In article ,
William Morse   wrote:
>"Robert Karl Stonjek"  wrote in
>news:cnu0rv$2t29$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org: 
>
>> Scientists get their own Google
....
>> http://scholar.google.com

>Ladies and gentlemen, please: a round of applause for our very own RKS, who 
>has once again brought a valuable resource to our attention. Let's hope the 
>search engine proves popular enough for Google to make it permanent. And  
>keep up the good work Robert!

I have been playing with Google Scholar for some days.  It is like ISI's
Web Of Science, which is the old Science Citation Index, and also like
NEC Siteseer, which indexes mostly computer science papers but contains
references and also on-line copies of papers:  http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cs

Unlike WOS, it does not require a subscription.  Unlike Citeseer, it
indexes widely in science.

It does show how many citations a paper gets.  It seems to not list as
many as WOS does -- for one of my papers it lists half as many as WOS
does for the same paper.  A particularly valuable aspect of citation
listing is that one can find all the papers that cite a work, and thus
find later follow-up work by other people.  In this case it even lets
you see those works or their abstracts.  

It might be very helpful to some of the discussions here that usually
proceed without reference to the literature.

-- 
Joe Felsenstein         joe{at}removethispart.gs.washington.edu
 Department of Genome Sciences and Department of Biology,
 University of Washington, Box 357730, Seattle, WA 98195-7730 USA
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/24/04 9:40:35 PM