1 / 48

A Comparative Evaluation of the Databases LISTA and LISA

LIS 675 27 October, 2010. A Comparative Evaluation of the Databases LISTA and LISA. A Group Project Submitted by: Cassandra Caldarone , Bryan Freiberg & Mishalla Spearing. Section I Size, Composition and Topical Coverage. LISA’s PR.

quon-blevins
Télécharger la présentation

A Comparative Evaluation of the Databases LISTA and LISA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LIS 675 27 October, 2010 A Comparative Evaluation of the Databases LISTA and LISA A Group Project Submitted by: Cassandra Caldarone, Bryan Freiberg & Mishalla Spearing

  2. Section I Size, Composition and Topical Coverage

  3. LISA’s PR

  4. LISA Journal Overview

  5. LISA’s “Extras”

  6. The Research Process: How to organize your search… Tips for analyzing results

  7. Extra, Extra, Extra’s Boolean Search Tips Advanced Search Tips:

  8. LISTA’s PR

  9. LISTA vs. LISA COVERAGE

  10. Number of Records from Journal Types

  11. # of Records with Search Term in the Title:

  12. Searching our own terms…

  13. LISTA’s Details

  14. Where’s the detail? LISA Not So Much…

  15. Section II Time Span, Currency, Depth

  16. Dates of Coverage

  17. Actual Time Span: LISA

  18. Actual Time Span: LISTA

  19. Actual Time Span: LISTA

  20. Claimed Years of Coverage LISA: LISA LISTA

  21. Actual Years of Coverage LISA LISTA

  22. Actual Number of Records LISA LISTA

  23. Actual Number of Records per listed periodical sources LISA LISTA

  24. Number of Records By Year: LISA

  25. Number of Records By Year: LISTA

  26. Pre-1970’s • LISA • LISTA

  27. 1971-1980 • LISA • LISTA

  28. 1981-1990 • LISA: 63,706 • LISTA: 158,949

  29. 1991-2000 LISA: 113, 941 LISTA: 370, 467 2001-2010 LISA: 107, 797 LISTA: 681, 419

  30. 2009 LISA : 10,398 LISTA: 122,313

  31. Section III Types of Sources and Journal Base

  32. Sources Claimed • LISA: 429 • LISTA: 912 • Taken from source coverage spreadsheets downloaded from parent company websites. • LISA figure dropped by 11 during course of study.

  33. Claimed vs. Actual • Duplicates • What is the source of claim? • Sources that are NOT periodicals

  34. Problems & Processes • Neither database put hard numbers into the PR claims. • Both databases had source coverage lists which can be converted into spreadsheets. • Both source lists were manually inspected for duplication both by title and ISSN. • Attempts were made to clarify this number by searching respective databases.

  35. Breadth of Coverage: LISA- Actual Sources • PR claim made within source list itself. • No duplicates were found in spreadsheet. • Other types of publications are indicated in result tabs. • Conference proceedings and “other” are actually journal articles. • “3” books or book parts constitute bona fide additional resources. • There is no apparent list of previously monitored serials that are still in this database. LISA’s total: 431

  36. Breadth of CoverageLISTA: Actual Sources • No PR claim whatsoever. • 912 sources per coverage spreadsheet. • Coverage spreadsheet revealed only 2 duplicates. • “Conference Proceedings” included as titles within coverage spreadsheet. • Easy to identify records from books but no apparent way to identify number of books within database. LISTA’s total: 910

  37. Depth of CoverageApples or Oranges? LISA LISTA Data sort based on “stop index date” reveals 318 sources in database no longer indexed. Ideally they shouldn’t be disregarded but relative comparison is invalid without similar operational definitions therefore: • Ceased publications not listed. LISA’s total: 431 LISTA’s total: 592

  38. Records per Actual Source LISA: LISA LISTA

  39. Breadth of CoverageRecords by Publication Type

  40. Depth of Coverage:Microcosmic Examination Both databases outperform each other in 50% of the cases. In two cases LISA has scant coverage. Clearly, LISTA does NOT offer absolutely everything indexed in LISA.

  41. Section IV Geographic & Language Coverage

  42. Down-n-Dirty

  43. LISA by Language Where’s the language code?

  44. LISTA Makes You Work Harder

  45. Why Don’t Coverage Lists Include a Language Field? • LISA struck out. • LISTA performed poorly.

  46. A Coding Error?

  47. Findings LISTA LISA Better coverage of German language resources. Some publications are indexed more comprehensively. Search interface may be more intuitive for end users. • Free. • Partial Full-text. • Greater breadth of coverage (more records, more sources). • Greater depth of coverage (more comprehensive coverage of each source). • More retrospective coverage.

More Related