530 likes | 742 Vues
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.
E N D
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
The Research Process: How to organize your search… Tips for analyzing results
Extra, Extra, Extra’s Boolean Search Tips Advanced Search Tips:
Where’s the detail? LISA Not So Much…
Section II Time Span, Currency, Depth
Claimed Years of Coverage LISA: LISA LISTA
Actual Years of Coverage LISA LISTA
Actual Number of Records LISA LISTA
Pre-1970’s • LISA • LISTA
1971-1980 • LISA • LISTA
1981-1990 • LISA: 63,706 • LISTA: 158,949
1991-2000 LISA: 113, 941 LISTA: 370, 467 2001-2010 LISA: 107, 797 LISTA: 681, 419
2009 LISA : 10,398 LISTA: 122,313
Section III Types of Sources and Journal Base
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.
Claimed vs. Actual • Duplicates • What is the source of claim? • Sources that are NOT periodicals
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.
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
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
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
Records per Actual Source LISA: LISA LISTA
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.
Section IV Geographic & Language Coverage
LISA by Language Where’s the language code?
Why Don’t Coverage Lists Include a Language Field? • LISA struck out. • LISTA performed poorly.
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.