PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-3 (3)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Fossil ginkgophyte seedlings from the Triassic of France resemble modern Ginkgo biloba 
Background
Fossil evidence of ginkgophyte ontogeny is exceedingly rare. Early development in the extant Ginkgo biloba is characterized by a series of distinct ontogenetic stages. Fossils providing insights into the early ontogeny of ancient ginkgophytes may be significant in assessing the degree of relatedness between fossil ginkgophytes and G. biloba.
Results
An assemblage of seedlings from the early Middle Triassic of France is assigned to the ginkgophytes based on leaf morphology. The specimens represent an ontogenetic sequence consisting of four stages: (I) formation of the cotyledons in the seed and germination; (II) development of primary leaves and taproot; (III) thickening of the taproot and appearance of secondary roots; and (IV) development of the first differentiated leaves and absence of the seed remnants.
Conclusions
The fossil seedlings provide a rare opportunity to examine the early ontogeny of a Triassic ginkgophyte. Germination and seedling development in the fossil are nearly identical to that of the extant gymnosperm G. biloba. We hypothesize that the fossil may be closely related biologically to G. biloba, and that certain developmental processes in seedling development were in place by the Middle Triassic.
doi:10.1186/1471-2148-13-177
PMCID: PMC3765775  PMID: 23981276
Ontogeny; Germination; Cotyledon; Ginkgophyta; Gymnosperms; Middle Triassic
2.  Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science 
Background
Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science from Thomson Scientific. In 2004 two competitors emerged – Scopus from Elsevier and Google Scholar from Google. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003) to test the hypothesis that the different scholarly publication coverage provided by the three search tools will lead to different citation counts from each.
Methods
Eleven journal titles with varying impact factors were selected from each discipline (oncology and condensed matter physics) using the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). All articles published in the selected titles were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003, and a stratified random sample of articles was chosen, resulting in four sets of articles. During the week of November 7–12, 2005, the citation counts for each research article were extracted from the three sources. The actual citing references for a subset of the articles published in 2003 were also gathered from each of the three sources.
Results
For oncology 1993 Web of Science returned the highest average number of citations, 45.3. Scopus returned the highest average number of citations (8.9) for oncology 2003. Web of Science returned the highest number of citations for condensed matter physics 1993 and 2003 (22.5 and 3.9 respectively). The data showed a significant difference in the mean citation rates between all pairs of resources except between Google Scholar and Scopus for condensed matter physics 2003. For articles published in 2003 Google Scholar returned the largest amount of unique citing material for oncology and Web of Science returned the most for condensed matter physics.
Conclusion
This study did not identify any one of these three resources as the answer to all citation tracking needs. Scopus showed strength in providing citing literature for current (2003) oncology articles, while Web of Science produced more citing material for 2003 and 1993 condensed matter physics, and 1993 oncology articles. All three tools returned some unique material. Our data indicate that the question of which tool provides the most complete set of citing literature may depend on the subject and publication year of a given article.
doi:10.1186/1742-5581-3-7
PMCID: PMC1533854  PMID: 16805916
3.  Cost analysis of a project to digitize classic articles in neurosurgery* 
In summer 2000, the Cushing/Whitney Medical Library at Yale University began a demonstration project to digitize classic articles in neurosurgery from the late 1800s and early 1900s. The objective of the first phase of the project was to measure the time and costs involved in digitization, and those results are reported here. In the second phase, metadata will be added to the digitized articles, and the project will be publicized. Thirteen articles were scanned using optical character recognition (OCR) software, and the resulting text files were carefully proofread. Time for photocopying, scanning, and proofreading were recorded. This project achieved an average cost per item (total pages plus images) of $4.12, a figure at the high end of average costs found in other studies. This project experienced high costs for two reasons. First, the articles contained many images, which required extra processing. Second, the older fonts and the poor condition of many of these articles complicated the OCR process. The average article cost $84.46 to digitize. Although costs were high, the selection of historically important articles maximized the benefit gained from the investment in digitization.
PMCID: PMC100769  PMID: 11999182

Results 1-3 (3)