CONFIDENTIAL TO UC LIBRARIANS
EBSCO-Gale Database Evaluation
Task Force
Report to the Collection Development Committee
University of California Libraries
December 4, 2007
Submitted by Task Force members:
Myra Appel, UC Davis, Chair
Vicki Bloom, UC Riverside
Harold Colson, UC San Diego
Frank Gravier, UC Santa Cruz
Cynthia Johnson, UC Irvine
Wendy Parfrey, ex officio (CDL)
Gail Yokote, ex officio (JSC)
(Amended December 19, 2007)
1
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
………………………………………… Pages 3-4
II. Introduction and charge
………………………………………… Pages 5-6
III. Methodologies
………………………………………… Pages 7-9
IV. Analysis
………………………………………… Pages 10-19
a. Charges 1 & 2: Unique coverage and overlap;
Completeness of content
b. Charge 3: Reliability and stability of content
c. Charge 4: Functionality
d. Charge 5: Barriers to use
e. Charge 6: Cost-benefit analysis
V. Conclusions and recommendation …………………………………… Pages 20-21
Appendix A: Charge to the EBSCO-Gale Database Evaluation Task Force
.....………………………………. Pages 22-24
Appendix B: Comparison of Sample Search Topics (See Separate Attachment)
Appendix C: EBSCO-Gale Functionality Matrix (See Separate Attachment)
Appendix D: Summary of Survey Results ……………………………….. Pages 27-41
2
I.
Executive Summary
The EBSCO-Gale Database Evaluation Task Force was charged by the CDC to assess
four multidisciplinary databases and recommend the product that best meets the needs
now and in the near future of UC students and faculty seeking multidisciplinary journal
articles and other content. After comparing Expanded Academic ASAP (Gale), Academic
OneFile (Gale), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO) and Academic Search Complete
(EBSCO), the Task Force submits the following observations and recommendations:
I. Without licensing a multidisciplinary database, the UC would lose access to a
significant percentage of content not available through other licensed resources.
II. According to Gale representatives, the vendor does not plan to develop Expanded
Academic ASAP significantly in the future; ASAP can be considered essentially
complete with plans to add few titles. Vendor development will be focused on Academic
OneFile.
III. According to EBSCO representatives, the vendor does not plan to develop Academic
Search Premier (ASP) significantly in the future; ASP can be considered essentially
complete with plans to add few titles. Vendor development will be focused on Academic
Search Complete (ASC).
IV. ASC and OneFile contain some full text content that overlaps with content offered
through existing UC-licensed resources. Typically, the overlap is less than 10%.
V. Based on comparing coverage between Academic OneFile (Gale) and Academic
Search Complete (EBSCO), OneFile retrieves the most hits and has the highest
percentage of full-text content. The advantage typically comes from the “News” content
coverage offered by OneFile.
VI. Academic Search Complete at this time does not offer appreciably more content,
including academic peer-reviewed content, than does the less expensive Academic
Search Premier product.
VII. Both Gale and EBSCO offer comparable levels of persistence and reliability for their
products.
VIII. Functionality and search, access, display and content manipulation options are
robust on each vendor interface, with each vendor interface providing users with some
unique strengths and features.
IX. No barriers to use not already in place or unacceptable to the CDL exist for any of
these products.
3
X. Respondents to UC and local campus trials did not clearly identify that the Gale
Academic OneFile or the two EBSCO resources were superior to each other;
assessments of the content and features ended up in a rough tie.
XI. A cost-benefit analysis of the four products shows overall that the EBSCO Academic
Search Complete best fits with the UC Tier 1 economic model funded by the CDL; the
Academic Search Complete meets both current and near-future user needs for
multidisciplinary full text content in the arts, social sciences, humanities and sciences;
and that Academic Search Complete meets an acceptable standard for ease of use by
both novice and experienced searchers.
4
II.
Introduction and Charge
For over a decade the University of California libraries have licensed Gale’s Expanded
Academic ASAP database to meet the multidisciplinary information needs of our
undergraduate students and other users seeking journal and magazine content. Since
the UC libraries initially licensed Expanded Academic ASAP, the descendent of the
MAGS database once accessible through MELVYL, the information industry has
undergone considerable change and reorganization. Vendors and libraries have
introduced new products and adopted numerous technological developments and
enhancements that facilitate patron access to information on site within the library and
remotely off site using personal computers. With substantial experience gained using a
variety of electronic resources, including the Internet, Google and both commercial and
freely accessible web-based databases, librarian and user expectations for the access,
delivery and manipulation of periodical content have evolved to increasingly
discriminating levels. Concurrently, the interdisciplinary nature of research and
instruction continues to flourish throughout the academic community and impact on our
decision making as we develop library collections and design library instructional
services. With the University of California’s contract for Expanded Academic ASAP
coming up for renewal in 2008, the UC Joint Steering Committee (JSC) recognized that
now is the opportune time to evaluate if Expanded Academic ASAP continues to
address the needs and expectations of students and faculty seeking multidisciplinary
content, particularly full-text content, or if one of the newer competitors in the
marketplace better serves our patrons.
In April 2007 the JSC formed the EBSCO-Gale Database Evaluation Task Force to
compare Expanded Academic ASAP (ASAP) with three other major multidisciplinary
databases – Academic OneFile (OneFile), a Gale resource larger and more
comprehensive than their ASAP product; Academic Search Premier (ASP), an EBSCO
resource; and Academic Search Complete (ASC), EBSCO’s larger and more costly
multidisciplinary database. The Task Force members, Vicki Bloom, (UCR, Chair of the
General Reference Bibliographers Group), Harold Colson (UCSD), Frank Gravier
(UCSC, Resource Liaison for Expanded Academic ASAP), Cynthia Johnson (UCI) and
Myra Appel (UCD, Task Force Chair), represent diverse public services units that
include general reference departments and more specialized subject departments, each
serving the multidisciplinary information needs of undergraduates and other users
researching topics that cross disciplinary lines. Wendy Parfrey (CDL) and Gail Yokote
(JSC) serve as ex officio members.
The UC Collection Development Committee (CDC) requested that the Task Force
identify from the two EBSCO and the two Gale products the database that:

