The week's pick
Random Articles
Reseach Article
Programmatically Ranking and Sorting Research Articles for Reviews (ALIGN)
| International Journal of Computer Applications |
| Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA |
| Volume 103 - Number 16 |
| Year of Publication: 2014 |
| Authors: Maxim K. Gorshkov, Stella S. Daskalopoulou |
10.5120/18156-9334
|
Maxim K. Gorshkov, Stella S. Daskalopoulou . Programmatically Ranking and Sorting Research Articles for Reviews (ALIGN). International Journal of Computer Applications. 103, 16 ( October 2014), 8-11. DOI=10.5120/18156-9334
Abstract
In an emerging trend to automate the world and daily interactions, academia is not exempt. Systematic reviews have been used in clinical research for decades and in practice, the process involves at least a double-blind sorting of articles in order to reach conclusions on a specific topic. With over 13 different values, a researcher will seldom need to consult other external resources to assess the quality of the paper. As such, ALIGN provides a nearly self-contained research application, which can be used to simplify and streamline the process of writing systematic reviews, while ensuring accuracy and quality. In general, by adding about 40-60 seconds of computing time per paper, researchers can begin to access objective measurements of the paper. This paper explores the different factors that go into evaluating a paper in general, the amalgamation of different resources to summarize useful information about the papers found in the search strategy, as well as the implications and limitations of the process on academia.
References
- Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of internal medicine. 2009;151(4):W65-94.
- Benjamin EJ, Levy D, Vaziri SM, D'Agostino RB, Belanger AJ, Wolf PA. Independent risk factors for atrial fibrillation in a population-based cohort. The Framingham Heart Study. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 1994;271(11):840-4.
- Eugene G. The Agony and the Ecstasy—The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. Retrieved December. 2005;28:2006.
- Goodman D. Web of Science (2004 version) and Scopus. The Charleston Advisor. 2005;6(3):5-.
- Guerrero-Bote VP, Moya-Anegón F. A further step forward in measuring journals' scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator. Journal of Informetrics. 2012;6(4):674-88.
- Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2008;59(5):830-7.
- Jacsó P. Google Scholar: the pros and the cons. Online information review. 2005;29(2):208-14.
- Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal. 2008;22(2):338-42.
- Bjork B-C, Roos A, Lauri M. Scientific journal publishing: yearly volume and open access availability. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal. 2009;14(1).
- Zhu W-DJ, Foyle B, Gagné D, Gupta V, Magdalen J, Mundi AS, et al. IBM Watson Content Analytics: Discovering Actionable Insight from Your Content: IBM Redbooks; 2014.
Index Terms
Keywords