Nearly 50 years after Dr. Eugene Garfield began collecting and indexing scholarly
research data, Thomson Scientific continues his emphasis on quality and relevance
– carefully selecting and indexing the core literature published in peer-reviewed
scholarly journals, books, and proceedings.
Built upon a well-established selection process, the multidisciplinary Thomson
Scientific database is the foundation of every ISI Web of KnowledgeSM
resource. Editors selecting content for these resources rely on various indicators,
including citation analysis, journal publishing standards, and the confirmation
of the application of peer review. With these tools, Thomson Scientific can
assess the scholarly merit of the journals being evaluated for coverage.
The explosion of the Internet during the latter part of the 1990’s, however,
radically altered the way people find and share information. Although scholarly
journals still remain the vehicle of choice for conveying research results,
the Internet has become an important research tool. Through searching the Internet,
researchers and scholars can find relevant ancillary materials that would not
normally appear in journals or books. These materials include preprints, working
papers, reports, gray literature, and field-specific news. Also, the multimedia
aspect of the Internet makes it possible for researchers to share audio and
video files, models and simulations, extensive image collections (e.g., maps
and photographs), and source code.
The Internet also enables researchers from all around the world to participate
in common projects and contribute to (or search) shared, interactive databases.
Bulletin boards and discussion forums allow people to communicate freely and
effectively with others in their research community. The Internet also makes
real-time raw data instantly available for download.
Because of the power and popularity of the Internet, Thomson Scientific made
the decision several years ago to complement the extensive bibliographic information
we already provide our customers by developing a collection of scholarly Web
sites – Current Web Contents (CWC). To do this, the Web Content Editors
in the Editorial Development Department identify Web sites and evaluate them
by determining how the Web site adheres to a number of selection criteria. These
criteria include authority, accuracy, currency, navigation and design, applicability
and content, scope, audience level, and quality of writing.
Authority
To establish the authority of a Web site, the Thomson Scientific editorial
review covers a number of questions, including the following:
- Is the information credible and of high quality?
- Is the information objective?
- Is the author (if applicable) clearly identified?
- What are the author’s professional affiliations?
- Can the author be contacted?
- Is this the official site of an organization or association?
Vouching for the authority of a Web site is objectified if the Thomson Scientific
Web Content Editor is considering the official site of an organization. The
prestige of the organization and its existing reputation can confirm authority.
Authority is also more easily established when a known author with reasonable
credentials and affiliations is identified. Named authors of scholarly Web sites,
however, are rarely found. But when named, the author’s credentials can
be compared to the subject of the site. For example, if the Thomson Scientific
Web Content Editor is considering an authored microbiology site, then an affiliation
with a microbiology department at an established university or government program
would be expected.
On the other hand, excellent virtual libraries compiled by non-credentialed
amateurs exist in many subjects. In these cases, the format of the Web site
and the freshness of the external links can indicate the level of authority.
Accuracy
As with journal evaluations, the evaluation criteria for Web content are often
complementary. In evaluating for accuracy, the Editor may rely on some of the
same information used in determining authority. Likewise, data on accuracy may
contribute to observations on a site’s authority. No one factor is held
in isolation. Facts are used wherever they have relevance.
Objective, correct, referenced, or professionally sponsored information is
a mark of accuracy. An indication of bias, however, could be a mark of inaccuracy.
Bias is possible with for-profit sponsorship of research or with sponsorship
by advocacy groups. For example, a conflict of interest may arise when a for-profit
pharmaceutical firm hosts a pharmaceutical society page or when a nuclear engineering
trade association sponsors a site on nuclear energy.
Currency
Journal evaluations proceed only when adherence to a stated publication schedule
has been determined. In evaluating Web sites, current updates are analogous
to the journals’ timeliness of publication. When reviewing a Web site
for currency, the Web Content Editor asks how frequently the site is updated
with new information. Different parts of a Web site may be updated at different
times. For example, news sections, bulletin boards, calendars of events, and
any section dedicated to new information should be updated fairly frequently.
The discipline in question could also dictate the need for more or less currency.
Fast moving fields produce more new information and need more frequent updates.
For example, research in immunology or genetics moves at a decidedly faster
pace than research in early modern Milanese liturgical music. Nonetheless, because
the Internet environment is one of change and not stasis, a six-month interval
is the maximum acceptable period between updates regardless of the discipline.
One notable exception is a Web site clearly maintained for archival purposes.
Navigation and Design
Functionality is of primary importance in a Web site evaluation. Whatever the
level of technology used, it must function well and allow the user to progress
logically through the site to the information. Likewise, the arrangement of
elements on a Web page when viewed in a browser window should serve to make
the purpose of the site more obvious. Meaningful connectedness to related, up-to-date,
and/or other Thomson Scientific selected sites is a plus.
Examples of the questions the Web Content Editors ask about navigation and
design include the following:
- Are there enough internal links?
- Are the links and other resources kept up to date?
- Is navigation through the site logical?
- Are external links relevant to the topic?
- Are there links to sites already selected by Thomson Scientific?
- Is the content presented in an orderly manner?
- Does the overall design of the Web site promote understanding of the content?
- Is a text-only version of the site available?
- Is the overall design user friendly?
- Is the overall design of the site aesthetically pleasing?
Applicability and Content
The Web Content Editors take into consideration whether or not a site’s
content is relevant to one or more of the more than 100 disciplines covered
in the seven editions of Current Contents. The type of content is also reviewed
with respect to how useful it would be to our core audience.
Scope
If a site provides its own mission or scope statement, the Web Content Editor
verifies that the content on the site matches this statement. If none is clearly
stated, the Web Content Editor reviews the content and resources on the site
and tries to determine the site’s purpose.
Audience Level
Primarily, the Web Content Editors are looking for scholarly, research-oriented
material or material of interest to the research community. We are, therefore,
aiming at an audience of scholars, researchers, professionals, or graduate students.
Web sites, however, might contain educational materials for students and/or
the general public in addition to scholarly resources. This mixture of content
level is taken into consideration and, in many cases, could be a plus.
Quality of Writing
The Web Content Editors look for basic spelling and grammatical competence
as well as a minimal use of jargon. Clarity in discussing complex ideas is desirable.
Some leeway, however, is given to the English translation versions of foreign
language sites.
Reviews
Although not a selection criterion per se, Thomson Scientific Web Content Editors
do pay attention to any awards listed on site. Given our mission to identify
high-quality Web resources, an award from a reputable source (such as the Scout
Report or Science) is a definite plus.
If the site meets our selection criteria, the Web Content Editor then puts
together a record for the site that includes a brief, original description and
information on the site’s publisher, provider type (e.g., academic, government,
association/society), language, resource types (e.g., databases, articles, links,
and so on), and resource formats (e.g., HTML, Flash, PDF, JPG, etc.). See
an example of a standardized record.
How to Recommend Web Sites
Thomson Scientific welcomes suggestions and recommendations for coverage. If
you would like to recommend a Web site for evaluation, please contact the Editorial
Development Department via e-mail at ts.current.web.contents@thomson.com.
Please provide the full URL, the name of the site, and pertinent contact information
(e.g., name and e-mail address of editor or creator of the site). Enclose a
brief statement explaining the unique features of the site and its primary audience.