Best meets the needs of undergraduate students.
5

Best meets the needs of any user interested in multidisciplinary coverage of
subjects.

Best meets the criteria of ease of use.
Specifically, the Task Force was charged to:
1) Identify unique content and coverage; to assess the full-text content within each
database and examine overlap in coverage with other resources currently licensed by
the UC.
2) Assess completeness of content (i.e., abstracts/full-text).
3) Assess the reliability of and stability of content.
4) Identify any functionality that affects the usability of or access to the content (i.e.,
search, retrieval, display, manipulation).
5) Highlight barriers to use (i.e., licensing features, such as perpetual access, ILL, or
instructional/reserve use).
6) Analyze the cost-benefits for each product, considering the impact of campus coinvestments if the Task Force made the recommendation to discontinue Expanded
Academic ASAP.
Finally, the Task Force was asked to recommend the “most appropriate general,
multidisciplinary database which meets the current and near-term future needs of
students.”
(See Appendix A. Charge to EBSCO-Gale Database Evaluation Task Force, for a full
discussion of Task Force charges.)
6
III. Methodologies
Evaluating the “strengths and limitations” of the various EBSCO and Gale databases to
help determine the one that “best meets” the needs of undergraduate and
multidisciplinary searchers is a complex task that involved numerous dimensions of
assessment. Given that three of our assigned evaluation components (1, 2, 3) deal
specifically with product content, and that another (6) properly subsumes content
considerations, the Task Force also devoted substantial effort to reviewing and
analyzing database content via assorted quantitative and qualitative lenses, using
vendor-supplied materials as well as independent investigations. Cognizant throughout
the entire process that a general multidisciplinary database licensed by the UC as a Tier
1 resource must meet the needs of undergraduates and other user groups in all
disciplinary areas of the social sciences, arts, humanities and the life, physical and
health sciences on all ten UC campuses, the Task Force from the onset of the study
realized that the broadest possible range of input was essential to the assessment.
To collect data and develop an in-depth familiarity with the strengths and limitations of
ASAP, OneFile, ASP and ASC, Task Force members identified 29 representative
multidisciplinary search topics from recent reference desk transactions with
undergraduate students. The searches included subjects and search terms that spanned
the social sciences, arts, humanities and the life, physical and medical sciences
disciplines. Several of the topics crossed disciplinary lines between the sciences and
social sciences. We searched these topics across each of the four databases, using to
the extent possible the same features and functionalities, as well as trying out options
unique to the resource. Limits were imposed to determine the percentage of full-text
content. Task Force members recorded the number of academic and peer-reviewed
articles retrieved, as well as the number of news source items, popular magazine articles
and other items such as images, book reviews and government documents. To explore
more fully the content available from popular and hobbyist magazines, we also searched
MasterFile Premier (EBSCO), using the same 29 search terms and limit options that we
had used in testing ASAP, OneFile, ASP and ASC. Search results are discussed in
Section IV of the report. (See Appendix B. Comparison of Sample Search Topics, for a
spreadsheet listing all 29 searches and the number of hits categorized by format and
date criteria.)
Both vendors use the same interface with each of their family of products. EBSCO’s
Academic Search Premier, Academic Search Complete and MasterFILE share the same
interface, with only a few minor variations among the three databases. Gale’s OneFile
builds on the Expanded Academic ASAP interface. Using several sample searches
across the five resources, Task Force members observed and tracked the search and
navigation features offered with the EBSCO and the Gale interfaces and compared the
functionality and ease of use between the two vendors’ interface designs. (See
7
Appendix C. EBSCO – Gale Functionality Matrix, for a detailed comparison of the two
interfaces.)
To supplement the information and data gathered from the comparative work performed
by the Task Force, we invited UC librarians and, to a lesser extent, users to participate in
the testing process. The Task Force adopted the following approaches to encourage as
many individuals as possible to participate:

