Read on Twitter
I always get too fancy when doing basic scholarly academic things. e.g recently I needed to look up literature on stud preference of ebooks vs print, a normal person would Google scholar a bit or maybe start with a good paper to mine references but here& #39;s what I did (1/n)
I start with a recent C&RL paper https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/24330/32161,">https://crl.acrl.org/index.php... I want to use @scite on it but it is too new, so I throw it into @ConnectedPapers & create a network graph, click on prior papers and select a promising older possibly seminal paper. Then throw that into @scite (2/n)
In @scite, i look at the supporting and also disputing citations (knowing that they might not be accurate but sometimes you just want a quick view), but it is the citation contexts that are most critical in helping me decide if I want to read full text of the citing papers. (3/n)
Both @ConnectedPapers & @scite allows you to iterate the process, so with the former, you can continue to build graphs going backwards or forwards, while @scite allows you to look at scite reports of interesting cites. Both methods remind me of the citation chaining thing .
Not to mention I have Libkey Nomad installed, which helps me get quick access to full text if I want to read them. The question in my mind is... am I jumping through all this hoops because it is more efficient or is it just for the novelty factor?
Too early to tell, but I think @scite & #39;s display of the citation context feels really promising. Makes it so much easier to decide if i want to download the full text of the cited paper to read. I do have one suggestion to further improve Scite for literature searching....
@Scite display of citation context of cited papers is something I wish more search engines would do. But even better would be to allow keyword search of citation context only*. Think of possibilities. You could see how authors, techniques, datasets etc of interest were cited
