Qualitative journal evaluation makes use of cumulated content
descriptions of single articles. These can either be represented by
author-generated keywords, professionally indexed subject
headings, automatically extracted terms or by reader-generated
tags as used in social bookmarking systems. It is assumed that
particularly the users? view on article content differs significantly
from the authors? or indexers? perspectives. To verify this
assumption, title and abstract terms, author keywords, Inspec
subject headings, KeyWords PlusTM and tags are compared by
calculating the overlap between the respective datasets. Our
approach includes extensive term preprocessing (i.e. stemming,
spelling unifications) to gain a homogeneous term collection.
When term overlap is calculated for every single document of the
dataset, similarity values are low. Thus, the presented study
confirms the assumption, that the different types of keywords
each reflect a different perspective of the articles? contents and
that tags (cumulated across articles) can be used in journal
evaluation to represent a reader-specific view on published
content.
