Skip to main content

Research Skills for Undergraduates

OSU Libraries workshops for undergraduate students.

Transcript - Work Smarter Not Harder Workshop video

Transcript provided by Disability Access Services at Oregon State University. 

June 2012

Work Smarter Not Harder: Turn One Good Article into Several

 Fifty-seven minutes, thirty-eight seconds




Uta Hussong-Christian:  The focus of today's workshop is to help you take a good source that you may have found in your previous research travels and turn that into multiple sources that are related and definitely relevant for your project. 


So we're going to talk about all of this as the idea of recommend readings. 


So the workshop outcomes for today are these three things.  By the end of the session today you'll have two tools that you can use to develop additional sources based on an original source that you have.  That's what I asked you to bring, a citation that you had found in another research project.  You'll be able to distinguish between sources that are called cited sources and sources that are called citing sources.  So I'll clarify what that difference is.  And in a particular database I want you to be able to conduct a cited reference search if that's something that would be helpful for you at a later date. 


So those are the three things we'll focus on.  There will be some other materials that we cover along the way.  And this is going to be the way we approach this session.  I'm going to be talking about sources as recommended sources.  We'll talk about cited references and citing references, and then other search tips that we'll talk about toward the end but also bring up as we're going through the session today. 


So feel free to ask questions as we go along.  We can stop.  We've got time for that so there's no problem at all with that. 


So this idea of recommended readings actually came from, originally from a Facebook posting that I saw that I used in a previous iteration of this workshop.  By I have changed the example to something from Wired Science which is one of the Wired magazine blogs.  And the reason I wanted to start out with this particular article on a Wired Science blog is that I want to tie everything that we're doing back to something that you might encounter in your normal everyday lives, whether you're on social media tools or you're looking at different blogs online, reading different articles that you run across for pleasure reading, maybe, just for personal interest.  I want to tie all of this back to the kind of behavior that you already do and the kinds of things that you're already seeing online. 


So in this Wired Science blog—we'll see if this links out correctly.  I found this article about money and happiness and it's an interesting article suggesting, they're talking about studies that suggests there's a limited link between those two.  But the reason I picked this particular article is that as you read through the article this particular author has a lot of links in here to other articles, newspapers, presentations, things like that, that support what he's presenting in this particular article.  And so as a reader I don't necessarily need to go look at those articles to understand this or grasp the full content of it, but they might be of interest to me.  And so I want to put the question to you about why that might be the case.  If you were interested in this topic and you wanted to do additional reading on it, why might you pursue some of the links that he is presenting here?  Yep, it's a question for you. 


Woman:  Um, probably just cause that's where he gets some of his information from, to see how accurate it is. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Okay so he's pulling some of his information from those sources, absolutely. 


Woman:  Maybe to see how credible his sources are. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  To see how credible his sources are, absolutely.  So we're going to think of those, potentially then, as recommended sources for additional reading.  What about, anything we might say about the author?  Now you don't know this author, I don't know this author.  But if we did, what might that say about our willingness to follow some of the links?  Would there be a tendency for you to check on his sources if you actually knew this person or knew of their writing? 


Woman:  Maybe. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  For me personally, if I knew the author or had read previous writings and I enjoyed it or trusted that author I might be more willing to look at some of his other materials that he links out to.  So those ideas of trust, knowing the author, know their work, but also knowing that the additional sources can help me find more information about that topic.  I would see those recommendations as a good thing, okay? 


So if we take that idea, we can take those and apply it to our scholarly reading as well.  So your articles that you were trying to find for research papers or presentations, things like that, we can apply these same concepts.  So as we do that, I want you to think about these, what we're going to talk about in just a moment as scholarly recommendations.  So in the Wired article he actually is linking out to some materials that are scholarly in nature.  There are some scientific publications there.  Others are not.  So there's a mix of materials. 


In the work that you're doing, scholarly research, we also have tools that allow us to track down scholarly recommendations, or scholarly recommended readings.  And I'm going to start off this section of the presentation with a real world example and a real world topic that I might want to find some additional information on.  So I don't know if you are aware, and this may come up, so at the information desk you might want to be prepared to answer some of these questions.  But on September 1, 2012, of this year, we have a campus smoking ban that goes into effect, like all of campus. 


