pubscience a post-mortem analysis off. pubscience jacsó

PubSCIENCE

A Post-mortem Analysis

off

PubSCIENCE

Jacsó

Jacsó

PUB SCIENCE

http://pubsci.osti.gov/

Messy overlap among DOE databasesMessy overlap among DOE Databases

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

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

- 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”

Repetitio est mater studiorum

but duplicates are excessive

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

The ribbon cutting

by Secretary Richardso

n reference

Jacsó

Excerpt from budget

justificationand

confabulation

Excerpt from 2002 budget request

Science regurgitates wishful thinking

Jacsó

For a cool $500,000a year

what could You do?

- 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

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

ECDOpen access subset of the ES & T database

InfoBridgePDF collection of DOE reports

Entire PubSCIsubset of ECD + publisher submitted records

PubSCI-DOE

PubSCI-Partner Publishers

PubSCI-DOE & PubSCI-Partners

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

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

The rally cry in July, 2002

Jacsó

The poll of information professiona

ls

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)

http://www.galegroup.com/free_resources/reference/peter/oct.htm#worldcat

How many publishers? From 20 to 41

Absurd journal and publisher claims

Double dipping

The Best Publishersonly 2 in partnership with PubSCIENCE

The Best Publishers

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.

Phantom partners in the January 2001 PubSCIENCE flyer

Over 40 partner publishers?

Many publishers appear only on the flyer not in PubSCIENCE.

Where did you say Oxford University Press was? Not among the searchable publishers, but look

Marcel Dekker is there

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)

The JCR ranking by IF

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?

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

Number of journals good

for PR, but you had better see

the list, and whether they

are indeed journals. Look

at ZDNet’s offerings.

So here is the list, but

records in PubSCI appear

only from 2 sources,

AnchorDesk, and Enterprise

Computing – latter not every

listed here

Maybe Marcel Dekker will

impress us with a wealth of relevant articles from the 3

journals

Jacsó

One from each

Marcel Dekker

*

*

Why not link to the items?

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

Relevance of circumcision for DOE is not immediately obvious but maybe the 20+ other articles arguing for and against circumcision will illuminate us – and look there is a good

looking link

The link at least works, though what for?

Then again, some DOE libraries may indeed subscribe to urology journals and

are entitled to the PDF

No abstractNo subject headings

The PubMed record for the same article serves up at least some useful things

How many records?

What the press release claims April 18, 2000

What Mr Warnick told to PITAC in September, 2000?

Misleading not only you and me but also a presidential committee

Over 2 million articles and

1,400 journals?

August 2000

Energy Science

News

big catch

That looks like 2.8

million, wow

OSTI enlightened users or maybe bamboozled them with government talk

What is is? And how is ALL not all, and how is 10 years more like 13

See on next slide

May I explain?

• ALL means items from (roughly) 1990 onward

• Archive means (mostly) pre-1990

• In Pull-down menu criteria of source and time are mixed.

• Full-text limit restricts it to DOE Partners’ records

• Partners’ records only in ALL (i.e. current domain)

• When you search by publisher name it is across time boundaries …

• …unless you use the Date range option, i.e. 20010101 20020928

The “ateis” test a* OR t* OR e* OR i* OR s* in Entire Citation

Archive size query

Archive size result

ALL subset size

ALL-LINKED subset size (query confirmation omits FTL limit parameter, but trust me, I used

the check-box)

DOE subset size

Here is the skinny as of 09/28/02

Archive 563,505ALL 763,944Together 1,327,499 Of thisDOE 958,699Partners 368,750 (with links, ahem) That’s gross (in both senses of the word)Watch for the duplicates, triplicates, quadruplicates

The real

picture from yours truly

Keystone cops at work

• Duplicates, triplicates & quadruplicates

• Reloading same records time and again

• An indicator of the care and competency of PubSCIENCE staff

And there is an enormous volume of duplicates and triplicates in PubSCIENCE. There are far fewer duplicates in the much larger, richer, smarter Energy Citations Database which is also free.True, no links.

