Download
pubscience a post mortem analysis n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
PubSCIENCE A Post-mortem Analysis PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
PubSCIENCE A Post-mortem Analysis

PubSCIENCE A Post-mortem Analysis

130 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

PubSCIENCE A Post-mortem Analysis

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. PubSCIENCEA Post-mortem Analysis off

  2. PubSCIENCE Jacsó

  3. PubSCIENCE Jacsó

  4. PUB SCIENCE Jacsó

  5. Messy overlap among DOE Databases Messy overlap among DOE databases

  6. Design and organization problems • Scattered databases with much overlap • PubSCIENCE – only journal article records; mix of DOE-created and publisher submitted ones • Information Bridge – reports only but in full text image format (PDF) • ECD – journal article records some overlapping with publisher submitted ones, records of DOE reports haphazardly linked, patents, etc. • GrayLIT – reports including Information Bridge

  7. The design “concept” - • Discombobulating users • Forcing users to do database hopping • Propaganda mechanism • Lies, damned lies, and PubSCI claims • “Selling” the same content multiple times • Getting extra budget for NEW product • Should be “old” and IMPROVED

  8. - The design “concept” • Dicing, slicing, icing [on the cake] • Look how much we have done • We need more money • Big promises + untrue claims: • “significant expansion anticipated” • “more publishers” • “over 1,300 journals” • “over 2 million citations”

  9. Repetitio est mater studiorumbut duplicates are excessive

  10. The first official words from Walter L. Warnick, Executive Director

  11. The ribbon cutting by Secretary Richardson reference Jacsó

  12. Excerpt from budget justificationand confabulation

  13. Excerpt from 2002 budget request

  14. Science regurgitates wishful thinking Jacsó

  15. For a cool $500,000a year what could You do?

  16. - The anatomy of the component databases • Content problems • Database growth or is it decline? • Composition change: DOE-created vs publisher supplied records • Drastic cost reduction by minimizing DOE A/I activities • Ricochet effect on the ES&T “mother” database • Sharp decline in quality A/I records • The fleecing of users, and paying subscribers

  17. NISC – ES&Tthe largest commercial version of the ES & T database

  18. ECDOpen access subset of the ES & T database

  19. InfoBridgePDF collection of DOE reports

  20. Entire PubSCIsubset of ECD + publisher submitted records

  21. PubSCI-DOE

  22. PubSCI-Partner Publishers

  23. PubSCI-DOE & PubSCI-Partners

  24. Content problems again • The plummeting of records with controlled descriptors • No abstracts in most publisher supplied records • Remote vs local abstracts • Idle promises of links to abstracts • The farce of links • Links: the good, the bad, the ugly and the dysfunctional and the non-existent

  25. The first threat in 2001 as reported by LJ, watch for the budget

  26. The rally cry in July, 2002 Jacsó

  27. The poll of information professionals

  28. Partner and journal problems • Some good partners, many irrelevant • Good partners but irrelevant journals • The best energy journals are not included • The best energy journal publishers are not partners • Which are the best energy journals? • Journal Citation Reports Energy & Fuel Section (66 titles) • Which are the most widely held energy journals by libraries? • OCLC WorldCat wonderful features(see review)

  29. How many publishers? From 20 to 41

  30. Absurd journal and publisher claims Double dipping

  31. The Best Publishersonly 2 in partnership with PubSCIENCE

  32. The Best Publishers

  33. The Best Publishers

  34. The Best Publishers

  35. Phantom data in the January 2001 PubSCIENCE flyer Over 1,300 searchable journals? No, citations + abstracts at best. Over two million citations? No, less than 1 million unique.

  36. Phantom partners in the January 2001 PubSCIENCE flyer Over 40 partner publishers? Many publishers appear only on the flyer not in PubSCIENCE.

  37. Where did you say Oxford University Press was? Not among the searchable publishers, but look Marcel Dekker is there

  38. Who is Marcel Dekker? • Oh, just the publisher of Physics & Chemistry of Carbons, the #1 source by Impact Factor in the Energy section of the latest JCR*. Two of its other journals, In Situ, and Petroleum Science & Technology are also among the top 50 Energy journals, but not among the journals for which PubSCIENCE would get records. • * (partly due to the questionable IF-algorithm)

  39. JCR

  40. The JCR ranking by IF

  41. The JCR ranking by IF

  42. The JCR ranking by IF

  43. The JCR ranking by IF

  44. The moment of truth comes when the journals by publishers need to be listed Nice to have Marcel Dekker, but why these and not its energy-related serials?

  45. How many journals?From 1000+ to 1400 as reported by OSTI people.Strange roller-coaster, and sudden surge.See rise from Oct 16-17 speech to 35 publishers and 1,250 journals. Then again, it is a drop from the 1,400 reported on August 9. , 2001

  46. Number of journals good for PR, but you had better see the list, and whether they are indeed journals. Look at ZDNet’s offerings.

  47. So here is the list, but records in PubSCI appear only from 2 sources, AnchorDesk, and Enterprise Computing – latter not every listed here

  48. Maybe Marcel Dekker will impress us with a wealth of relevant articles from the 3 journals One from each Jacsó

  49. Marcel Dekker * Why not link to the items? *

  50. Some journals do not really fit the DOE scope of interest, no wonder that there were no records from these journals in the pre-1990 Archive section. Dumping into PubSCIENCE “whateva” they can to boost the database size