So if I were interested in pursuing additional information about this topic I would want to start in some reputable databases, one of which is Web of Science.  So do either of you, have you used that at the info desk?  Okay.  So we're going to start here to look for articles about smoking bans and policies around this, or effects of smoking bans.  Let's get to our Web of Science database here.  And I don't have an article prepared already.  I'm going to do a search to find one.  Whoops.  Sorry this keyboard is really small compared to what I'm used to so it's going to be a little strange for me.  Oh boy, this is going to be rough.


And I'm interested in this topic as it applies to colleges and universities.  I'm just going to run a search here.  And I come up with twenty-one items here.  And there's one that, as I was preparing this, there was one that caught my eye.  This one down here, "Enforcing an Outdoor Smoking Ban on a College Campus."  So campus is going to run up against these kinds of issues.  So if I were interested in this article I could pursue that one, and we do actually have the article full text.  So here we have it.  It's an interesting article, but in terms of recommendations for additional reading, if I use this article as my original article of interest, how do I take that and make it work for me in terms of developing additional articles?  So any, do you have any ideas how we can make that happen? 


Student:  Maybe look at the work cited list. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Yes, work cited list, excellent.  Absolutely.  So down at the bottom is a reference list, so those works the author used as they conducted the research and they drew upon and they cited those items as they prepared their paper.  So definitely I would look through these, and just looking at some of the titles, some great articles here that I would potentially want to pursue.  And I could easily do that.  We could go, some of these would be available full text. 


So I might choose any number of these as additional recommended readings.  And the reason I'm calling these recommended readings is that—I'm going to get back here—the authors of this paper put a lot of effort, right, into reviewing articles and reviewing literature, some of which they ended up using in their final publication, so the things that they did eventually cite in their reference list are called cited references.  Does that make sense, that terminology?  They're citing those materials in their document.  Those are cited references.  And that terminology becomes important a little bit later when we're trying to differentiate between cited references and citing references.  But these are the materials that this author or this group of authors drew on in the preparation and conduct with their own research.  So those are things that I may want to use. 


So one of the things I'd like to have you do to start out with is to just to use the citation that you have in, that you brought with you, do a title search in Web of Science and see if you can actually find that article.  And then just use—actually I should go back a step.  I forgot to mention that in Web of Science, so I actually went and looked at the article itself to find the references, or to find my recommended readings.  But within the record for Web of Science, we actually can use the Cited References link here to look at those references without actually having to have the full text of the article which is especially useful in situations where we can't immediately access the full text.  So both of you know that it's not always available even though students want it or faculty members want it to be.  So in Web of Science I can easily look at all thirty-eight of those citations or those cited references just by using that link.  So here are those, all thirty-eight of those articles.  And then I can pursue getting some of these if I wished.  Or at least I have access to titles and citation information for all of those which help me determine whether or not any of these are relevant and useful for my project. 


Woman:  Can I ask a question? 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Mmhmm. 


Woman:  So what if the cited references are not in Web of Science?  Would they still pop up in that list? 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  They'll still pop up in the list.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be able to access the article but Web of Science is built on a web.  That's actually why it's called the Web of Science, but it's built on a web of references.  So any paper that's indexed in Web of Science, the references from that paper will have at least a little record like this. 


Woman:  Oh okay. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  So that allows you to then easily access the references, or at least citation information for the references from any paper that's in Web of Science.  So this is the beauty of this database.  So as an exercise what I'd like you to do is take the citation that you brought with you, go to Web of Science.  You can just do a title search, look up that, first see if you can actually find the article in Web of Science.  And then check and see if the reference list, and check and see if you have, if you can find one or two additional articles that would be useful for you just based on that original article. 


And if you're able to identify articles that are useful from the cited references list, as a bonus one of the things you're going to notice in Web of Science is that the author names are hyperlinked.  So this is another way to get to potential use for articles on a similar or related topic just by exploring some of the other works that your authors have published.  Generally they're going to be publishing papers about, their research is going to kind of follow a theme.  And so if they're, in this case publishing on a smoking ban on college campuses, other publications that they're putting out may also be a related topic.  So that's another way to take that one article and turn it into multiple articles that are of interest without doing any additional work. 


So are you able to find your article on Web of Science?  You can just use the, instead of a topic search just go ahead and do a title search.  Were you able to find yours?  Okay.  Excellent.  So did you find any additional articles of interest?  Okay.  And you may have run across those in searching anyway, but this is one step that allows you to not necessarily have to go through multiple iterations of search to find additional useful information. 


