IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/amedoc/v16y1965i4p299-312.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative indexing: Terms supplied by biomedical authors and by document titles

Author

Listed:
  • Claire K. Schultz
  • Wallace L. Schultz
  • Richard H. Orr

Abstract

The original aim of this study was to obtain objective data bearing on the much argued question of whether author indexing is “good.” Author indexing of 285 documents reporting biomedical research was scored by comparing the author‐supplied terms (author set) for each paper with a criterion set of terms that was established by asking a group of 12 potential users to describe the same document. Terms in the document title (title set) were scored similarly. The average author set contained almost half of all the terms employed by more than one member of the user group and scored 73% of the maximal possible score, as compared with 44% for the average title set. When judged by the method and criterion employed here, author indexing is substantially better than indexing derived from document titles. The findings suggest that indicia supplied by an author should serve scientists in biomedical disciplines other than his own about as well as they serve his disciplinary colleagues. The general method developed for measuring indexing quality may represent a practical yardstick of wide applicability.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire K. Schultz & Wallace L. Schultz & Richard H. Orr, 1965. "Comparative indexing: Terms supplied by biomedical authors and by document titles," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 299-312, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:16:y:1965:i:4:p:299-312
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.5090160405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090160405
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.5090160405?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:16:y:1965:i:4:p:299-312. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.