Another expansion of journal coverage by Thomson

It was only at the beginning of April that Thomson announced their increased coverage of journals in the social sciences. I should have read the press announcement much more carefully since it clearly states “begins expansion of Web of Science” in the title. A few days ago they added yet another substantial -700- set of journals. This is likely to include those 162 journals announced in April. We don’t know for sure.

Digging a little further on the Thomson Scientific Website I notice they still mention “from approximately 8,500 of the most prestigious, high impact research journals in the world“. I thought WoS already covered some 9000 journals for quite some time already, but that is based on oral communication in presentations by Thomson staff. On checking the Journal Master Lists from Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index and the Arts & Humanities Citation Index and looking at the journal changes over the past 12 months I only count 177 journal changes over all three database parts. These journal changes also include name changes, dropped journals et cetera. We are still left in the dark on which journals have been added.

Dear Thomson Reuters Scientific executives, we want to go out into the faculties of our universities, the departments and laboratories and meet with researchers and tell them this exciting news. However we want to inform our users completely and we need therefore comprehensive lists of the journals that have been added. Is that really too much asked?

So, James Testa finally found his 500 journals.

Hattip: de Bibliotheker

Kjell Tjensvoll: The e-only library Helsebiblioteket.no

In Norway they have build a national digital health library. And what is really special about it, everybody in Norway, I mean everybody with internet access, is allowed to read, browse and download all medical journals. It is based on the national contracts for higher education and with a small additional fee to cover the national access.

Think about it. If all higher education institutions cover the main costs already and there is not much of an additional market to be expected, why not. If in the Netherlands for instance a publisher of scientific journals has already contracts with the universities and research universities, than there is not much of a market left, so why not open up access to the IP range of the whole country.

It takes some courage to develop and implement such a model.

I was much impressed by the fact that they managed to do this. As information junkie I dwell on this idea.

Kjell also showed the implementation of the portal to host all these journals and databases and it was interesting to see that they used the federated search and clustering engine of Vivisimo.

If I now had only a Norwegian proxy server to my availability.

Social tagging workshop at ELAG

In advance of the ELAG workshop on social tagging I wrote a little bit on a wiki site in preparation for the workshop participant as a kind of introduction to the subject. Actually it was my idea to lure a few more participants to the workshop, but the low number of participants was resolved in another way. Since the the points raised fit well in the context of this blog I thought it might be worthwile to repeat those points here as well.

The title of the workshop Social tagging is a combination of two terms, tagging and social bookmarking. At first sight they don’t seem to be the most spectacular subjects to ponder over in the ELAG workshops. But when the constituency of your library is adding tags to all kind of video’s, photographs and websites, wouldn’t you at least not give them the possibility to tag you library resources as well? Is it already possible in your library OPAC? Well, what about the bibliographic databases that your library licences, why can’t users tag those items yet? If they are tagging ‘your’ resources already the obvious questions to ask are, which items are they tagging and what tags are they using. What can we learn from our users.

Can we use those tags from to improve the recall and ranking from our library systems? How should these folksonomies be combined, enhanced, complemented with our formal taxonomies?

If your users can tag any item on your library system, where should the tags and tagged items be collected. Should it be a homegrown system like they have developed at Pennsylvania University  Library (Penntags), Harvard Law Library (H2O) or recently at Michigan (MTagger), should we advise to use the tools developed by the big scientific publishers such as 2Collab from Elsevier, Connotea from Nature or Scholar from Blackboard? Or should our academics and their precious labour on tagging be shared on common bookmarking sites such as del.icio.us, furl and the like. Is CiteUlike or Zotero perhaps the best solution after all?

When it comes to saving library items we supported already reference management programmes such as EndNote and Refworks. What is the relations between social bookmarking sites and the very popular reference management programmes. RefWorks is much better than EndNote at handeling websites, but they haven’t been developed as social bookmarking sites yet. On the other hand, Connotea and 2Collab are social bookmarking sites that have some, reference management capacity but they don’t stand up in the competition to EndNote en Refworks in this respect.

LibraryThing is perhaps an odd case in this workshop, but has some very intriguing features. Some libraries are already using the tags and recommendations from LibraryThing in their catalog. Interesting, I am not aware of an example where items tagged in a library catalog and those tags being used to enrich LibraryThing. Perhaps it exists already. I don’t know yet. LT is to some extend a special case of a reference management software. It is only used for books. An awfull lot of books. It is therefore quite easy to add your own books to LibraryThing. At our university we are all the time confronted with organically grown collections of books that are not part of the library collection. Consider the idea that those collections of books were entered in LibraryThing, that we could use the collected LibraryThings from our constituency to see if a book we don’t have in our collection is somewhere on campus, rather than rushing to the order book button. LibrarThing from our trusted users as a natural extension of our catalog and library collection?

Those are the five lines along which I hope to ponder the theme of this workshop with a group of smart library people over the next three days. Lorcan Dempsey wrote recently on this subject as a new bibliographic tissue.