This article was downloaded by: [University of South Carolina ]On: 26 April 2013, At: 06:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Science & Technology LibrariesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wstl20

Content Overlap and Replacement CostAnalyses: Tools to Evaluate Abstracting/Indexing (A&I) and Full-Text Databases inScience and EngineeringKhue Duong a , Carol Perruso a & Hema Ramachandran aa California State University, Long Beach, CaliforniaVersion of record first published: 04 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Khue Duong , Carol Perruso & Hema Ramachandran (2013): Content Overlap andReplacement Cost Analyses: Tools to Evaluate Abstracting/Indexing (A&I) and Full-Text Databases inScience and Engineering, Science & Technology Libraries, 32:1, 84-94

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2012.758461

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Science & Technology Libraries, 32:84–94, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0194-262X print/1541-1109 onlineDOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2012.758461

Content Overlap and Replacement CostAnalyses: Tools to Evaluate

Abstracting/Indexing (A&I) and Full-TextDatabases in Science and Engineering

KHUE DUONG, CAROL PERRUSO, and HEMA RAMACHANDRANCalifornia State University, Long Beach, California

Shrinking serials acquisition budgets and increasing subscriptioncosts for access to bibliographic and full-text databases are forcingacademic librarians to reevaluate the content needs of their facultyand students. This article showcases two methods to attain a firmergrasp of the content and value of databases: comparison of jour-nal title overlap among various abstracting/indexing databasesusing the JISC Academic Database Assessment Tool (ADAT), andcost analysis of unbundling a full-text journal package.

KEYWORDS bibliographic databases, abstracting/indexing data-bases, full-text databases, JISC Academic Database Assessment Tool,cost analysis, unbundling, journal packages, serials acquisition,database subscription

INTRODUCTION

In the past several years, state funding for higher education in Californiahas been dramatically cut. The California State University (CSU) system hasnot been spared. The day-to-day operation of each of the twenty-three CSUcampuses has been hampered by past and current projected cuts. Facingroughly a 30 percent reduction in the 2012–2013 collection developmentbudget (Perruso 2012), the University Library at California State University,

The authors thank Dana Roth, the Chemistry Librarian at California Institute ofTechnology Libraries, for his insights into the content analysis of bibliographic databases.

Address correspondence to Khue Duong, University Library Room 418, California StateUniversity, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90840-1901, USA. E-mail:khue.duong@csulb.edu

84

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

6:36

26

Apr

il 20

13

Content Overlap and Replacement Cost Analyses 85

Long Beach (CSULB), faced a difficult balance of providing timely deliveryof the content needed by the campus community while dealing with thecommonly accepted fact that the cost of journal packages typically increasesabout 5 percent each year (Bergstrom 2010).

In its mission statement, CSULB strives to be a “student-centered,”“teaching-intensive, research-driven university” that “graduate[s] studentswith highly valued degrees” (CSULB 2012). Although the University Libraryaims to support both the instruction and research missions of the university,protecting resources that are indispensable to instruction takes precedencein hard times. The University Library defines instructionally indispensableresources generally as “the most heavily used or those with strong, uniquecurriculum-related content” (Perruso 2012). When a unique resource is valu-able to only one or a very few researchers within a department, the subjectlibrarian must analyze its usage and engage in a dialogue with the concernedfaculty members to see how the library can best serve their needs in the mostcost-effective way.

The engineering librarian and one of the science librarians at CSULBstarted to explore and analyze the overlap and interrelatedness of thedatabases in their respective areas and presented their initial findingsat the 2012 Special Libraries Association All Sciences Poster Reception(Ramachandran and Duong 2012). Encouraged by the interest in the contentof the poster, we decided to turn it into a journal article with the collabora-tion of the collection development officer. This article primarily showcasestwo methods used for database comparison and analysis of online journalpackages. By detailing the rationale behind the decision-making process, theauthors hope to illustrate that there is not a one-size-fits-all methodology todetermine whether to keep a journal package or to subscribe to selected indi-vidual journals and fulfill other content needs through a consortial borrowingsystem.

