Evaluating Retrieval Tools LIS 5043 Christine Edwards

Edwards 2 Comparison of Databases The three databases chosen for this comparison are Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA), LISA: Library and Information Science Abstracts, and Library Literature and Information Science (LIB LIT). There are a few commonalities shared by these databases. The most obvious is that they all deal with the discipline of library and information sciences. All three contain abstracts for periodicals, or journals, but LIB LIT and LISTA also include abstracts for books, proceedings, and research reports. LISA presents only abstracts while LIB LIT has some full-text available. LISTA, however, provides the most access to full-text articles out of the three. LISTA and LISA return more publication results about technology than does LIB LIT. There are, however, a few subjects that all the databases cover like librarianship and information/knowledge management. The LIB LIT database provides more specialized subjects than the other two (examples: rare book librarianship or censorship), but LISA provides the greatest number of subjects (at least as is listed on the website). These subject listings are perhaps the most pertinent for a user. Knowing that a database retrieves results from journals covering the subject being researched can save much time and effort during the process.

Test for Journal Coverage The five journals listed to the right side in the table below were searched in each of the three databases and produced the following number of publications: LISTA # of publications 1598 276 2042 61 2597 LISA # of publications 1329 221 205 234 968 LIB LIT # of publications 1628 343 3415 216 2013

Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Libraries & the Cultural Record Public Libraries Rural Libraries Reference & User Services Quarterly

Edwards 3

Topic Search Music Index Topic searched: Music Index Number matches keyword Number matches CV Number relevant Database ease of use (1-5, 5 being easiest) Order of matches User ability to choose order LISTA 96 147 Some 4.5 Relevance Yes LISA 232 354 Some 2.5 Relevance Yes LIB LIT 71 63 Majority 4.0 Relevance Yes

The above table is an illustration of the results of searching the topic music index in the three databases. In each database, the controlled vocabulary preferred the word database to index. However, when the terms music and database were searched instead the results were not only larger in number (LISTA and LISA), but also less relevant to the topic itself. LIB LIT returned the most accurate results for the search and was the only database to decrease in publications by using the controlled vocabulary. All results were returned by order of relevance. If the user desired, however, the order could be changed. LISTA and LISA have options for arranging by date (ascending or descending), source, or author. LIB LIT was restricted to re-ordering only by oldest or most recent publication date. As for the results themselves, LISA had a far larger number of international publications, especially those in foreign languages. There were a few similarities between the databases, but results were not returned with the same priority in each database. Therefore, it can be assumed that either one database considers the article more relevant than another database, or that one database can provide more relevant articles to precede the article than the other database.

Edwards 4 The databases themselves were not difficult to use, but as you can see from the chart some were easier than others. LISTA and LIB LIT presented in the same format, but LISTA provided results in a more relevant manner than did LIB LIT. The LISA search page was inconsistent. The label for the search would appear on the result page, making it look as though the term had changed during the page refresh. This was distracting. Additionally, the results seemed somewhat more difficult to weed through than with the other two databases probably due to the increased number of publications returned.