Comprehensive Overview of International Resources in Medicine: Scientific Journal Indexes, Databases, Catalogs, Information Matrices, Open Access Infrastructures, Libraries, Field Indexes, Publishing Ethics Platforms and Data Libraries Related to Artificial Intelligence (Systematic Review)

Year 2024, Volume: 57 Issue: 3, 147 - 154, 22.01.2025

Ali Dal , Mehmet Çıtırık

https://doi.org/10.20492/aeahtd.1493291

Abstract

Science progressed through the accumulation of research. When conducting a new study, it is essential to conduct a literature review to avoid redoing what has been done previously or to benefit from prior studies. During these reviews, it was crucial to refer to scientifically approved publications that were verified by experts. These systematic quality evaluations are referred to as "indices.” For researchers, indices are vital in terms of recognition, citations, and academic career progression. However, databases, catalogs, knowledge matrices, open-access infrastructure, and libraries are frequently used by researchers that are not officially indexed. Each index and search engine had unique features. Ethics is one of the most critical issues in publishing research. International publishing ethics platforms provide guidance and standardization in this regard. This article extensively discusses the scope and features of indices and search engines and discusses their prominent features in light of the literature. International formations and their features regarding publishing ethics were evaluated under specific headings. We aimed to introduce the features of journal indexes, databases, and search engines to inform researchers who plan to publish their studies both during literature searches and in journals about the issues they should pay attention to during journal selection, and to present a comparative evaluation of scientific journal indexes.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence, Databases, Index, Publication Ethics, Scientific Journal, Search Engine.

Tıpta Uluslararası Kaynaklara Kapsamlı Bakış: Bilimsel Dergi İndeksleri, Veri Tabanları, Kataloglar, Bilgi Matrisleri, Açık Erişim Altyapıları, Kütüphaneler, Alan İndeksleri, Yayıncılık Etiği Platformları ve Yapay Zeka ile İlgili Veri Kütüphaneleri (Sistematik İnceleme)

Abstract

Bilim, yapılan araştırmaların birikimiyle ilerler. Yeni bir çalışma yapılırken, önceki çalışmalardan yola çıkarak yeniden aynı şeyi yapmamak ya da bu çalışmalardan faydalanmak için literatür taraması esastır. Bu taramalar sırasında bilimsel kaliteye sahip, uzmanlarca onaylanmış yayınlara başvurmak önemlidir. Bu kalite değerlendirmesini sistemli bir şekilde yapan oluşumlara "indeksler" denir. İndeksler yağmacı dergileri uzak tutarak, dergileri bir nevi eleyerek araştırmacıların işlerini kolaylaştırmaktadır. Araştırmacılar için indeksler, tanınırlık, atıf alma ve akademik kariyer ilerlemesi açısından hayati öneme sahiptir. Bununla birlikte, resmi olarak bir indeks olmamakla birlikte, araştırmacılar tarafından sıkça kullanılan veri tabanları, kataloglar, bilgi matrisleri, açık erişim alt yapıları ve kütüphaneler vardır. Her indeks ve arama motoru kendi özgün özellikleriyle öne çıkar. Yayıncılıkta en önemli konulardan bir tanesi de etik konusudur. Bu konuda rehberlik hizmetleri gören ve standardizasyon çalışması yürüten uluslararası yayıncılık etiği platformunda oluşumlar mevcuttur. Bu platformlar, şeffaflığı artırma, çıkar çatışmalarını yönetme ve bilimsel topluluğun güvenini sürdürme amacıyla kapsamlı rehberlik sunar. Bu makalede, indeks ve arama motorlarının kapsamı ve özellikleri detaylı bir şekilde ele alınmış, literatür ışığında öne çıkan özellikleri tartışılmıştır. Ayrıca yayıncılık etiği konusunda uluslararası oluşumlar ve özellikleri başlıklar halinde değerlendirilmiştir. Amacımız, dergi indekslerini, veri tabanlarını ve arama motorlarının özelliklerini tanıtarak hem literatür taraması esnasında hem de çalışmalarını dergilerde yayımlatmayı planlayan araştırmacılara, dergi seçimi esnasında dikkat etmeleri gereken hususlar hakkında bilgilendirmek ve bilimsel dergi dizinlerinin karşılaştırmalı değerlendirilmesini ortaya koymaktır.

Keywords

Arama motoru, Bilimsel Dergi, İndeks, Veri Tabanı, Yapay Zeka, Yayıncılık Etiği.