So since you have found a couple that way, try clicking on one of the author names and see if you can find any others that might be useful just going the author route. 


Were you able to find anything? 


Woman:  Mmhmm. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Okay.  Did you try both the cited references and author searching? 


Woman:  Yes. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Okay.  So your article's not coming up at all?  Okay.  You're just going to try another citation?  Okay.  So we'll talk about using Google Scholar in just a few minutes but there's actually, Google Scholar has a drawback when we're talking about this particular type of searching for additional references.  We'll talk about that in just a minute. 


Actually let's look at some of the drawbacks here.  You'll be able to use Google Scholar in a few minutes to do some searching.  So two things that, two problems with this particular type of search in Web of Science but in other tools as well, one is that the cited references, so anything in the reference list, is always older than the publication, the original publication of interest.  And that's because of publication cycles.  So at the time the author is reading and writing and preparing their research and preparing the article, they can't cite anything newer than what they're doing because it hasn't come up out yet.  So as you're looking at reference lists you're always going back in time, which is not bad.  However if you have a really old article, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, you know, a hundred years old, its references are going to be even older than that.  And in fields where research is moving very quickly and research cycles are happening very quickly old citations are not necessarily useful.  But they can be.  So that's one drawback.  Cited references or those recommended sources in the reference list are always going to be older than the article of interest. 


The other drawback is that Google Scholar, while it's a great search tool, you can't access references like you can, it doesn't have a cited reference link like there is in Web of Science.  There are some other library databases that do.  For instance, Academic Search Premier, you will occasionally find links to the references in a particular article that you can discover in Academic Search Premier.  So Google Scholar, we'll use it in a few minutes for looking at this another way, but you can't go backwards as easily as you can in Web of Science which is a little bit unfortunate. 


So if we're constantly looking backward through time, and you can track citations, right?  So if I took my original article and I found some additional articles that are a little bit older that are of interest I could always look at those references and keep going backwards.  But what happens if I want to move forward through time?  I have my original article and I'd like to find out if there's any newer research on this same topic that's related to that article that I have.  Well it turns out that we can actually very easily can do this.  And both Web of Science and Google Scholar will let us do this in addition to other databases.  So we're going to take a look at Web of Science first, but we'll just talk about what this actually looks like. 


So the original article that I was working with was this one on enforcing a ban on college campuses, a smoking ban on college campuses.  This was published in 2009.  And after that article was published there was another group of authors who in their research included this article in their reference list.  They published their article I think at the end of 2010.  So this article, their research built on this particular topic.  And now our terminology about how we're addressing cited references changes a little bit.  So this new article is now citing this article.  So if we're talking about this original article, this newer one is a citing reference.  It cites this one here.  So if it's older it's cited, if it's newer it's citing.  So when you see that terminology that's where it comes from.  And it can get a little bit tricky when you're starting to move back and forth kind of quickly, to keep track of which is which. 


So how do we find these in Web of Science?  Actually pretty simple.  I'm going to go back here to my search.  So if I'm looking at my original article here, I've already looked at the references that they include in their reference list.  But Web of Science has another link here called Times Cited.  And these are the, this is where terminology becomes even more confusing.  These are the citing references.  So there are four articles in Web of Science that cite this article here.  And I can use this link to look at those four.  So these are all newer than this "Enforcing Smoking Ban" article. 


So here are the four.  Again, because Web of Science includes all of the references from any article it's indexed, I can see the citations for those four articles.  So this is now another way for me to develop or discover recommended readings that are newer than my article of interest, and I can continue that process.  So of those four that were published in 2010, several of those now have even newer articles that have cited each one of these.  So I can keep moving forward through time, getting closer and closer to the present, all the while building on that original research that was done back in 2009. 


So it's a pretty cool process to be able to do that, and again, without much additional searching allows me to take one article and develop a suite of related research that might be useful for me.  So we can do this in Google Scholar.  So this one is coming up to the top of my list and it is cited by ten articles in Google Scholar.  So simply clicking on the link here, I can find those additional ten articles and then I see most, not all of them, but most of them are again cited by even newer works. 


