Check out the New books:
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Other CQ Products - reviewed by Don
CQ Historic Documents is a must purchase at 128 bucks for the 2007 update. ( We made a onetime purchase of the entire document run from 1972 onwards and simply need to update it.) It is a pity it is not used more, it is a terrific source of primary documents.
CQ Public Affairs This seems to be mostly re-indexing stuff we already can access from other means, e.g. if you search phone privacy it lists the CQ Researcher publication on that subject, as well as other sources we may or may not have. I don’t think it can earn its keep at 733 bucks, and I suggest we drop it.
CQ Encyclopedia of American Government. While it is true that this is a good and current general encyclopedia on the US Government, it is by far from comprehensive. I would give it a C as far as coverage, a very bad grade for the usually outstanding CQ products, but for online students, it would be particularly helpful. Thus, I believe we ought to keep it at 502 bucks a year.
Don
CQ Public Affairs This seems to be mostly re-indexing stuff we already can access from other means, e.g. if you search phone privacy it lists the CQ Researcher publication on that subject, as well as other sources we may or may not have. I don’t think it can earn its keep at 733 bucks, and I suggest we drop it.
CQ Encyclopedia of American Government. While it is true that this is a good and current general encyclopedia on the US Government, it is by far from comprehensive. I would give it a C as far as coverage, a very bad grade for the usually outstanding CQ products, but for online students, it would be particularly helpful. Thus, I believe we ought to keep it at 502 bucks a year.
Don
What should we acquire from CQ Press?
CQ Researcher
At 929 bucks, the CQ Researcher is one of the best bargains in the reference field. Besides its remarkable job in discussing a spectrum of current problems, it has improved its usefulness. By clicking on a footnote, you find a citation to the article, and occasionally a hyperlink to the document itself… particularly if the document has been issued by a think tank or government entity. The same holds true for its bibliography, and since the issues discussed are often best discussed by commissions, think tanks or congressional committees, this provides easy access to documentation that was often beyond the ken of our students to retrieve or beyond their energy level to pursue. (You know the old info science law that states “people will not use information that they perceive to be too difficult to access”).
FYI, I routinely review the bibliographies of CQ to locate good titles for the Gavilan book collection.
CQ Global Researcher
This new product is even better than CQ Researcher and a fantastic bargain at 354 bucks. (You get 52 weekly issues) It is not threatened by any competitor – it is very different in construct and focus than Opposing Viewpoints. That is because it focuses on issues that are less cut and dried, such as Turkey and its relationship to the EU. The bibliography and foot notes are hyperlinked to the article or a citation for the article, but since so much of this material comes from various non-commercial sources, the article tends to provide the same rich backup of readings that Opposing Viewpoints provides for its discussions. It still provides the pro and con debates on key points. For example, admission of Turkey to the EU has a pro and con contribution. It also provides a chronology on the topic, followed by short features for expanded discussion; a sampling of related international perspectives; maps and graphs; bibliographies of key sources; next steps for additional reading; and author profiles. There are bells and whistles I like. It tracks what you looked at including footnotes you have clicked, listing your readings, much like Amazon remembers what you last looked for in their database. It has a wonderful idea that is particularly useful for our students, a global map. By clicking on say, Australia, it brings up any and all recent articles that reference Australia. This is a non-verbal method of finding information, of course, and frees the student unsure as to what search terms to use, or even how to spell Australia. It may be my imagination, but I think CQ is also attempting to make the document more graphically appealing. There are lots of color shots and color graphics. Of course, given its focus, the product will not be used as much as CQ Researcher or Opposing Viewpoints, but as the campus moves to a more “global” curriculum, it will be increasingly valuable. In that regard, CQ Global Researcher adds a new feature, “voices from abroad.”
Given their price, and the focus of the other electronic products offered by CQ, I think we can survive on just these two online products; CQ Researcher and CQ Global Researcher.
Don
At 929 bucks, the CQ Researcher is one of the best bargains in the reference field. Besides its remarkable job in discussing a spectrum of current problems, it has improved its usefulness. By clicking on a footnote, you find a citation to the article, and occasionally a hyperlink to the document itself… particularly if the document has been issued by a think tank or government entity. The same holds true for its bibliography, and since the issues discussed are often best discussed by commissions, think tanks or congressional committees, this provides easy access to documentation that was often beyond the ken of our students to retrieve or beyond their energy level to pursue. (You know the old info science law that states “people will not use information that they perceive to be too difficult to access”).
FYI, I routinely review the bibliographies of CQ to locate good titles for the Gavilan book collection.