ABSTRACTING/INDEXING VS. FULL-TEXT DATABASES

Abstracting/indexing (A&I) databases, sometimes also referred to as “biblio-graphic databases,” provide users a discovery tool to conduct comprehensiveliterature searches. Librarians often recommend that patrons utilize multidis-ciplinary A&I databases, such as Web of Science (WoS) or Compendex, toinitiate their search in natural sciences or engineering. Full-text databases, incontrast, can be viewed as a “destination” resource, because a searcher mightstart from an A&I database and arrive at a full-text database to read the arti-cle. ScienceDirect is a prime example of a full-text database. Depending on alibrary’s subscription coverage, ScienceDirect provides online full-text accessto certain journals from Elsevier, its subsidiaries, and some other scholarlypublishers. Similarly, many professional associations, such as the American

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

6:36

26

Apr

il 20

13

86 K. Duong et al.

TABLE 1 CSULB “Destination” Full-Text (FT) and Abstracting/Indexing (A&I) Science,Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Databases

Interdisciplinary EngineeringSciences

(excluding health sciences)

Academic Search Complete(FT and A&I)

ScienceDirect (FT)SpringerLink (FT)Web of Science (A&I)Wiley Online Library (FT)

ACM Digital Library (FT)AIAA Electronic Library (FT)ASCE Civil Engineering

Database (FT)ASME Digital Library (FT)Compendex (A&I)IEEE Explore (FT)

ACS Web Edition (FT)AIP Journals (FT)APS Journals (FT)Biological Abstracts (A&I)Environmental Sciences &

Pollution Management (A&I)GEOBASE (A&I)GeoScienceWorld/GeoRef

(FT and A&I)IOPScience (FT)MathSciNet (A&I)Reaxys (A&I)SciFinder (A&I)Zoological Record (A&I)

Chemical Society, provide a search interface where users can access the fulltext of the journals from their societies. In some cases, such as the ACMDigital Library and IEEE Xplore, the databases provide full-text access to notonly the association’s research but also related and affiliated organizations.When users search IEEE Xplore, they are limiting themselves to a search ofIEEE and IET (the counterpart of IEEE in the UK) publications and missingresearch published by other related associations, commercial publishers andnon-U.S./non-U.K. research in electrical engineering. Please see Table 1 forthe full-text and A&I databases available at CSULB that were used for thisarticle. The databases in the interdisciplinary category include those in thesciences and engineering with potential overlap in the humanities and socialsciences. (Note that the content coverage of WoS and ScienceDirect is farbroader than their names imply. In addition, the sciences category does notinclude databases in the health sciences.)

FREE VS. FEE-BASED SEARCHING

Libraries pay an annual fee to subscribe to proprietary A&I databases such asWoS or Compendex. With the increasing presence of free web crawlers suchas Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic Search, or Elsevier Scirus, the value ofproprietary A&I databases is subject to a close examination. Notably, GoogleScholar has gained a significant amount of traction since its 2004 debut.Because of Google’s reluctance to disclose Google Scholar’s search algo-rithm, the unavailability of a list of indexed journals, and its citation metrics,the debate regarding whether Google Scholar is sufficiently “scholarly” stillpersists (Gray et al. 2012). Despite its criticism, Google Scholar recall and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

6:36

26

Apr

il 20

13

Content Overlap and Replacement Cost Analyses 87

precision keeps improving and its search results are comparable to otherfee-based comprehensive or discipline-specific databases (Walters 2011).Several content and citation-analysis studies have tested Google Scholar’sreliability against other databases. For instance, a chemical literature studyshowed that whereas SciFinder performed significantly better in searching forcompounds, personal names, or patents, Google Scholar performed betterfor simple keyword search (Levine-Clark and Kraus 2007). In engineering-related searches, the percentage of Compendex records appearing in GoogleScholar increased for articles published in the more recent past, approach-ing a 90 percent matching rate for materials published after 1990 (Meier andConkling 2008). Between BIOSIS Previews and Google Scholar, no clear-cutwinner was determined while comparing search results in life science top-ics (Kirkwood and Kirkwood 2011). Comparing results from Google Scholar,WoS, Scopus, and SciFinder, Li and others (2010) reported no striking advan-tage among these comprehensive databases with respect to the number ofciting references retrieved for known articles in basic medical sciences.

STUDIES OF THE RESEARCHERS’ NEEDS

The quality of a database is not the only criterion for determining the impor-tance and continuation, or cancelation, of the resource. Librarians must alsotake into consideration the needs, preferences, and research output of theircampus community. A faculty survey at the University of California, SantaCruz, indicated that in certain science disciplines, researchers preferred thelibrary to keep full-text journal subscriptions instead of using the reducedserials acquisition budget to pay for access to A&I databases. Moreover,the survey found that multidisciplinary databases and Google Scholar wereused more frequently than subject-specific databases by survey respondents(Hightower and Caldwell 2010). A similar survey and focus-group study atUniversity of California, San Diego, further indicated that Google Scholar wasan essential resource for many researchers (Shepherd 2012).