References

• 1. Bahşişoğlu HK. Tıp ve Sağlık Bilimlerinde Süreli Yayıncılık ve Sağlık Bilimlerinde Süreli Yayıncılık Sempozyumları. Bilgi Dünyası. 2014;15(1):202-16.
• 2. Ngai EWT, Moon KKL, Riggins FJ, Candace YY. RFID research: An academic literature review (1995–2005) and future research directions. International Journal of Production Economics. 2008;112(2):510-20.
• 3. Sezgin F, and Nurdan Ö. K. Türkiye Yükseköğretim Yeterlilikler Çerçevesi bağlamında eğitim yönetimi lisansüstü programlarında etkili danışmanlık süreci.Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi 2023;21(1): 552-79.
• 4. Mooney H. A practical approach to data citation: The Special Interest Group on Data Citation and development of the Quick Guide to Data Citation. Iassıst Quarterly, 2014; 37(1-4): 71-71.
• 5. Somoza-Fernández M, Rodríguez-Gairín J, Urbano C. Journal coverage of the Emerging Sources Citation Index. Learned Publ. 2018;31(3):199-204.
• 6. Birkle C, Pendlebury DA, Schnell J, Adams J. Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1(1):363-76.
• 7. Sağıroğlu, Ş, Dener, M, Güneş, S, Güllü, A, Vd. Ulusal Veritabanı Ve Atıf İndeksi Kurulumu İçin Stratejiler, Problemler Ve Çözüm Önerileri. Gazi University Journal of Science Part C: Design and Technology. 2015;3(2):501-512.
• 8. Baas J, Schotten M, Plume A, Côté G, Karimi R. Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1(1):377-86.
• 9. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338-42.
• 10. Muruli. Status of Open Access Journals in the Field of Chemistry as Indexed in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ): A Study. SRELS J Inform Manag. 2017;54:311-17.
• 11. Wright T, Pullen S. Examining the literature: A bibliometric study of ESD journal articles in the Education Resources Information Center Database. J Educ Sustain Dev. 2007;1(1):77-90.
• 12. Leclercq V, Beaudart C, Tirelli E, Bruyère O. Psychometric measurements of AMSTAR 2 in a sample of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;119:144-45.
• 13. Mondal H, Mondal S. Pressure to publish: Index copernicus and predatory journals are helping (?) academicians. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2019;10(3):332.
• 14. Vengamma B, Rao PS. The Journal of Clinical and Scientific Research: The leap forwards! J Clin Sci Res. 2015;4(1):1.
• 15. Europe PMC Consortium. Europe PMC: a full-text literature database for the life sciences and platform for innovation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:1042-8. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1061
• 16. Alav, O. Evaluation of impact factors of articles in scientific open access journals in Türkiye. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 2022;9(3):713-727. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1076989
• 17. Xia J, Smith M P. Alternative journal impact factors in open access publishing. Learned Publishing. 2018;31(4):403-411.
• 18. Walker-Dilks C, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Hedges Team. Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature search strategies for identifying methodologically sound causation and prognosis studies. Appl Nurs Res. 2008;21(2):98-103.
• 19. Piwowar H, Priem J, Larivière V, Alperin JP. Matthias L, Norlander B, et al. (2018). The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 2018;6:e4375. doi:10.7717/peerj.4375.
• 20. Gómez-Núñez AJ, Vargas-Quesada B, de Moya-Anegón F, Glänzel W. Improving SCImago Journal Country Rank (SJR) subject classification through reference analysis. Scientometrics. 2011;89(3):741-58.
• 21. Scope Database. Journal Indexing, Journal Metrics, Conference Proceedings Indexing, Impact Factor Score (IFS), Scope Database Journal Ranking and Journal Indexing Search Engines. [Internet]. [Date of Access: 16 October 2023]. Available from: https://sdbindex.com/about-scopedatabase
• 22. Chen, X. Google Books and WorldCat: A comparison of their content. Online Information Review. 2012;36(4): 507-516.
• 23. Zabala, J, González‐Albo, B, García‐García, A, Garrido‐Domínguez, A, Vidal‐Liy, J.I, Álvarez‐Díez, L.R. et al. Evaluation and publication delay in Ibero‐American scientific journals. Learned Publishing. 2023;36(2):205-216.
• 24. Rettberg N, Schmidt B. OpenAIRE-Building a collaborative Open Access infrastructure for European researchers. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries. 2012;22(3):160-75.
• 25. Mastilović A. Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources “ROAD”. Bosniaca. 2022;(27):222-3.
• 26. Dalkıran Ö, Bekiroğlu H, Tuğrul T. İlahiyat araştırmalarında veri taraması: Veri tabanları- kütüphaneler- atıf dizinleri. Demr A, editör. 1. Baskı, İstanbul: Oku Okut Yayınları; 2023. s.79-82.
• 27. Ajuwon MG. A. Knowledge, access and usage pattern of HINARI by researchers and clinicians in tertiary health institutions in south-west Nigeria. African journal of medicine and medical sciences. 2013;42(1):97-106.