CQ Global Researcher
This new product is even better than CQ Researcher and a fantastic bargain at 354 bucks. (You get 52 weekly issues) It is not threatened by any competitor – it is very different in construct and focus than Opposing Viewpoints. That is because it focuses on issues that are less cut and dried, such as Turkey and its relationship to the EU. The bibliography and foot notes are hyperlinked to the article or a citation for the article, but since so much of this material comes from various non-commercial sources, the article tends to provide the same rich backup of readings that Opposing Viewpoints provides for its discussions. It still provides the pro and con debates on key points. For example, admission of Turkey to the EU has a pro and con contribution. It also provides a chronology on the topic, followed by short features for expanded discussion; a sampling of related international perspectives; maps and graphs; bibliographies of key sources; next steps for additional reading; and author profiles. There are bells and whistles I like. It tracks what you looked at including footnotes you have clicked, listing your readings, much like Amazon remembers what you last looked for in their database. It has a wonderful idea that is particularly useful for our students, a global map. By clicking on say, Australia, it brings up any and all recent articles that reference Australia. This is a non-verbal method of finding information, of course, and frees the student unsure as to what search terms to use, or even how to spell Australia. It may be my imagination, but I think CQ is also attempting to make the document more graphically appealing. There are lots of color shots and color graphics. Of course, given its focus, the product will not be used as much as CQ Researcher or Opposing Viewpoints, but as the campus moves to a more “global” curriculum, it will be increasingly valuable. In that regard, CQ Global Researcher adds a new feature, “voices from abroad.”
Given their price, and the focus of the other electronic products offered by CQ, I think we can survive on just these two online products; CQ Researcher and CQ Global Researcher.
Don
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
EBSCO or ProQuest?
I vote to change from ProQuest to EBSCO
Here is my reasoning
1. Why move to EBSCO from Proquest?
Of the two candidates, one consolidator is growing in holdings and one is decreasing. A 2006 study showed that EBSCO had almost 20% more full text title holdings than ProQuest. Those of us using ProQuest have noted the loss of useful titles over the past few years. However, it is more useful to look at the central titles judged essential by Katz et. al, for a community college library. I have my own list of essential titles, based on Katz and my own experience, and compared the holdings of the two candidates in 8 topics. The winner of the most holdings of relevant titles was EBSCO.
2. Findings: Scores (in percentage of key holdings)
Topic E Score ,P score
General Books & Reading 100 ,100
Humanities 93.7, 75
American Studies 100, 80
Visual Arts 100, 37.5
American History 100 ,50
American Literature and English 94.4, 77.7
Economics /Global issues 77.7 ,77.7
Business 77.7 ,60
3. Summary of my review
Given these scores, and the trend line, of one consolidator increasing coverage and the other decreasing, I suggest that the selection arrow is pointing at EBSCO. In fact, there are a few major titles that one finds now only in EBSCO. These include Forbes, PMLA, and several major Art journals ( even though our paper copies are more valuable, we need to maintain an electronic index to articles).
4. Ease of use
But how about user friendliness and the quality of the search engine? Our colleagues at the California Community College Library Consortium compared the two rivals in 2005. They compared database functionality, appropriateness of format ( bibliographic vs full text), information content, search interface, user support service and cost, and came up with an overall assessment. They concluded the Expanded Academic ASAP database of the highest quality due to the superior indexing structure and search interface.” My own view is that the search engine on EBSCO often picks up more chaff along with the wheat, but given the fact that one is a database with a more dynamic collection maintenance, I suggest it is a good time to bite the bullet and move to EBSCO. There is a cost of course, in changing all our online modules and many instructor work sheets. But many modules could be revised, I assume, by the reference librarians when we are not busy helping students.
5. The added support of Opposing Viewpoints and CQ Researcher
One of the major uses of our periodical collection is to support English and Social Science classes where students must defend on paper a point of view by “researching” the topic using library materials. The addition of the enormously rich collection of magazine articles that are supplied full text in the Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center provides a “utility outfielder” that can handle almost any central topic that is likely to be addressed. I hasten to add that CQ Researcher provides good to excellent support as well, but the design of Opposing Viewpoints allows a rich source of full-text magazine articles not available in CQ. Another factor that is important for our ESL students is that Opposing Viewpoints has in fact, “graded” the readability of their resources, using the Lexile scale. It is likely too complicated to get a student to fix a readability level in a library research project, but it can be reassuring to an instructor to know that there are selections that can be read and comprehended at the 10th or 11th grade level. For example, Foreign Policy and Wilson Quarterly articles often fall in the 10th grade reading level.