As far back as 1999, Roth suggested that selecting an “appropriate mixof databases for a given institution requires knowledge of each service’sstrengths and limitations.” One way to achieve this is for librarians to ascer-tain which databases index faculty publications. In addition to providing agood training exercise for librarians, the obvious benefit is the heightenedawareness of the research output of their faculty. Roth (1999) pioneered thisapproach at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and over theyears it has revealed some interesting and surprising results. This methodol-ogy was first tried at Caltech in 1989 to reveal that a combination of ChemicalAbstracts and Medline was a very satisfactory substitute for BIOSIS for thebiology faculty at that time. Roth (1999) also found that a search in 1995 ofChemical Abstracts (now SciFinder Scholar) surprisingly retrieved a very high

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

6:36

26

Apr

il 20

13

88 K. Duong et al.

number of publications by several Caltech faculty members in engineer-ing or biological sciences disciplines. He concluded that Chemical Abstracts(SciFinder) may be “misnamed” because it is a much more comprehensivedatabase that retrieves content beyond the chemical literature. This method-ology has a lot of credence in research-centric institutions such as Caltechbut may not be appropriate for teaching-centric institutions such as CSULBwhere we must hit the right balance between supporting the curriculum andsupporting the research needs of our faculty.

JISC ACADEMIC DATABASE ASSESSMENT TOOL (ADAT)

In 2006 the UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) introduced theAcademic Database Assessment Tool (ADAT; http://www.jisc-adat.com), afree online tool, to help librarians “make informed decisions about futuresubscriptions to bibliographic databases” (Center for Research Libraries2012). Relying on the data submitted by content providers, JISC presentsoptions to compare titles coverage from fifteen A&I databases and ninefull-text databases. In addition, one can also compare database platforms(e.g., EBSCOHost vs. ProQuest) and e-book platforms (e.g., Ebrary vs. CredoReference). As promising a tool as it is, ADAT is simply an instrument fora quick comparison, not an absolute final measure on which subscriptiondecisions should be made (Earney 2009). Because the depth of coveragefor each journal included in a database is not frequently updated by theproviders, an ADAT comparison might not reflect the current differenceamong the compared databases. The list of Compendex journal titles avail-able in ADAT (last updated on April 24, 2012) includes 3,610 titles. The webpage on Compendex quick facts, however, claims “over 6,500 journals andconference proceedings indexed annually” (Engineering Information 2012).Because Compendex conference proceedings are not included in ADAT list-ing, the comparative results may not reflect the true value of a databaselike Compendex (Bhatt and Denick 2009). For the CSULB comparison, wewere also interested in including databases such as SciFinder and GeoRefin the ADAT analysis. Unfortunately, Chemical Abstract Services does notprovide their list of SciFinder indexed journals to JISC. Similarly, neitherEBSCOHost nor Proquest provides data about GeoRef among the list ofavailable databases.

We decided to investigate Compendex as a potential candidate fordiscontinuation by comparing its coverage with the content of WoS andAcademic Search Complete (ASC). Figure 1 details the overlap of activejournal titles listed in these databases.

Based on the active titles coverage, Figure 1 illustrates that the com-bination of ASC and WoS covers 65 percent of Compendex journal titles.While looking online at the ADAT results, one can also obtain the list of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

6:36

26

Apr

il 20

13

Content Overlap and Replacement Cost Analyses 89

FIGURE 1 Journal Titles Overlap among Compendex, Web of Science (WoS), and AcademicSearch Complete (ASC) as Reported by the Academic Database Assessment Tool (ADAT;http://www.jisc-adat.com/adat/search_form.pl).

1,252 unique Compendex journal titles by clicking on the number indicatedin the Venn diagram.

Figure 2 illustrates the intersection among GEOBASE, ASC, and WoS.Even though we had already canceled GEOBASE, we decided to comparethese three databases together as another test of ADAT robustness.

Figure 2 indicates that 68 percent of GEOBASE titles overlap withthe combination of journal titles of WoS and ASC. The number of uniqueGEOBASE journal titles, in this case, was 709.

