The Consumption and Production of Fisheries Information in the Digital Age

  • Janet Webster
  • Eleanor Uhlinger


Fishery Scientist Scholarly Communication World Intellectual Property Organization Search Interface Citation Database 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Antelman K (2004) Do open access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries 65(5):372–82Google Scholar
  2. ASFA Secretariat (2006) List of ASFA partners [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Aug.
  3. Association of Research Libraries, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (2006) CreateChange: Change & you [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 7
  4. Avrahami TT, Yau L, Si L, Callan J (2006) The FedLemur project: federated search in the real world. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57(3):347–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer K, Bakkalbasi N (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine 11(9):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beverton RJH, Holt SJ (1957). On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. London, UK: Her Majesty's Stationery Office; (Great Britain. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Fishery Investigations: ser. 2, v. 19)Google Scholar
  7. Chan L, Cuplinskas D, Eisen M, Friend F, Genova Y, Guédon J-C, Hagemann M, Harnad S, Johnson R, Kupryte R, La Manna M, Rév I, Segbert M, Souza S, Suber P, Velterop J (2002) Budapest Open Access Initiative [Web Page].Google Scholar
  8. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 7
  9. Creative Commons (1999) About Creative Commons [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 1
  10. Creative Commons (2005) Scholar's copyright project [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 1
  11. Crow, R (2004) A guide to institutional repository software. Second Edition. Open Society Institute: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards R, Shulenburger D (2003) The high cost of scholarly journals (and what to do about it). Change 35(6):10–9Google Scholar
  13. Elsevier Ltd (2004) Scirus White Paper: how Scirus works. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. (1958) Current Bibliography for Fisheries Science. Rome, Italy Vol. 1Google Scholar
  15. Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. (1995) Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Rome, Italy: FAOGoogle Scholar
  16. Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. (2006) FAO Corporate Document Repository [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 1
  17. Frazier K (2001) The librarian's dilemma: contemplating the costs of the “Big Deal”. D-Lib Magazine 7(3):10.1045/march2001-frazierGoogle Scholar
  18. Garfield E (1994) The ISI impact factor. Current Contents: Agriculture, Biology, & Environmental Sciences 25(25):3–7Google Scholar
  19. Google (2005) About Google Scholar™ [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Aug.
  20. Gruss P, German Research Organizations (2003) Berlin Declaration on open access to knowledge in the sciences and the humanities [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 7.
  21. Harnad S, Brody T (2004) Comparing the Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA Articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine 10(6):doi:10.1045/june2004-harnadGoogle Scholar
  22. Henderson A (2002) Diversity and the growth of serious/scholarly/scientific journals. [in] Abel RE, Newlin LW, ed. Scholarly publishing: Books, journal, publishers, and libraries in the Twentieth Century. US: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp 133–62Google Scholar
  23. Jacsó P (2005a) Google scholar: the pros and cons. Online Information Review 29(2):208–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacsó P (2005b) Visualizing overlap and rank differences among web-wide search engines: some free tools and services. Online Information Review 29(5):554–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacsó P (2006a) Savvy searching: deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review 30(3):297–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacsó P (2007) Scopus. Péter's Digital Reference Shelf [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2008 Oct 10Google Scholar
  27. Jansen BJ, Spink A, Saracevic, T (2000) Real life, real users, and real needs: a study and analysis of user queries on the web. Information Processing and Management 36(2000):207–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Joint Information Systems Committee (2006). About JISC – Joint Information Systems Committee [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 1
  29. JSTOR (2000) About JSTOR [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Jan
  30. Kousha K, Thelwall M (2006) Google Scholar citations and Google Web/URL citations: A multi-discipline exploratory analysis. [in] Proceedings International Workshop on Webometrics, Informetrics and Scientometrics & Seventh COLLNET Meeting Nancy, France. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 1
