un contexto gene- usuarios” lidad de los sistemas de etiquetado ral, donde el término aislado podría para el descubrimiento de recursos, tener diferentes interpretaciones ya que el mundo de las folksono- porque tiene un valor añadido, que mías incluye términos que nunca es la especificidad de ese término en La función básica de estas he- aparecerían en una indización rea- ese campo junto a otras etiquetas de rramientas es simple: cuando un lizada por expertos o en un tesauro, su propio entorno científico. Estos investigador localiza una referencia pues corresponden a un vocabula- datos aislados tienen un interés re- a un documento que le interesa en rio real que utilizan los usuarios de lativo, importante para cada investi- la Web, pueden hacer clic en un bo- un ámbito concreto o determinado gador, sin embargo a escala colecti- tón que se instala en el navegador del conocimiento (Kipp, 2009). va suponen una solución interesante y agregarlo a su colección personal. Estos sistemas también han sido para la evaluación de los contenidos Posteriormente sólo deberá añadir cuestionados por el hecho de que científicos a gran escala. Si un ran- unas etiquetas que caractericen el las etiquetas, al ser definidas por la go de etiquetas lo agrupamos por contenido del mismo. Las etiquetas gente de manera informal, cambian categorías científicas tendremos que se incluyen son términos del continuamente y, en muchos casos los llamados “índices de populari- lenguaje natural significativas para El profesional de la información, v. 19, n. 1, enero-febrero 2010 87 Julio Alonso-Arévalo, José A. Cordón-García y Helena Martín-Rodero él y al mismo tiempo para otros investigadores que trabajan en esa área de conocimiento (Alonso-Aré- valo, 2009). Seguidamente vamos a describir CiteULike y Connotea, pero existen otras aplicaciones que comparten Figura 1. MyCiteULike biblioteca personal características similares como son Zotero o Mendeley, e incluso las áreas compartidas de otros gestores señadas fundamentalmente para sa- – Watchlists: listas de seguimien- clásicos como RefWorks o EndNo- tisfacer las necesidades de los cien- to de otros autores y etiquetas suscritas te Web, aunque no son propiamen- tíficos y académicos (Emamy; Ca- por nosotros.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Altmetric.Com and Plumx
    This is a preprint of an article published in Scientometrics. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03941-y A large-scale comparison of coverage and mentions captured by the two altmetric aggregators- Altmetric.com and PlumX Mousumi Karmakara, Sumit Kumar Banshalb, Vivek Kumar Singha,1 1Department of Computer Science, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221005, India 2Department of Computer Science, South Asian University, New Delhi-110021, India. Abstract: The increased social media attention to scholarly articles has resulted in creation of platforms & services to track the social media transactions around them. Altmetric.com and PlumX are two such popular altmetric aggregators. Scholarly articles get mentions in different social platforms (such as Twitter, Blog, Facebook) and academic social networks (such as Mendeley, Academia and ResearchGate). The aggregators track activity and events in social media and academic social networks and provide the coverage and transaction data to researchers for various purposes. Some previous studies have compared different altmetric aggregators and found differences in the coverage and mentions captured by them. This paper attempts to revisit the question by doing a large-scale analysis of altmetric mentions captured by the two aggregators, for a set 1,785,149 publication records from Web of Science. Results obtained show that PlumX tracks more altmetric sources and captures altmetric events for a larger number of articles as compared to Altmetric.com. However, the coverage and average mentions of the two aggregators, for the same set of articles, vary across different platforms, with Altmetric.com recording higher mentions in Twitter and Blog, and PlumX recording higher mentions in Facebook and Mendeley.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies and Analysis of Reference Management Software: a Literature Review
    Studies and analysis of reference management software: a literature review Jesús Tramullas Ana Sánchez-Casabón {jesus,asanchez}@unizar.es Dept .of Library & Information Science, University of Zaragoza Piedad Garrido-Picazo [email protected] Dept. of Computer and Software Engineering, University of Zaragoza Abstract: Reference management software is a well-known tool for scientific research work. Since the 1980s, it has been the subject of reviews and evaluations in library and information science literature. This paper presents a systematic review of published studies that evaluate reference management software with a comparative approach. The objective is to identify the types, models, and evaluation criteria that authors have adopted, in order to determine whether the methods used provide adequate methodological rigor and useful contributions to the field of study. Keywords: reference management software, evaluation methods, bibliography. 1. Introduction and background Reference management software has been a useful tool for researchers since the 1980s. In those early years, tools were made ad-hoc, and some were based on the dBase II/III database management system (Bertrand and Bader, 1980; Kunin, 1985). In a short period of time a market was created and commercial products were developed to provide support to this type of information resources. The need of researchers to systematize scientific literature in both group and personal contexts, and to integrate mechanisms into scientific production environments in order to facilitate and expedite the process of writing and publishing research results, requires that these types of applications receive almost constant attention in specialized library and information science literature. The result of this interest is reflected, in bibliographical terms, in the publication of numerous articles almost exclusively devoted to describing, analyzing, and comparing the characteristics of several reference management software products (Norman, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: a Review and Framework
    Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework Item Type Journal Article (On-line/Unpaginated) Authors Trant, Jennifer Citation Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework 2009-01, 10(1) Journal of Digital Information Journal Journal of Digital Information Download date 02/10/2021 03:25:18 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/105375 Trant, Jennifer (2009) Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework. Journal of Digital Information 10(1). Studying Social Tagging and Folksonomy: A Review and Framework J. Trant, University of Toronto / Archives & Museum Informatics 158 Lee Ave, Toronto, ON Canada M4E 2P3 jtrant [at] archimuse.com Abstract This paper reviews research into social tagging and folksonomy (as reflected in about 180 sources published through December 2007). Methods of researching the contribution of social tagging and folksonomy are described, and outstanding research questions are presented. This is a new area of research, where theoretical perspectives and relevant research methods are only now being defined. This paper provides a framework for the study of folksonomy, tagging and social tagging systems. Three broad approaches are identified, focusing first, on the folksonomy itself (and the role of tags in indexing and retrieval); secondly, on tagging (and the behaviour of users); and thirdly, on the nature of social tagging systems (as socio-technical frameworks). Keywords: Social tagging, folksonomy, tagging, literature review, research review 1. Introduction User-generated keywords – tags – have been suggested as a lightweight way of enhancing descriptions of on-line information resources, and improving their access through broader indexing. “Social Tagging” refers to the practice of publicly labeling or categorizing resources in a shared, on-line environment.
    [Show full text]
  • What Makes a Good Reference Manager? A
    1 What Makes A Good Reference Manager? 2 Quantitative Analysis of Bibliography Management Applications 3 4 5 ∗ 6 ANONYMOUS AUTHOR(S) 7 Reference managers have been widely used by researchers and students. While previous performed qualitative analysis for reference 8 managers, it is unclear how to asses these tools quantitatively. In this paper, we attempted to quantify the physical and mental effort to 9 10 use a reference manager. Specifically, we use a keystroke and mouse move logger, RUI, to record and analyze the user’s activities and 11 approximate the physical and mental effort. We also use pre- and post-study surveys to keep track of the participant’s preferences and 12 experiences with reference managers, and also their self-reported task load (NASA TLX Index.) In this pilot work, we first collected 69 13 pre-study surveys from graduate students to understand their experience with reference managers, and then conducted user study 14 with 12 voluntary participants. Four common reference managers, Mendeley, Zotero, EndNote, and RefWorks, were included in our 15 study. The results show, for the same task, different software might require different levels of effort, and users generally preferthe 16 tools that require less effort. We also observe that although these reference managers share similar features, the differences intheir 17 18 presentation and organization matter. Factors such as pricing, cloud sync and accuracy of bibliography generation also influence the 19 preference of users. We conclude this work by providing a set of guidelines for users and developers. 20 CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing ! Usability testing; Activity centered design.
    [Show full text]
  • Mendeley Reader Counts for US Computer Science Conference
    1 Mendeley Reader Counts for US Computer Science Conference Papers and Journal articles1 Mike Thelwall, Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, University of Wolverhampton, UK. Although bibliometrics are normally applied to journal articles when used to support research evaluations, conference papers are at least as important in fast-moving computing- related fields. It is therefore important to assess the relative advantages of citations and altmetrics for computing conference papers to make an informed decision about which, if any, to use. This paper compares Scopus citations with Mendeley reader counts for conference papers and journal articles that were published between 1996 and 2018 in 11 computing fields and had at least one US author. The data showed high correlations between Scopus citation counts and Mendeley reader counts in all fields and most years, but with few Mendeley readers for older conference papers and few Scopus citations for new conference papers and journal articles. The results therefore suggest that Mendeley reader counts have a substantial advantage over citation counts for recently-published conference papers due to their greater speed, but are unsuitable for older conference papers. Keywords: Altmetrics; Mendeley; Scientometrics; Computer Science; Computing; Conference papers 1 Introduction Altmetrics, social media indicators for the impact of academic research derived from the web (Priem, Taraborelli, Groth, & Neylon, 2010), are now widely available to help assess academic outputs. Altmetric.com, for example, collects a range of data about online mentions of academic documents, supplying it to journal publishers to display in article pages, to institutions to help them analyse their work and to researchers to track the impact of their publications (Adie & Roe, 2013; Liu & Adie, 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Reference Management Software Among Science Research Scholars in University of Kerala
    Indian Journal of Information Sources and Services ISSN: 2231-6094 Vol. 8 No. 1, 2018, pp. 54-57 © The Research Publication, www.trp.org.in Use of Reference Management Software among Science Research Scholars in University of Kerala R.V. Amrutha1, K.S. Akshaya Kumar2 and S. Humayoon Kabir3 1Librarian, KILE, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India 2Lecturer, 3Associate Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, University of Kerala, Kerala, India E-Mail: [email protected] Abstract - The purpose of this study is to make a II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE comprehensive study of the use of Reference Management Software among the science research scholars of University of Nicholas Lonergan(2017) studied to determine faculty Kerala. Main objective of the study was to identify the use of preferences and attitudes regarding reference different types of Reference Management Software used by research scholars. Study also aims to find out the features management software (RMS) to improve the library’s preferred by science researchers from different Reference support and training programs. A short, online survey Management Software. Proportionate stratified sample of 166 was emailed to approximately 272 faculties. Survey (63%) out of 266 full time Science research scholars of results indicated that multiple RMS was in use, with University of Kerala was selected and questionnaires were faculty preferring Zotero over the library-supported distributed among them .Study is conducted through RefWorks. More than 40 per cent did not use any RMS... structured questionnaire. These findings support the necessity of doing more Keywords: Reference Management Software, Science Research research to establish the parameters of the RMS Scholars environment among faculty, with implications for support, instruction and outreach at the institutional I.