Anything that you notice—if I go back here—what do you notice about this number versus what I have in Web of Science?  More in Google Scholar?  Yeah.  And you will often see that.  So it's not that Google Scholar is better.  Web of Science and Google Scholar are indexing different collections of journals so the total number of materials in Google Scholar is slightly different than it is in Web of Science and so they're only looking when, this Time Cited number, these four articles are only articles that are indexed in Web of Science.  It's not looking out in Google Scholar and Google Scholar's not looking at the materials in Web of Science.  So those numbers are always going to be a little bit different.  So it's just part of what happens with using multiple resources.  So because of that, it's potentially worth checking both of those tools to come up with additional materials. 


Alright, so what does this look like?  If we're trying to envision this idea of cited and citing references, it helped me always to actually see this visually.  So this is my original article, the one about the smoking ban, or whatever you brought with you today.  If I look at it, reference lists are usually multiple articles here.  These are the cited references, these are older.  And again these are all going to have references as well so I'm moving backward through time.  And then if I look forward, these are all articles that are potentially citing this one and their individual reference lists.  So these are the citing references.  And again, newer articles then citing these. 


So there's this web, literally, being built all based on the references that are included in all of these articles which is why the database is called Web of Science.  It originally started out specifically for science.  It now includes a social sciences component and it does include an arts and humanities component although we haven't purchased that particular component of the database. 


Okay, so the next exercise I want to have you take your own article and if it's not showing up in Web of Science try to find it in Google Scholar and see if there are any citations to it in Google Scholar and see if you can find one or two additional articles that way.  And then we'll talk about some ways to work with the list of references that you find using either the cited references or the citing references.  So have either of you tried doing this before?  Okay.  Tia, had you? 


Tia:  I have.  And I love it. 


[Tia laughs]


Uta Hussong-Christian:  You love it, yes.  I love it too.  Web of Science is actually probably my all time favorite database and this is one of the reasons. 


Tia:  But I think it's interesting to compare it to Google Scholar and then compare that to One Search, too. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  So one of the things that you'll find in Google Scholar, some of the citations there will be books, book chapters, and you won't find those materials in Web of Science.  That's why Web of Science is really focused almost exclusively on journal articles.  Not completely, but . . .


Did you find it in Google Scholar? 


Woman:  Yeah.  But there's no reference list. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Okay.  Okay so that's inter-, it's pretty new.  And we're going to talk about that in just a minute.  Were you able to find yours?  Is it, did it have citing references, Times Cited? 


Woman:  Mmhmm. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Okay.  So any additional articles there that might be of interest? 


Woman:  One. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Okay.  And did that one have any citing references? 


Woman:  I'm going to check right now. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Okay.  No?  Okay, what is the date on it?


Woman:  July 2011. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Okay so it's still fairly new.  It's within a year.  So this is actually the next thing I want to have you check.  When you're looking at your Times Cited list or even if you're looking at your list of cited references, so anything that would appear on the reference list in an article, one of the things that you can do and you can't do this in Google Scholar so it's a little tough, but in Web of Science we can actually sort things, sort our records in ways that help us get a little bit more information about these publications. 


So one of the things we can do is we can sort by publication date.  So we can look at them in order of newest publication to oldest publication.  And if you have a list of references there I want you to go ahead and do that and see what you notice about the Times Cited numbers on the newer publications versus the older publications.  I'm going to do the same thing for the search that we have going. 


So these are—let's see, what am I looking at here—these are the thirty-eight references that were in the reference list from this original article.  So I'm just going to take a look at those.  So I can do this with either the cited by or the cited articles. 


So I want to do Publication Date, looks like it's defaulting newest to oldest.  So are you noticing anything in your lists?  Anything happening there?  Okay so we'll talk about this one.  I'm actually going to run a different search so you can see this in a little bit more detail.  So when I looked at the newer references citing my original article there were only four, but when I sort it what I notice here is that the older articles have more newer articles citing them than the newer articles do.  And there's a reason for that, right?  The newer articles have not been out, haven't been published long enough for other researchers to have discovered them, made use of them in their own research, and then get their own publications accepted for publication. 


So it's going to be natural that if an article is a good article and really relevant for whatever topic is being addressed that the older it is the more likely it is that it has more citations.  So especially two or three years out, you'll see that citation count start to rise.  So at some point if you were to actually graph this stuff,


[paper rustling]


this is number of citations and this is time.  So you would have something that goes up over time, okay? 


So we can make use of those things to, potentially we want to look at some of the newest ones, but as it is out there in publication, gathers more citations, what eventually or essentially that's telling us is that more and more people are using it, are finding it of interest, and so those are publications that we may want to take a closer look at. 


