Re: EBSCO and ProQuest database content

[David Goodman <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>]

Donnie, 

I want to thank you for a very useful comparison. There is a frequent need
to work with this sort of data, and you've provided an excellent start,
with a much more exact and critical approach than has sometime been
provided. (Incidentally, I agree with you that the Ebsco presentation of
their sources is the most useful.)

With respect to the embargoed journals, I think you have demonstrated that
for true research papers, these aggregated databases are not sufficient.
For many undergraduate term papers, which I suppose can loosely be called
research papers, they can still be valuable, as such papers do not
normally include a comprehensive survey of the literature, but rather a
selected analysis of convenient sources.

Rather than publisher retrenchment, I think the embargos show the
suppliers eagerness to list as many titles as possible, even if what they
list is not particularly useful. And even more than the embargos, I am
concerned about their willingness to included titles where they have only
abstracts, or even just tables of contents. This sort of database, though
useful as an index, serves as very different purpose than a collection of
full text articles. This is especially confusing in the engineering
sciences and related subjects, where almost all the titles on any of these
lists have no actual full text available. The user frustration caused by
this must be very great.

I would be very glad for the opportunity to purchase these products
separately: One product containing perhaps many fewer titles, but with
genuine full text for all the years it claims to cover, and a good
comprehensive undergraduate index. (We are developing means of weeding out
the non-full text portions locally.) I am of course aware of the
competitive pressures and the historical development of these services
that has led to the present confusing situation.)

I note your realistic warning that you've taken the lists at face value.
For the uninitiated, this means that coverage during the first year or so
of any journals claimed full text run is more likely than not to be
incomplete. This is not necessarily the fault of the services--the same is
often true of the publishers' native versions. (It also means that the
"indexing and abstracting" coverage is likely to contain a number of years
at the beginning where there are only titles listed, without even
abstracts.)

Gratefully,

David Goodman, 
Princeton University Biology Library
and Digital Resources Advisory Group
dgoodman@princeton.edu
609-258-3235

On Thu, 24 May 2001, Donnelyn Curtis wrote:

  ......
> 
> Donnie Curtis
> University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
> 
>