[Wactclc-primo] 2018 Open Access Database Review - Initial Findings

[Bem, Greg]

Good evening, everyone on the Alma/Primo lists,

At long last I bring you a slightly rough and incomplete document coming out of the summer ’18 review of the open access databases available via PCI.

The evaluation document, as a view-only copy, is available here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vS4fp65OmEA1jEko1kCFhLF4zSyvzPIHFGnfb2Hx9dw/edit?usp=sharing

A breakdown of the document:

  *   Tab 1: Evaluation 1: Reviewing Databases within Primo: This is a list of nearly all of the databases available, which were assessed via how they look/operate inside of Primo (not their native interfaces). Note that the following criteria were used in the final tab, which contributed to what LWTech is currently using in their own PCI activations:
     *   A) Materials are discoverable in Primo;
     *   B) The records in Primo are descriptive with abstract/summary information, links that work, and metadata that contains minimal or no errors;
     *   C) Links lead directly to documents, with full text being accessible without any additional login requirements/paywalls
  *   Tab 2: Evaluation 2: Reviewing Databases Outside of Primo: This is a list of nearly all of the databases available, which were assessed with how they look/operate in their native interfaces. Note that the following criteria were used in the final tab, which contributed to what LWTech is currently using in their own PCI activations:
     *   A) Regardless of original language, is English used?;
     *   B) Is the website/search platform intuitive and/or functional?;
     *   C) Overall, would you recommend this to a CTC for activation? Why/why not?;
     *   D) Relevancy of content to current events;
     *   E) Is full text available without paying fee?
  *   Tab 3: Post-Project Collections for Review: These were databases that just didn’t get done over the summer and needed a little extra care from Sue Wozniak and I. It also includes any databases added in August.
  *   Tab 4: Project Results Worksheet: This sheet is how LWTech figured out which databases to activate in PCI after reviewing the work done over the summer (and without, in many cases, directly looking at each database):
     *   Column one: “Tab 1”: All items that meet the criteria on the first tab
     *   Column two: “Tab 2”: All items that meet the criteria on the second tab
     *   Column three: “Combined”: The full list of tabs 1 and 2
     *   Column five: “Combined Doubles: Those databases that overlap from Tab 1 and 2 (i.e. what repeats in column three) and those that we selected in Tab 3.
     *   Column six: databases that we had previously activated that we’re keeping on due to personal success with them as they are

Questions and Possible Answers

  *   How did you select the criteria to filter databases in tabs 1 and 2?
     *   While we did survey participating librarians about what criteria is most relevant to them, Sue and I decided for us which of the criteria made the most sense.
  *   Does this process of moving from Tab 1 to Tab 4 work for all libraries?
     *   Probably not. It’s one way to interpret what is a lot of work and effort put in by the librarians who participated over the summer (see below for acknowledgments!!). There are multiple ways of efficiently looking through the data in this document.
  *   Were there problems with reviewing the databases using this tool?
     *   Of course. One of the largest ones is subjectivity. Not all the librarians have the same insight and knowledge, availability to do this (volunteer) work, and perspective; many are looking at the review through their own lens and their own school’s needs unconsciously, which already creates a disconnect. Different interpretations of the criteria (big one: accessibility) also creates disparities amongst the data.
  *   Can these problems be solved?
     *   Probably not without getting more specific and having more objective/specific assessment criteria with very specific procedures to follow to assess each database. Some of this year’s criteria is fairly objective but still might have different interpretations based on skill alone . . . (For example: “Did the records show up in Primo?” You might not find them in the collection facet, but the article-level records might be displaying without easy-to-access metadata!)
  *   So what’s the plan?
     *   We’ll do more assessment next summer! But ideally having better criteria that is simpler and more specific to get a fairly clear idea of low-hanging fruit when it comes to assessing whether a database should be used.
  *   What about the plan with this data?
     *   Review survey results from participating librarians (this has been put off but isn’t forgotten!)
     *   Share it with you and see if there’s feedback from this community
     *   Simultaneously share it with the LLC and see if there’s feedback from that community
     *   Clean up the data a bit more and share with larger community, ideally ELUNA next year
     *   Receive that feedback and then share with the national lists . . . right in time for next summer 😃
  *   Do you want help with anything for this data?
     *   Nope! Sue and I have it covered, except we love you and we’d love your feedback! If you have any, as gritty as possible, please share!
  *   What’s PCI again? (and/or) What’s open access?
     *   Primo Central Index. Please let Sue, Wade, and me know if you need refreshers on any of these concepts!

Acknowledgments
Again, this work was done with vigor and diligence by college librarians from around the state during the “easy-going summer quarter,” including at least one who didn’t have direct access to Primo! Those people who were involved in great and greater ways, in alphabetical order, are:

  *   Lauren Bryant
  *   Clare Bryant
  *   Saint-Jean Devereux
  *   Karen Fernandez
  *   Andrea Gillaspy
  *   Leslie Potter-Henderson
  *   Jack Harton
  *   Jennifer Stutesman
  *   Traci Taylor
  *   Candice Watkins
  *   Angela Wiehagen
  *   Sue Wozniak
  *   Naoko Yasuda

(I believe this is everyone—if I forgot anyone, it’s totally my fault and I owe you a Pumpkin Spice Latte!)

(And many thanks to the brotherly guidance of Wade Guidry as well: contributing encouragement, the occasional Zoom room, and critical insight throughout the process!)

Each of these kind folks did what they could with what time and energy they had available, and dealt with the slow-death that is my long, intellectual emails! (You’re getting a taste of that now!) Sue and I are incredibly grateful.

Okay, I think I need to stop before Outlook freaks out. Again, if you have feedback, send it along! Or questions! And thank you for reading! If you got this far, you get your own, personal gold star 😉

All the best,

Greg



Greg Bem, MLIS
Faculty Library Coordinator
Library Learning Commons
Lake Washington Inst. Of Technology
Pronouns: he/him/his

Contact Info
greg.bem at lwtech.edu<mailto:greg.bem at lwtech.edu%0d>
425-739-8100 xt.8898
http://www.lwtech.edu/campus-life/library

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ctc.edu/pipermail/wactclc-primo_lists.ctc.edu/attachments/20181017/535790fc/attachment.html>