And so I want to get to this idea of, in addition to recommended readings, I want to get this idea of highly recommended readings.  So especially if we have a pretty extensive list of articles that are citing our original article, we would probably want some way to start giving some priority to a list of articles that we might want to take a look at.  So take for instance an article that maybe has two hundred citing articles.  I could take the time to look through all two hundred of them and see if they're relevant to me, but within the database we have some tools that actually allow us to help figure out some priority. 


And I'm going to relate this to an idea that comes from a contest that I love to look at annually.  So this is a blog, Apartment Therapy is a blog that I read on a regular basis.  My husband and I just bought a house a couple months ago.  It's a really small house.  And one of the things that I love to do is to think about how to design the inside to make it seem more spacious.  On this website they run a contest every year called Small Cool and they have readers submit photos of their own small spaces, and these spaces are anywhere from just a couple hundred square feet to maybe eight or nine hundred square feet.  And they have them in different categories, teeny tiny all the way to small.  And there's an international category as well.  And within all of these entries the readers of this particular blog get to vote on their favorite design.  So the readers get to submit five images and then from those you have to decide whether or not you like that, and at the end the overall winner is the person who has received the most votes on their space. 


So if I were looking for design ideas for my small space, I could look at all of these (and I probably actually have over the last couple of months). 


[Uta laughs]


But if I were coming to this website for the very first time, one of the things that I notice is that it shows me the number of votes on each one of these, right?  So if I were being wise with my time I would probably want to look initially at the ones the the highest number of votes figuring that there are some design elements there that are probably pretty cool, pretty useful, especially for a space that size.  And so maybe I start with the top five vote getters and then work my way back if I haven't found something that I like there. 


But what I'm doing is using basically the expertise or the judgment of others to help me rank how I'm going to look through all of this information considering that my time is limited and I don't necessarily want to go through all of these.  We can do something similar with Web of Science, and Google Scholar to some degree, by using the judgments of others or the expertise of others in helping us rank which articles we want to look at first. 


So if I go back to Web of Science, I'm actually going to run another search here so you can see this idea just a little bit better.  So I'm going to run another search.  It's going to be a little bit broader this time.  This one gets me twenty-two articles.  And what I'm going to do—so as I'm looking through the articles here I'm looking at the Times Cited numbers I see six, I see six, three.  There's one here that I want to pick out. 


So this time rather than sorting my data or my results by publication date I'm actually going to sort it by Times Cited list.  Highest number of Times Cited to lowest number of Times Cited.  Okay.  And what I notice then is that I have some rankings that can help me determine, of those twenty-two articles, which I want to actually go for first.  So this one that's been cited by others 187 times might be a little bit more of a priority article, a little bit more of an important article than another one in the list that's been not cited at all. 


Now there's a little bit of a judgment call here because remember I said that if they're really new they're not going to have as many citations as articles that are older, so you have to balance a little bit the age of the article.  This one's from 2007 so, or sorry, 2004, and since that time it's been cited 187 times.  I mean what would that say to you about that article?  It's still relevant in the field.  It's important.  Other people are citing it continually.  So that might be something that I want to start with.  And you can see there's a pretty big dropoff here between this one and the next most cited article.  So in a way this even tells me more that this one is a really important one on this topic. 


If we do a similar search in—see if I can actually make this happen—if I look at Google Scholar and I do a search on that same article, again we see a difference in cited references count.  But one of the things we can't do with this one, so it comes up first here, it's, within Google Scholar there are 366 other items that cite this particular one.  But I have no way in Google Scholar of ranking any of these things.  So because of the way I searched I got almost two thousand results here but I have no way to sort them, right?  So Web of Science in that capacity or in that respect is a far superior database in that I can actually rank my results.  I can sort them in a way that's really helpful to me.  Here I would actually have to start scrolling through pages and pages of search results to see if there are other ones that rank really high that I might want to consider.  So for me, in that sense, Web of Science is a much preferable database. 


Okay, so this one is not, this particular type of technique of sorting by the number of Times Cited and using that to prioritize articles that you might read is not necessarily taking that original article and building upon it but it's a tool that you can use within the database to let you find other articles that might be really helpful.  And you can do it, so if you have a—let's go back to Web of Science here.  For this one, if I'm looking at the articles that cite this, the 187 articles, so I might not want to look through all 187 of those so I can actually take these now and sort them by Times Cited as well.  So again I can rank those.  You can see we just, you know something's happening here.  This one's cited 602 times.  So as I'm moving forward I'm getting additional research that looks like it's really useful and very impactful, really important in that field.  So that tool can help me throughout that process.  Does that make sense? 