    [Show full text]
  • Coverage of Academic Citation Databases Compared with Coverage
    The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1468-4527.htm Coverage of Coverage of academic citation academic databases compared with citation coverage of scientific social media databases Personal publication lists as 255 calibration parameters Received 24 July 2014 Fourth revision approved Fee Hilbert, Julia Barth, Julia Gremm, Daniel Gros, Jessica Haiter, 5 January 2015 Maria Henkel, Wilhelm Reinhardt and Wolfgang G. Stock Department of Information Science, Heinrich Heine University, Dusseldorf, Germany Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show how the coverage of publications is represented in information services. Academic citation databases (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar) and scientific social media (Mendeley, CiteULike, BibSonomy) were analyzed by applying a new method: the use of personal publication lists of scientists. Design/methodology/approach – Personal publication lists of scientists of the field of information science were analyzed. All data were taken in collaboration with the scientists in order to guarantee complete publication lists. Findings – The demonstrated calibration parameter shows the coverage of information services in the field of information science. None of the investigated databases reached a coverage of 100 percent. However Google Scholar covers a greater amount of publications than other academic citation databases and scientific social media. Research limitations/implications – Results were limited to the publications of scientists working at an information science department from 2003 to 2012 at German-speaking universities. Practical implications – Scientists of the field of information science are encouraged to review their publication strategy in case of quality and quantity. Originality/value – The paper confirms the usefulness of personal publication lists as a calibration parameter for measuring coverage of information services.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview and Comparison of Free Reference Managers
    Mendeley, Zotero and CiteULike Presenter: Marié Roux Librarian: Research Support JS Gericke Library What are free reference managers Overview: Mendeley Mendeley demonstration Overview: Zotero Overview: CiteULike Overview: Endnote Basic Comparison: Mendeley, Zotero and RefWorks Free, easy to use and convenient reference management applications to help you save, organise and store your references. They allow you to create in-text citations and bibliographies, and both offer a desktop and online access. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ reference_management_software Reference managers (RM) have a variety of functions: Import citations from bibliographic databases and websites Gather metadata from PDF files Allow organization of citations with the RM database Allow annotations of citations Allow sharing of database and portions thereof Allow data interchange with other RM products through standard formats (RIS/BibTeX) Produce formatted citations in a variety of styles Work with word processing software to facilitate in-text citation www.mendeley.com Developed in 2008 by a web 2.0 start-up Free package with the option to upgrade for more individual and shared storage space Desktop and web version Mendeley web give users access to social features, i.e. sharing references or discovering research trends Elsevier takeover Reference manager: Generate citations and bibliographies in Microsoft Word, OpenOffice and LaTex Read and annotate: Open PDF’s and capture thoughts through sticky notes and highlighting of
    [Show full text]
  • Module Five - Management of Information
    Module Five - Management of Information Introduction “Where did I read this information?”, “I know that I printed a copy of this article, but I don't remember where I kept it.” These are very common situations among researchers, students or anybody whose works involve using documents. In the course of learning, teaching and research, information accessed from diverse sources accumulates. Without a proper information management practice; such information may be difficult to find and later locate. In certain instance some people may print the same documents again and again, or search for the same information every time they need it. As a consequence there is a need for this information to be organized so that it becomes easily accessible. Managing this information properly will save time, energy and lead to increased productivity. This module discusses tools and techniques for collecting, storing, organizing and using information. Special attention will be given to the management of the following categories of information: bibliographic references, primary documents such as books or articles, user’s notes and manuscripts. Learning Objectives In this module we will: • Explain the benefits of good organization of information, • Present referenced management tools, • present bookmark management tools, • Discuss information management techniques. Learning Outcomes At the end of the module, one should be able to: • Understand the importance of managing information, • Use a reference management software for storing bibliographic references, •
    [Show full text]
  • Reference Management Software (Rms) in an Academic Environment: a Survey at a Research University in Malaysia
    Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology 10 th June 2016. Vol.88. No.1 © 2005 - 2016 JATIT & LLS. All rights reserved . ISSN: 1992-8645 www.jatit.org E-ISSN: 1817-3195 REFERENCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE (RMS) IN AN ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT: A SURVEY AT A RESEARCH UNIVERSITY IN MALAYSIA 1MOHAMMAD OSMANI, 2ROZAN MZA, 3BAKHTYAR ALI AHMAD, 4ARI SABIR ARIF 1 Department of Management, Mahabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mahabad, Iran 2 Faculty of Computing, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Johor, Malaysia 3 Faculty of Geo Information and Real Estate, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Johor, Malaysia 4 Faculty of Physical and Basic Education, University of Sulaimani (UOS), Sulaimani, Iraq E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] , [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT Reference Management Software is used by researchers in academics to manage the bibliographic citations they encounter in their research. With these tools, scholars keep track of the scientific literature they read, and to facilitate the editing of the scientific papers they write. This study presents the results of a quantitative survey performed at a research university in Malaysia. The aims of the survey were to observe how much these softwares are used by the scientific community, to see which softwares are most known and used, and to find out the reasons and the approaches behind their usage. Manually questionnaire was distributed to the Master and PhD students at all faculties in Jun 2014. The data collected were analysed through a constant comparative analysis, and the following categories were drawn: a basic practical approach to the instrument, the heavy impact of the time factor, the force of habit in scholars, economic issues, the importance of training and literacy, and the role that the library can have in this stage.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluación De Software Libre Para La Gestión De Bibliografía
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by E-LIS Evaluación de software libre para la gestión de bibliografía Mónica Giménez López Jesús Tramullas Saz Resumen Las herramientas sociales de gestión de bibliografía están emergiendo rápidamente en la web. En este trabajo se lleva a cabo una evaluación de las herramientas de gestión bibliográfica más reconocidas existentes en la red. Al tratarse de herramientas libres y open source, se pretende elegir la mejor para desarrollar un servicio de gestión de bibliografías en castellano. Palabras clave Gestión bibliográfica, software libre, redes sociales, web 2.0., web semántica, Abstract The Social Tools in bibliography management are growing really fast on the Internet. In this project we’re going to evaluate the most popular management bibliography tools known. We’re going to select the best open source tool in order to develop a bibliography management service in Spanish Castilian. Keywords Bibliography management, free software, open source, social network, web 2.0., semantic web 1. Introducción Este trabajo pretende hacer una evaluación de varias herramientas de gestión bibliográfica que existen en la red, y que permiten importar, organizar, exportar, editar y compartir referencias bibliográficas, así como crear bibliografías personales y darle formato. Entre la amplia variedad de herramientas de gestión bibliográfica, disponibles, se han seleccionado las siguientes: • Bibsonomy ( http://www.bibsonomy.org ) • CiteuLike ( http://www.citeulike.org ) • Connotea ( www.connotea.org ) • Refbase ( http://refbase.sourceforge.net ) • Wikindx ( http://wikindx.sourceforge.net/ ) • Zotero ( http://www.zotero.org/ ) Se han analizado las características y capacidades que pueden interesar desde un punto de vista documental.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Techniques in Network and Information Technologies, February
    Tools to support research M. Antonia Huertas Sánchez PID_00185350 CC-BY-SA • PID_00185350 Tools to support research The texts and images contained in this publication are subject -except where indicated to the contrary- to an Attribution- ShareAlike license (BY-SA) v.3.0 Spain by Creative Commons. This work can be modified, reproduced, distributed and publicly disseminated as long as the author and the source are quoted (FUOC. Fundació per a la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya), and as long as the derived work is subject to the same license as the original material. The full terms of the license can be viewed at http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/es/legalcode.ca CC-BY-SA • PID_00185350 Tools to support research Index Introduction............................................................................................... 5 Objectives..................................................................................................... 6 1. Management........................................................................................ 7 1.1. Databases search engine ............................................................. 7 1.2. Reference and bibliography management tools ......................... 18 1.3. Tools for the management of research projects .......................... 26 2. Data Analysis....................................................................................... 31 2.1. Tools for quantitative analysis and statistics software packages ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]