Keeping in mind the importance of business information for certainresearchers in science and engineering, we also ran a similar comparisonof ABI/INFORM against GEOBASE and Compendex. ADAT indicates thatABI/INFORM overlaps with 6 percent of Compendex journal titles and with9 percent of GEOBASE journal titles.

COST ANALYSIS OF FULL-TEXT DATABASES

As cited by Pickett (2011, 258), the Big Deal serial subscription can bedefined as “a licensing agreement that provides expanded or complete accessto the e-journal content of major publishers.” A quick browse through collec-tion development literature in journals such as Serials, The Serials Librarian,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

6:36

26

Apr

il 20

13

90 K. Duong et al.

FIGURE 2 Journal Titles Overlap among GEOBASE, Web of Science (WoS), and AcademicSearch Complete (ASC) as Reported by the Academic Database Assessment Tool (ADAT;http://www.jisc-adat.com/adat/search_form.pl).

or Serials Review shows that managing the Big Deal multiyear renewal, byeither renegotiating the package or breaking up the bundled site licenses,remains a challenge (Mitchell and Lorbeer 2009; Pickett 2011; Rolnik 2009).When the annual price of journal packages continues to increase and librarybudgets continue to diminish, changes and compromises are bound tohappen.

The renewal decisions by the University Library are influenced signif-icantly by the annual 5 percent to 6 percent cost increase of the full-textdatabases. Armed with the COUNTER-compliant statistics for the majorityof the journal packages, one can compare the cost of the package againstthe subscription cost of individual journal titles and of anticipated interli-brary loan (ILL) requests for nonsubscribed journals. One of the standardCOUNTER usage reports available from vendors, JR1, provides the numberof full-text article requests by journal title. Note that COUNTER classifies“viewing, downloading, emailing and printing of items” as part of an arti-cle request (COUNTER 2012). To determine whether copyright royalties forinterlibrary loan would cost more than a subscription, several key assump-tions had to be made. First, it was assumed that the type of interlibraryloan service influences its usage and usefulness. Though no research wasfound comparing the usage of rapid document delivery and traditional inter-library loan services, it would seem logical that speedy delivery of documentswould increase use of a service. For article document delivery, CSULB usesan unmediated consortial borrowing service that, with minimal work on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

6:36

26

Apr

il 20

13

Content Overlap and Replacement Cost Analyses 91

the user’s part, e-mails the user the full text of a requested article, usu-ally within 48 hours. We assumed that a reasonable percentage of patronswould make use of this service, so we figured that into a formula to estimateconsortial borrowing costs. The collection development officer estimatedthat 50 percent of database users would use the unmediated service if theyfound an article that we did not own in a database search. Next, she deter-mined that the library’s average royalty cost for borrowed articles was about$35. (Royalties are set by, and vary among, publishers.) Third, based onguidelines from the National Commission on New Technological Uses ofCopyrighted Works, a library would report to the Copyright Clearance Centerand pay royalties if it borrowed more than five articles published in the pastfive years from a given journal. Using these assumptions (50 percent usageand average royalty costs of $35 per article exceeding five), the collectiondevelopment officer came up with the following formula:

ILL Cost = [(N × 0.5) − 5

] × R

with N being the most recent annual full-text article requests from a journal,5 representing the five articles exempted from royalties, and R representingthe average royalty cost.

To get a better sense of this cost analysis, consider Table 2, which detailsthe numbers associated with a sample of journals within the IOPSciencepackage. This analysis uses the 2012 price for individual IOP journals pub-licly available at the IOPScience website (http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/fvx/iop/pricebull/usa2012/).

As indicated in Table 2, unbundling the package makes economic senseif the total cost of the individual journals (i.e., either by subscribing individu-ally or by paying copyright royalties) is less than the cost of the package. Forthe majority of the IOPScience journals, individual title subscription wouldcost much more than the cost resulting from consortial borrowing for thatparticular title. There are a few exceptions, such as Physics Education inTable 2, in which estimated ILL cost is higher than the price of the individ-ual journal. This same formula has been used to add journal subscriptionswhen we find that royalty costs exceed the subscription cost. There areother important considerations such as patron convenience and instructionaland research relevance to be taken into account. To assess some of theseother factors we engaged the Physics Department in a dialogue about theIOPScience findings and about subscribing independently to the reasonablypriced and most heavily used journals and relying on the consortial borrow-ing system to fulfill the needs for other IOP journals. We also had discussionswith the publisher. The subscription decision ultimately will depend on thenegotiated cost of the database, but the cost analysis above gives us a goodindication of how the library can realistically satisfy the departmental needswithin the budget constraints.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

6:36

26

Apr

il 20

13

TAB

LE2

Est

imat

edCost

for

Unbundlin

gth

eIO

PSc

ience

Journ

alPac

kage

—A

Sam

ple

ofTitl

es

Journ

altit

le20

11to

tal

dow

nlo

ads

2012

price

Cost

per

dow

nlo

adEst

imat

edIL

Lco

st

Our

cost

(low

erof

ILL

cost

or

2012

subsc

riptio

nco

st)

Jou

rna

lof

Ph

ysic

sD

:A

ppli

edP

hys

ics

69$4

,575

$66.