Jacsó

Nice triplet

Even nicer triplets from PNAS 1996 issues alone (a little more difficult to spot) but the color gizmos guide your eyes ***

Jacsó

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

And a quadruplet

4 copies of same records ?

Protein – Quadruple Results (record #1)

Remember this unique identifier


Same ID as #1


Volume 15 issue 1

This is same as in

#4

Minor descriptor

Broader descriptor

* Means major

descriptors


Same error

Same ID as in #3

Protein – Quadruple Results – not in ES&T at BiblioLine

No duplicate

Protein – Quadruple Results – not in ES&T at Dialog

No duplicates in Dialog version

Protein – full record

And now about those hyperlinks and cross-searchable claims: your dreams coming true, or are they?

Where is that link or abstract or full text?

Take this record about functionalized xenon from PNAS

Look ma’ no link, no abstract

Beefier in-house record from ECD, bumped from PubSCIENCE in favor of publisher’s contribution

Another paltry PubSCI record. That’s what you search in “cross-searching”

This is what PubSCIENCE should have linked to

Look at the options in PNAS. Salivate.

PNAS even has modest indexing and begs to be linked to ITEM-level

Abstract promised

Link Fails

Of course, digital edition available only from 1998

Let’s go to the home page of PNAS

Search in HWP

note that default is OR

between words so use “ “

The item at the publisher’ site. PNAS full documents are free from 1996 (after 6-month

moratorium)

Here it comes in full glory look at the DOI, and all those options

Abstract then full text with jumpers to sections within article

… and the references from within the articles are also hotlinked to several A/I records, and even to

free full text

This article from Science is free for anyone, anywhere, others may be free for subscribers of print who can be recognized via

AUTOMATICALLY appended id (cookie pushing).

Highly marked-up text with enlargeable color images, tables and charts

and with hotlinked cross references to articles which are cited (not shown here) AND ones that cite this article

(proudly shown here).

Are we in heaven yet?

UH Manoa does have access to the digital edition from 2001

So if you do this on campus or through a proxy server

then….

The smart host software will recognize you as UH affiliate and present the full enchilada

and also the Supplementary materials available only in digital format

Conclusion

• So, tell me again, are we in heaven yet?

• Not with PubSCIENCE, but soon with others, at least partially

• Depends on whom are you affiliated with, what disciplines are you in, which services are you using.

Is this touting reverse

lobbying?

What about DOE’s own

EnergyCitations database?

Guess why is Infotrieve

recommended?

And recommended again prominently

If you go to Infotrieve you will

find a nice MEDLINE record, a less nice

shipping charge, and an enigmatic statement about

royalty. Guys, there is no royalty for PNAS.

Period.

Has Infotrieve overlooked something

while piggy-backing on PubMed?

Maybe on the OSTI

About page Energy

Citations DB is

mentioned.

Keep hoping.

PubSCIENCE compared to

PubMED, geedily. Poor PubMed had

only…

… about 600 journal titles in 2000 – REALLY?

Warnick , Quayle, Bentsen

I knew PubMed.PubSCI, you are

no PubMed

and Infotrieve, I

want to have a

word with you. How could you

leave behind the links from

the imported PubMed

record to the free

versions?

This what you should have protested. Where did the $500K go?

Go and use the much larger much more content rich DOE alternatives (which do not brag with

links)

Greener pastures

• Go and use also the publishers’ sites to really find really energy related items

• Go to HighWire Press, Ingenta & CatchWord• Go to PubMed if you need items about say,

(ne)urology• Go to Northern Light Special Collection for

abstracts • Go to Scirus (yes, I say so) for abstracts and

occasional freebies• Go to FindArticles for full (but plain) text• Go to my site for a polysearch utility of the above

pubscience a post-mortem analysis off. pubscience jacsó

Documents