期刊文献+

专业网络信息资源评价方法及标准 被引量:8

Methods and criteria for evaluation of Internet - based information resources of specialized subjects
下载PDF
导出
摘要 结合图书馆工作实践,分析了按评价者划分的3种网络信息资源的评价方法,提出了适用于分析专业信息的 资源评价体系及信息资源评价中需要注意的问题。 Based on library practice, three methods for the eraluation of Internet - based information resources classified by the appraisers are analyzed. An evaluation system applicable to the information resources of specialized subjects is brought forward. Some points to which attention should be paid are pointed out as well.
作者 应峻 徐一新
机构地区 复旦大学图书馆
出处 《中华医学图书情报杂志》 CAS 2004年第2期7-8,共2页 Chinese Journal of Medical Library and Information Science
关键词 专业信息 网络信息资源 评价方法 评价标准 Internet - based resourcs Information evaluation Evaluation methods
  • 相关文献

参考文献8

  • 1张咏.网络信息资源评价的方法及指标[J].图书情报工作,2001,45(12):25-29. 被引量:57
  • 2刘雁书,方平.网络信息质量评价指标体系及可获取性研究[J].情报杂志,2002,21(6):10-12. 被引量:48
  • 3张 咏.网络{矗息资源坪价相关问题[J].信息系统,21102,(5):375-378.
  • 4Gray L. How to evaluate an Internet - based information source[ EB/OL]. http://biome. ac. uk/guidelines/eval/howto. html.
  • 5Sullivan D.Measuring Link Popularity[EB/OL].http://searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/popularity.html.
  • 6中国互联网络信息中心.中国互联网络发展状况统计报告[EB/OL].http://www.cnnic net.cn,2003—07-01.
  • 7Gray L.How to evaluate an Internet-based information source[EB/OL].http://biome.ac.uk/guidelines/eval/howto.html.
  • 8Sullivan D.Measuring Link Popularity[EB/OL].http://searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/popularity.html.

二级参考文献47

  • 1[1]Beredjiklian PK,Bozentka DJ,Steinberg DR,et al.Evaluating the source and content of orthopaedie information on the Internet.The case of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.J Bone Joint Surg Am,2000,82-A(11)
  • 2[2]Ambre J,Guard R,Perveiler FM et al.Working draft white paper:criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the Internet.http://www.metretek.org /hiti/show-case/documents/criteria.html last updated,1999.4.8
  • 3[3]Suares-Almazor ME,Kendall CJ,Dorgan M.Surfing the Net-information on the World Wide Web for persons with arthritis:patient empowerment or patient deceit? J Rheumatol,2001,28
  • 4[4]Gardois P.Evaluating the quality of medical information on the Internet:a brief bibliography.8 ICML Conference Proceedings.Available from:http://www.icml.org/posters/post28.html.Last edited,2000.09.06
  • 5[5]American Medical Association.Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the Internet Principles governing AMA Web sites American Medical Association.JAMA,2000,283(12)
  • 6[6]Growth House Inc.Rating Criteria and excellence awards.http:/www.growthhouse,org/award.html Last visited:2001.4.17
  • 7[7]Searchenginewatch.com.Search Engine Placement Tips.http://www.searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/tips.html Last visited:2000.4.30
  • 8[8]Kim P,Eng TR,Peering JM,et al.Published criteria for evaluating health related Web sites.BMJ,1999,1318(7184)
  • 9[9]Kihlstrom LC.Evaluating pharmacy benefit management information on the Interet:Purpose,Structure,technology,and content.Manag care Interface.2001,14(5)
  • 10[10]Harris R.Evaluating Internet research sources.http://www.virtualsalt.com/8evaluit.html Revised date 1997.11.17.Last Visited.2001.4.4

共引文献203

同被引文献117

引证文献8

二级引证文献63

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部