Alright so there's one other tool or one other technique I want to show you within Web of Science that actually builds off this whole idea of references being linked.  So rather than searching, doing a keyword search or a topic search or even a title search to find your article, Google Scholar actually has a feature called Cited Reference Search.  So this actually allows us to take the information about a specific article, just start with that, and go directly to all of the references that cite it.  So we're actually going to use this feature, and I want to show you where it actually points out a couple of errors that creep into databases of all kinds. 


So we're going to take the article we were just looking at a few minutes ago.  The way you do a search in the Cited Reference Search is a little bit different than how you would do a regular search.  So for this one, we use the author which is generally the first listed author on the paper, especially if there are multiple authors.  We then include the title of the journal that that article was published in, and you actually use an abbreviation list, you don't even actually spell out the full journal title, and then you include the year that the article was published in.  And I'll show you why here in just a minute.  Let me get this filled in. 


So the article that I was looking at was written by Sargent, RP.  It's in the British Medical Journal so I need to look up the abbreviation list here.  This is going to be painful.  My keyword search is not working the way it does on my machine, my normal machine.  British Medical  . . .


There we go.  Okay so here's the abbreviation for British Medical Journal so I'm going to put that back here.  And this article was published in 2004. 


So I've got my got author, my first cited author.  I've got the cited works, and the works is the journal title.  And then I have the year that it was published or the year that it would be cited. 


So now I come across something that looks a little strange.  So one of the the things that happens as information comes into databases is that oftentimes page numbers are transposed, page numbers are entered incorrectly, so the information that you have in any given reference list is only as good as the person who typed it in there, basically.  So what we're seeing here is that this is probably the article that I'm looking for.  Sargent, RP.  He has additional authors on this article.  It's published in this journal, this year, these volume and issue and page numbers, and it's got 187 citing articles.  And I can actually look at the record in Web of Science. 


But I see two more that are kind of similar but I see little differences, so on this one here the page number is actually 980 rather than 977.  This is probably a typo.  And three people have carried that typo forward by citing that incorrectly in their own work.  But I can't get back to the original record in Web of Science because it can't make a match.  But it can still show me the article, the three articles that are citing this. 


And then I see one more here where again it looks like I probably have a typo.  This is 997 rather than 977 and there is one article that cited this with this incorrect citation information. 


So when I was looking originally at the record, when I found it in Web of Science, it only showed these 187 citing references when in fact it's actually got 191 in Web of Science, but it doesn't originally, it doesn't actually see these two unless I do the search this way because it doesn't recognize the incorrect citation information.  So if I want to see the full list of citing articles I need to do the Cited Reference Search rather than finding the record in Web of Science first and just looking at the citation counts. 


So I can finish my search and then I can look at the full list from here.  So it's just, it's another way of approaching, looking at articles that are citing an older article and it gives you a little bit more comprehensive list of the articles that are citing that article.  So that one probably takes a little bit of practice to figure that out but I just want you to know that it's there and it's available for you if you suspect that there are actually more articles that cite some article that you're working with than what originally shows up in Web of Science. 


Okay.  So some other search tips here that I want to just talk about quickly.  So earlier I had you look at using the author hyperlink to see if there were additional articles written by anyone of your authors that can help lead you to helpful, additional helpful sources.  But one of the things that we can do within the database is actually make use of what are called facets to have it do it almost automatically for us. 


So of the citing articles that I just pulled here, we we've got 189 of them.  Again I can make some judgment calls about which authors I might want to pursue to see if there are related articles that are of interest to me.  And the way I do that is to look at the authors that are representated in this list of 187 articles by the number of times that their names show up in that list.  So in this list of 187 articles somebody by the name of Hyland, his name or her name is on ten of those.  Someone by the name of Glantz, their name is on seven.  Travers, their name is on seven. 


So what this is telling me is that these maybe top authors here I might want to take a look at some of their works to see if they're publishing in a similar area and maybe their work is related.  I mean they're publishing in a similar area because they're citing my original article, but rather than kind of casting about for other authors that might be of interest to me I can use the information I have here to say, "Okay, this guy who's got ten of these articles, maybe I want to take a look at his works."  So all I need to do is just click the link, refine my search, and now those ten articles by Hyland are pulled out and I can see if any of these are of interest to me. 


