Résumés
Résumé
Le réseau internet révolutionne peu à peu les pratiques des chercheurs tant du point de vue de leurs recherches documentaires que du point de vue de la diffusion de leurs travaux. Si l’opportunité d’accéder à une masse d’informations colossale « d’un simple clic » est une perspective particulièrement séduisante pour tout chercheur en biologie, la découverte d’informations pertinentes dans cet « océan » s’avère en réalité relativement difficile, et cela malgré l’existence d’un nombre croissant d’outils de recherche mis à la disposition des internautes.
Summary
The internet network revolutionizes little by little the practices of the researchers as well from the point of view of their information retrievals as from the point of view of the diffusion of their work. If the opportunity to reach a colossal mass of information very simply is a particularly attractive perspective for every researcher in biology, this study puts in evidence that the discovery of relevant information in the field of biology in this « ocean » turns out relatively difficult, and this in spite of the existence of an increasing number of search tools at the disposal of the Internet users. Furthermore, the results presented suggest that the use of non-specialized search engines and meta-engines seems preferable with that of specific search engines in the field of the biology and with that of non-specialized or specific directories in biology.
Parties annexes
Références
- 1. Lawrence S, Giles CL. Searching the world wide Web. Science 1998; 280: 98-100.
- 2. Lawrence S, Giles CL. Accessibility of information on the web. Nature 1999; 400: 107-9.
- 3. Winship IR. World wide web searching tools - an evaluation. Vine 1995; 99: 49-54.
- 4. Chu HT, Rosenthal M. Search engines for the world wide web: a comparative study and evaluation methodology. Proc ASIS Annu Meet 1996; 33: 127-35.
- 5. Dong X, Su L. Search engines on the world wide web and information retrieval on the internet: a review and evaluation. Online CD ROM Rev 1997; 21: 67-81.
- 6. Xie M, Wang H, Goh TN. Quality dimensions of internet search engines. J Inf Sci 1998; 24: 365-72.
- 7. Wang H, Xie M, Goh TN. Service quality of internet search engines. J Inf Sci 1999; 25: 499-507.
- 8. Akaho E, Ahmad SR. A comparative study of internet search engines by applying ‘cost effective treatment for myocardial infarction’ as a search topic. Drug Inf J 1998; 32: 921-32.
- 9. Wu G, Jie L. Comparing web search engine performance in searching consumer health information: evaluation and recommendations. Bull Med Libr Ass 1999; 87: 456-61.
- 10. http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/sizes.html. Page consultée le 12 septembre 2002.
- 11. Ding A, Marchionini G. Comparative study of web search service performance. Proc ASIS Annu Meet 1996; 33: 136-42.
- 12. Venditto G. Search engine showdown. Internet World 1996; 7: 79-86.
- 13. Clarke SJ, Willett P. Estimating the recall performance of web search engines. Aslib Proc 1997; 49: 184-9.
- 14. Oppenheim C, Morris A, McKnight C. The evaluation of WWW search engines. J Doc 2000; 56: 190-211.
- 15. Landoni M, Bell S. Information retrieval techniques for evaluating search engines: a critical overview. Aslib Proc 2000; 52: 124-9.
- 16. Chignell MH, Gwizdka J, Bodner RC. Discriminating meta-search: a framework for evaluation. Inf Process Manag 1999; 35: 337-62.
- 17. Green R. Topical relevance relationships. Why topic matching fails. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1995; 6: 646-53.
- 18. Hawking D, Craswell N, Thistlewaite P, Harman D. Results and challenges in web search evaluation. Comput Networks 1999; 31: 1321-30.
- 19. Gardner M. A science-oriented search engine could solve problems. Nature 1999; 401: 111.
- 20. Shon J, Musen MA. The low availability of metadata elements for evaluating the quality of medical information on the world wide web. Proc AMIA Symp 1999; 1945-9.