  31. Lackey RT (2006) Axioms of ecological policy. Fisheries 31(6):286–90Google Scholar
  32. Lange LL (2002) The impact factor as a phantom: is there a self-fulfilling prophecy effect of impact? The Journal of Documentation 58(2):175–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lynch CA (2003) Institutional repositories: essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. ARL Bimonthly Report 226Google Scholar
  34. Mattison D (2005) Bibliographic research tools round-Up. Searcher 13(9):10704795Google Scholar
  35. McDonald J, Van de Velde EF (2004) The lure of linking. Library Journal 129(6):32–4Google Scholar
  36. National Sea Grant Library (2006) National Sea Grant Library [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 1
  37. Neuhaus C, Neuhaus E, Asher A, Wrede C (2006) The depth and breadth of Google Scholar: an empirical study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 6(2):127–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Office of Scientific and Technical Information (U.S.) (2006) GrayLIT Network: A science portal to technical papers [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 1
  39. OhioLINK Governing Board (2006) OhioLINK Library Community recommendations on retention of intellectual property rights for works produced by Ohio faculty and students [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 7
  40. Page L, Brin S, Montwani R, Winograd T (1998) The PageRank citation ranking: bringing order to the Web. Technical Report, Stanford University Database GroupGoogle Scholar
  41. Pauly D, Stergiou KI (2005) Equivalence of results from two citation analyses: Thomson ISI's Citation Index and Google's Scholar service. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics December 2005:33–5Google Scholar
  42. Pew Oceans Commission, Panetta LE (2003) America's living oceans: charting a course for sea change: a report to the nation: recommendations for a new ocean policy. Arlington, VA: Pew Oceans CommissionGoogle Scholar
  43. Prosser DC (2005) Fulfilling the promise of scholarly communication – a comparison between old and new access models. [in]: Nielsen EK, Saur KG, Ceynowa K, eds. Die innovative Bibliothek: Elmar Mittler zum 65. Geburtstag. K G Saur. pp 95–106Google Scholar
  44. Pruvost C, Knibbs C, Hawkes R (2003) About Scirus [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Aug
  45. Quandt RE (2003) Scholarly materials: Paper or digital? Library Trends 51(3):349–75Google Scholar
  46. Ranganathan SR (1963) The five laws of library science. [Ed. 2, reprinted with minor amendments] Bombay, New York: Asia Publishing HouseGoogle Scholar
  47. Roth DL (2005) The emergence of competitors to the Science Citation Index and the Web of Science. Current Science 89(9):1531–6Google Scholar
  48. Sale A (2006) The acquisition of open access research articles. First Monday 11(10) [Web Page]. Located at: Scholar
  49. SHERPA, University of Nottingham. (2006) SHERPA/RoMEO Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 1
  50. Spink A, Cole C (2006) Human information behavior integrating diverse approaches and information use. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57(1):25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. University of Houston Libraries, Institutional Repository Task Force, Bailey CW (2006) Institutional repositories. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management ServicesGoogle Scholar
  52. Van de Sompel H, Lagoze C (2000) The Santa Fe Convention of the Open Archives Initiative. D-Lib Magazine 6(2):DOI: 10.1045/february2000-vandesompel-oaiGoogle Scholar
  53. Vickery BC (2000) Scientific communication in history. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow PressGoogle Scholar
  54. Webster JG (2003) How to create a bibliography. Journal of Extension 41(3)Google Scholar
  55. Webster JG, Collins J (2005) Fisheries information in developing countries: support to the implementation of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N.; (FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1006)Google Scholar
  56. White RW, Jose JM, Ruthven I (2003) A task-oriented study on the influencing effects of query-biased summarisation in web searching. Information Processing and Management 39(2003):707–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. White S, Creaser C (2004) Scholarly journal prices: Selected trends and comparisons. Leicestershire, UK: Library and Information Statistics Unit, Loughborough University; (LISU Occasional Paper: 34)Google Scholar
  58. World Intellectual Property Organization [2006]. Copyright FAQs: What rights does copyright provide? [Web Page]. Located at: Accessed 2006 Sep 1

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Webster
    • 1
  • Eleanor Uhlinger
  1. 1.Hatfield Marine Science CenterOregon State University LibrariesNewportUSA

Personalised recommendations