Let me go back one.  So I could do something similar also with source titles, so these are the journals that are being published in.  So of those 187 articles, sixteen of them are published in a journal called Tobacco Control.  Thirteen of them are published in a journal called Circulation.  So you can see additional ones here. 


So same thing.  Maybe Journal of Tobacco Control is a journal I should just be looking in.  Maybe I should be looking at everything in there because it's all related to this issue of smoking and tobacco control of some kind whether it's personal or policy. 


So this can help me, if I want to see the sixteen articles from that top journal from that list I can refine to just those publications published in Tobacco Control and see if those are articles that are useful for me as well. 


So again just using, I haven't done any additional searching.  I'm just making use of the features within the database to start making some, pulling out specific authors or specific publications that might be helpful for me. 


Alright.  So what I wanted to have you do as a last exercise is take the article that you've been working with and you can either run a new search in Web of Science or use one of your previous Cited By lists and see how many articles are published in the top journal or how many articles are published by the top author and see if any of those are potentially useful for your project. 


And again, there might be some overlap so you might be starting to see some similar names.  That's okay.  And if you don't get through that right now that's okay.  You've got the handout you can use for reference later on.  But I would encourage you to try this at some point and see if that helps you narrow down. 


Woman:  I can't find any of my-


Uta Hussong-Christian:  None of yours are in there? 


Woman:  There's only four of them and they're all like hard science so I think that's, like they're anthropology. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Ooh.  Okay yeah, so Web of Science is not going to be the best database for anthropology related materials. 


Woman:  Yeah.  I know JSTOR is is good


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Yeah, so a lot of these features though are not available in JSTOR.  And without the top of my head I actually can't remember if there's a citing references or cited reference option in JSTOR.  I don't think so. 


Woman:  Mmhmm.  I don't think so. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  But definitely take a look.  So yeah, like I said, the advantages of Web of Science are definitely on the science and stronger social science side of things instead of arts and humanities.  And I know anthropology kind of falls more on the social science side. 


But one of the things about Web of Science is that it's not, it's not indexing every journal in all of those disciplines.  It's only indexing what are called the highest impact journals or the most important journals. 


Woman:  Okay. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  So it's got a large but still limited list of publications that it covers.  So potentially what you have there are articles from publications that are not covered in Web of Science, which is where Google Scholar though can still help because you can at least get to the articles that are citing other articles that are cited [inaudible.] 


Woman:  Yeah I found them in Google Scholar. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Right.  So the disadvantage then is you don't have the nice ability to filter and sort things. 


Woman:  Yeah, yeah. 


Uta Hussong-Christian:  Wrapping up our time here.  So questions?  Do you have any questions that this brings up as you try this?  Do you think you'll try it for another project?  Okay. 


So I think one of the thing, one of, I mean not for your own work, it may be useful also, but when you're at the reference desk potentially, if you have patrons saying, you know, "I want to find information on this topic."  If they already have an article they might have with them, you know, backpack or whatever.  Potentially that's a starting point, right?  If you have, if they can give you a title or if they can give you author information and publication date you could actually use this as a starting point and see, you could look at reference lists or look at other citing articles and be able to point them toward additional useful articles without running a full search. 


Alright, so that is the content.  So I just want to go over the workshop outcomes again.  So do you feel comfortable being able to use at least Google Scholar and Web of Science to find a recommended source, either a newer or an older source, does that feel comfortable?  Okay. 


And I don't know if you're, so we addressed this idea of cited sources which are in the older articles, the citing articles which are the newer ones.  So hopefully at some point that might become clear.  Don't worry right now if it's not immediately obvious. 


And then at some point, again, see if you can take one of your sources and conduct a cited reference search and see if you can discover additional sources that are citing even though they might be citing a slightly incorrect citation.  So I don't know if you've encountered that when you're working at the desk, you know, somebody not having completely correct citation information and trying to track something down.  It can be really frustrating.  And unfortunately those kinds of mistakes get perpetrated through the literature and end up in the databases as well so it can be a little annoying. 


So as the last thing here, you've got my contact information.  You both know me.  I'd just like to have you fill out the evaluation form:  Just take a moment to do that and then you are free to go.  This is completely anonymous.  I do read all of the comments so please let me know how it went for you.