6. Suggested package.
The California Premier Package sells for 21,455 dollars. It seems useful to include the CINAHL Plus since a review by Dana and me of about 80 full text serials included showed they had, in fact, included the essential journals such as Am J or Nursing, J of Nursing Education, J of Practical Nuring, Nursing, Nursing outlook, International Nursing Review, and RN. The add-on cost of CINAHL Plus if ordered with the California Premier Package is 1806 dollars. The add-on cost for the essential Newspaper Source Plus is $3371.
Here is my reasoning
1. Why move to EBSCO from Proquest?
Of the two candidates, one consolidator is growing in holdings and one is decreasing. A 2006 study showed that EBSCO had almost 20% more full text title holdings than ProQuest. Those of us using ProQuest have noted the loss of useful titles over the past few years. However, it is more useful to look at the central titles judged essential by Katz et. al, for a community college library. I have my own list of essential titles, based on Katz and my own experience, and compared the holdings of the two candidates in 8 topics. The winner of the most holdings of relevant titles was EBSCO.
2. Findings: Scores (in percentage of key holdings)
Topic E Score ,P score
General Books & Reading 100 ,100
Humanities 93.7, 75
American Studies 100, 80
Visual Arts 100, 37.5
American History 100 ,50
American Literature and English 94.4, 77.7
Economics /Global issues 77.7 ,77.7
Business 77.7 ,60
3. Summary of my review
Given these scores, and the trend line, of one consolidator increasing coverage and the other decreasing, I suggest that the selection arrow is pointing at EBSCO. In fact, there are a few major titles that one finds now only in EBSCO. These include Forbes, PMLA, and several major Art journals ( even though our paper copies are more valuable, we need to maintain an electronic index to articles).
4. Ease of use
But how about user friendliness and the quality of the search engine? Our colleagues at the California Community College Library Consortium compared the two rivals in 2005. They compared database functionality, appropriateness of format ( bibliographic vs full text), information content, search interface, user support service and cost, and came up with an overall assessment. They concluded the Expanded Academic ASAP database of the highest quality due to the superior indexing structure and search interface.” My own view is that the search engine on EBSCO often picks up more chaff along with the wheat, but given the fact that one is a database with a more dynamic collection maintenance, I suggest it is a good time to bite the bullet and move to EBSCO. There is a cost of course, in changing all our online modules and many instructor work sheets. But many modules could be revised, I assume, by the reference librarians when we are not busy helping students.
5. The added support of Opposing Viewpoints and CQ Researcher
One of the major uses of our periodical collection is to support English and Social Science classes where students must defend on paper a point of view by “researching” the topic using library materials. The addition of the enormously rich collection of magazine articles that are supplied full text in the Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center provides a “utility outfielder” that can handle almost any central topic that is likely to be addressed. I hasten to add that CQ Researcher provides good to excellent support as well, but the design of Opposing Viewpoints allows a rich source of full-text magazine articles not available in CQ. Another factor that is important for our ESL students is that Opposing Viewpoints has in fact, “graded” the readability of their resources, using the Lexile scale. It is likely too complicated to get a student to fix a readability level in a library research project, but it can be reassuring to an instructor to know that there are selections that can be read and comprehended at the 10th or 11th grade level. For example, Foreign Policy and Wilson Quarterly articles often fall in the 10th grade reading level.
6. Suggested package.
The California Premier Package sells for 21,455 dollars. It seems useful to include the CINAHL Plus since a review by Dana and me of about 80 full text serials included showed they had, in fact, included the essential journals such as Am J or Nursing, J of Nursing Education, J of Practical Nuring, Nursing, Nursing outlook, International Nursing Review, and RN. The add-on cost of CINAHL Plus if ordered with the California Premier Package is 1806 dollars. The add-on cost for the essential Newspaper Source Plus is $3371.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Use of Google Alert to track Gavilan College items
One of the ongoing problems at the Gavilan Library is that we are supposed to be keeping the archives of the college, but are not really staffed to do that, nor do we have the space to store much less to organize the historical documents of the college. We do maintain what we are required by law to maintain; board and senate records. However, to at least maintain a quick-and-dirty history of the college that does not require space and not much librarian input would be the following suggestion.
Create a Google "Alert" of the term "Gavilan College" with instructions to report it weekly. Have the reference librarian each Friday download the week's associated documents , saving it in some manner --either online or on disc. Would this work? Are any other colleges doing this? I am uncertain as to what would be the most effective method of retrieval of these saved items, maybe simply a keyword search. Comments?
Don
Create a Google "Alert" of the term "Gavilan College" with instructions to report it weekly. Have the reference librarian each Friday download the week's associated documents , saving it in some manner --either online or on disc. Would this work? Are any other colleges doing this? I am uncertain as to what would be the most effective method of retrieval of these saved items, maybe simply a keyword search. Comments?
Don
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)