30$1

,032

.50

$1,0

32.5

0Jo

urn

alo

fP

hys

ics

G:

Nu

clea

ra

nd

Pa

rtic

leP

hys

ics

28$4

,120

$147

.14

$315

.00

$315

.00

Jou

rna

lof

Ph

ysic

s:C

ond

ense

dM

att

er13

4$1

2,17

5$9

0.86

$2,1

70.0

0$2

,170

.00

Jou

rna

lof

Ra

dio

logi

calP

rote

ctio

n1

$725

$725

.00

$0.0

0$0

.00

Jou

rna

lof

Sem

icon

du

ctor

s10

$1,4

75$1

47.5

0$0

.00

$0.0

0Jo

urn

alo

fSt

ati

stic

alM

ech

an

ics:

Th

eory

an

dExp

erim

ent

3$1

,445

$481

.67

$0.0

0$0

.00

Mea

sure

men

tSc

ien

cea

nd

Tec

hn

olog

y22

$2,3

85$1

08.4

1$2

10.0

0$2

10.0

0M

etro

logi

a8

$1,0

45$1

30.6

3$0

.00

$0.0

0M

odel

lin

ga

nd

Sim

ula

tion

inM

ate

ria

lsSc

ien

cea

nd

En

gin

eeri

ng

4$1

,210

$302

.50

$0.0

0$0

.00

Na

not

ech

nol

ogy

152

$4,6

30$3

0.46

$2,4

85.0

0$2

,485

.00

Non

lin

eari

ty19

$2,1

05$1

10.7

9$1

57.5

0$0

.00

Nu

clea

rFu

sion

2$1

,655

$827

.50

$0.0

0$0

.00

Ph

ysic

aSc

ript

a34

$2,1

70$6

3.82

$420

.00

$420

.00

Ph

ysic

sEd

uca

tion

64$5

80$9

.06

$945

.00

$580

.00

Is th

is to

tal c

ost l

ess

than

the

cost

of t

hebu

ndle

d jo

urna

l pac

kage

?

To

tal C

ost

The

cost

-per

-dow

nlo

adco

lum

nis

det

erm

ined

by

div

idin

gth

e20

12price

by

the

2011

tota

ldow

nlo

ads.

The

ILL

cost

isbas

edon

the

pro

ject

ed50

per

cent

ILL

reques

tfr

om

the

num

ber

of

dow

nlo

ads

in20

11usi

ng

the

form

ula

:IL

LCost

=(N

um

ber

of

2011

annual

dow

nlo

ads/

2−

5)×

35.B

etw

een

the

2012

price

and

the

estim

ated

ILL

cost

,th

esm

alle

rnum

ber

would

be

inputin

toth

ela

stco

lum

n,“o

ur

cost

.”

92

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

6:36

26

Apr

il 20

13

Content Overlap and Replacement Cost Analyses 93

We have used the same cost–usage analysis with other high-pricetagjournal databases, including the Wiley Online Library, SpringerLink JournalsOnline Collection, ScienceDirect, and Sage Premier. The analysis showedthat the usage of SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, and Sage Premier justified thecost of these full-text databases. Canceling the Wiley Online Library full-textpackage and subscribing to about seventy of its high-use journals allowedus to modestly reduce costs and still provide faculty and students the abilityto obtain needed journal articles in a timely manner.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Checking overlapping journal access with the ADAT and engaging in costanalysis are just two tools for a closer look at A&I and full-text databases.To acquire a more accurate picture of the information needs and searchbehaviors of researchers from various science, technology, engineering, andmathematics disciplines, more thorough assessments are needed. In the nearfuture, the science and engineering librarians plan to gather feedback fromvarious departments through focus groups and surveys, building on simi-lar user-focused studies by Hightower and Caldwell (2010) and Shepherd(2012).

