English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article reports on five separate studies designed for the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to develop and test methodologies for evaluating the products of large databases. The methodologies were tested on literatures of the medical behavioral sciences (MBS). One of these studies examined how well NLM covered MBS monographic literature using CATLINE and OCLC. Another examined MBS journal and serial literature coverage in MEDLINE and other MBS-related databases available through DIALOG. These two studies used 1010 items derived from the reference lists of sixty-one journals, and tested for gaps and overlaps in coverage in the various databases. A third study examined the quality of the indexing NLM provides to MBS literatures and developed a measure of indexing as a system component. The final two studies explored how well MEDLINE retrieved documents on topics submitted by MBS professionals and how online searchers viewed MEDLINE (and other systems and databases) in handling MBS topics. The five studies yielded both broad research outcomes and specific recommendations to NLM.

journal of the american society for information science. american society for information science

Tests of methods for evaluating bibliographic databases: An analysis of the National Library of Medicine's handling of literatures in the medical behavioral sciences