• 28. Oppenheim C. The correlation between citation counts and the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise Ratings for British library and information science university departments. Journal of Documentation. 1995;51(1):18-27.
• 29. Curry CL. SHERPA services and SHERPA/RoMEO. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries. 2017;14(3-4):135-138.
• 30. Sun J, Yuan BZ. Trend and research status of Agronomy based on the Essential Science Indicators during 2009–2019. Agron J. 2021;113(2):2184-94.
• 31. Deardorff A, Florance V, VanBiervliet A. Assessing the National Library of Medicine’s Informationist Awards. J eScience Libr. 2016;5(1):e1095.
• 32. Heidt A. Artificial-intelligence search engines wrangle academic literature. Nature. 2023;620(7973):456-7.
• 33. Manca A, Moher D, Cugusi L, Dvir Z, Deriu F. How predatory journals leak into PubMed. Can Med Assoc J. 2018;190(35):1042-5.
• 34. Gusenbauer M, Haddaway NR. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research synthesis methods. 2020;11(2):181-217.
• 35. Younger P, Boddy K. When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID and DIALOG. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2009;26(2):126-35.
• 36. Manca S. ResearchGate and Academia.edu as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: A literature review. Res Learn Technol. 2018;26.
• 37. Herzog C, Hook D, Konkiel S. Dimensions: Bringing down barriers between scientometricians and data. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1(1):387-95.
• 38. Riegelman, A. Research square. The Charleston Advisor. 2022;24(2):43-45.
• 39. Rich A. The accent of truth: the Hollywood research bible and the republic of images. Representations. 2019;145(1):152-73.
• 40. Aslan A. Uluslararası Alan Indeksleri: Sağlık alanıyla ilgili bilimsel dergi indeksleri. Acta Med. Alanya. 2019;3(2):102-4.
• 41. Sengupta S, Honavar SG. Publication ethics. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2017;65(6):429-32. doi:10.4103/ijo.ijo_483_17
• 42. Šupak-Smolčić V, Mlinarić A, Antončić D, Horvat M, Omazić J, Šimundić AM. Icmje authorship criteria are not met in a substantial proportion of manuscripts submitted to biochemia medica. Biochemia Medica. 201;25(3):324–34. doi:10.11613/bm.2015.033
• 43. Ferris LE, Fletcher RH. Conflict of interest in peer-reviewed medical journals: the world association of medical editors (wame) position on a challenging problem. Journal of Primary Health Care. 2010; 2(2):171-3.
• 44. Stretton S. Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature. BMJ Open. 2014;4(7):e004777. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004777
• 45. Masic I. Ethical aspects and dilemmas of preparing, writing and publishing of the scientific papers in the biomedical journals. Acta Informatica Medica. 2012;20(3):141-8. doi:10.5455/aim.2012.20.141-148
• 46. Czech H, Druml C, Weindling P. Medical ethics in the 70 years after the nuremberg code, 1947 to the present. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift. 2018;130(3):159-253. doi:10.1007/s00508-018-1343-y
• 47. Salman, Rahama, and Subodhini Gupta. "DeepQ classification automated disease classification in global perspective approach and predictive decision using tensor flow." World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. 2023;17(2):200-207.
• 48. Iseke S, Zeevi T, Kucukkaya AS, et al. Machine Learning Models for Prediction of Posttreatment Recurrence in Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Pretreatment Clinical and MRI Features: A Proof-of-Concept Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2023;220(2):245-255. doi:10.2214/AJR.22.28077
• 49. Chandan, Radha Raman, et al. "Genetic Algorithm and Machine Learning." Advanced Bioinspiration Methods for Healthcare Standards, Policies, and Reform. IGI Global. 2023;167-182.
• 50. Sivri, Enes. Kütüphanelerde Yapay Zekâ’nın Geleceği: Farklı Alanlardaki Potansiyel Uygulamalar ve Yeni Kullanım Alanları Oluşturma. Library Archive and Museum Research Journal. 2023:4(2):175-184.
• 51. Ashby MP. The open-access availability of criminological research to practitioners and policy makers. Journal of criminal justice education. 2020;32(1):1-21.
• 52. Butler L, Visser MS. Extending citation analysis to non-source items. Scientometrics. 2006;66(2):327-43.
• 53. Amara N, Landry R. Counting citations in the field of business and management: why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science. Scientometrics. 2012;93(3):553-81.
• 54. Singh VK, Singh P, Karmakar M, Leta J, Mayr P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics. 2021;126(6):5113-42.
• 55. Burnham JF. Scopus database: a review. Biomed Digit Libr. 2006;3(1).
• 56. Visser M, van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic. Quant Sci Stud. 2021;2(1):20-41.