CONCLUSION

The tension between inflated journal prices and diminishing serials acquisi-tion budgets forces librarians to scrutinize the existing subscriptions to A&Iand full-text databases. Many factors, such as the content coverage, cost, userpreferences, and where faculty publications are indexed, should be takeninto consideration when it is time to renew the subscriptions. The authorssuggest two evaluative methods. The first follows the analysis of journal titleoverlap among databases using the ADAT. The second involves a formulafor comparing bundled journal package costs with the combined cost ofsubscribing to some highly used titles individually and paying copyright roy-alties for other less used titles in the package. These measures, combinedwith an understanding of the teaching and research needs of the campus,allow librarians to make informed collection management decisions whenconsidering the addition or cancellation of individual journal titles versuspublishers’ bundled offers.

REFERENCES

Bergstrom, T. C. 2010. Librarians and the terrible fix: Economics of the Big Deal.Serials 23 (2): 77–82.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

6:36

26

Apr

il 20

13

94 K. Duong et al.

Bhatt, J., and D. Denick. 2009. JISC’s Academic Database Assessment Tool as a collec-tion development and management tool for bibliographic databases. CollectionManagement 34 (3): 234–41.

California State University, Long Beach: Mission & Vision. 2012. Available at http://www.csulb.edu/about/.

Center for Research Libraries. 2012. JISC Academic Database Assessment Tool.Available at http://www.jisc-adat.com/adat/home.pl.

COUNTER. 2012. Available at http://www.projectcounter.org/r3/Release3D9.pdfEarney, L. 2009. An introduction to the JISC Academic Database Assessment Tool.

Serials 22 (3): 199–205.Engineering Information. 2012. Compendex quick facts. Compendex. Available at

http://www.ei.org/compendex.Gray, J. E., M. C. Hamilton, A. Hauser, M. M. Janz, J. P. Peters, and F. Taggart.

2012. Scholarish: Google Scholar and its value to the sciences. Issues in Scienceand Technology Librarianship 70 (Summer). Available at http://www.istl.org/12-summer/article1.html

Hightower, C., and C. Caldwell. 2010. Shifting sands: Science researchers on GoogleScholar, Web of Science, and PubMed, with implications for library collectionsbudgets. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship 63 (Fall). Available athttp://www.istl.org/10-fall/refereed3.html

Kirkwood, H. P., and M. C. Kirkwood. 2011. Researching the life sciences: BIOSISPreviews and Google Scholar. Online 35 (3): 24–28.

Levine-Clark, M., and J. Kraus. 2007. Finding chemistry information using GoogleScholar: A comparison with Chemical Abstracts Service. Science and TechnologyLibraries 27 (4): 3–17.

Li, J., J. F. Burnham, T. Lemley, and R. M. Britton. 2010. Citation analysis: Comparisonof Web of Science®, ScopusTM, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar. Journal ofElectronic Resources in Medical Libraries 7 (3): 196–217.

Meier, J. J., and T. W. Conkling. 2008. Google Scholar’s coverage of the engineer-ing literature: An empirical study. Journal of Academic Librarianship 34 (3):196–201.

Mitchell, N., and E. R. Lorbeer. 2009. Building relevant and sustainable collections.Serials Librarian 57 (4): 327–33.

Perruso, C. 2012. CSULB University Library collections budget planning. Overview.Available at http://csulb.libguides.com/content.php?pid=324730&sid=2903418

Pickett, C. 2011. Eliminating administrative churn: The “Big Deal” and databasesubscriptions. Serials Review 37 (4): 258–61.

Ramachandran, H., and K. Duong. 2012. How much? How many databases in hardtimes? Poster presented at the Special Libraries Association All Sciences PosterReception, Chicago.

Rolnik, Z. 2009. Big deal = good deal? Serials Librarian 57 (3): 194–98.Roth, D. 1999. Comparing electronic databases: How many are enough? Paper presen-

ted at the California Academic & Research Libraries Conference, Asilomar, Calif.Shepherd, S. 2012. A tale of two campuses: Scientists’ research behavior in a dynamic

environment. Poster presented at the Special Libraries Association All SciencesPoster Reception, Chicago.

Walters, W. H. 2011. Comparative recall and precision of simple and expert searchesin Google Scholar and eight other databases. Portal: Libraries & the Academy11 (4): 971–1006.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Car

olin

a ]

at 0

6:36

26

Apr

il 20

13