Offered trial access to all UC librarians: Task Force members felt that an
assessment of this scope and magnitude needed the subject expertise and input
from bibliographers representing all UC campus libraries. Both EBSCO and Gale
agreed to provide free access to UC librarians for the duration of the study. Links,
with password protected access, were set up on CDL web pages. A survey form,
developed by the Task Force members, was linked to the trial pages. Although
access to both ASP and ASC, the two EBSCO products, and the Gale OneFile
product continued into November, the survey closed down in mid-September with
the expiration of the CDL contract with Websurveyor. The survey was available
to accept submissions for 88 days, from June 15, 2007 - September 10, 2007.
(See Appendix D. Summary of Survey Results, for a copy of the survey
questions and survey responses.)
To publicize the trials, disseminate information about the charge to the Task
Force and encourage as many librarians as possible to participate in testing, an
informational letter from the Task Force describing the project was sent to the
chairs of the UC Bibliographer Groups and to all UC Resource Liaisons.
Recipients of the letter were asked to distribute the letter broadly to their
bibliographer group members and to colleagues on their respective campuses.
The Task Force drafted a separate letter for the CDC, requesting that CDC
members also encourage their local librarians to take part in the trials. Task
Force members also publicized the trials on our respective campuses and
encouraged our colleagues to provide their feedback.

Offered trial access to local campus communities: EBSCO and Gale willingly
agreed to provide free trial access for all faculty and students on each UC
campus. UCD and UCR opted to make the three unlicensed databases (OneFile,
ASP and ACS) available to their users by setting up links on campus library
home pages; each campus created survey forms to encourage feedback. UCSD
made available to local users the two EBSCO products, ASP and ASC. The
Davis trial extended from April 29, 2007 – September 20, 2007. The Riverside
trials ran from August 2007 - October 2007. (See Appendix D. Summary of
Survey Results, for a copy of the survey questions and survey responses.)

Conducted usability tests and focus groups: Task Force members at UCI and
UCR conducted usability tests with representative user groups. At UCI librarians
voluntarily met in two groups to participate in comparing the retrieval and
performance of the four databases under consideration. Each reference
8
librarian/subject specialist librarian constructed searches relevant to his/her
academic discipline assignment, submitting their input via the CDL-hosted
survey. The UCR Task Force member met with a focus group of five students to
obtain feedback using a scripted set of questions.

Conducted vendor interviews: Task Force members attending the ALA 2007
Annual conference held in Washington, D.C. met with EBSCO and Gale
company officers and customer service representatives to discuss the current
state of each of the four databases, each company’s future plans for developing
their respective products, and potential changes the companies anticipate in their
business models. At the request of the Task Force, EBSCO and Gale provided
informational, rather than promotional, demonstrations of OneFile, ASP and
ASC. Conversations with both vendors have continued intermittently over the
past months as the Task Force developed additional questions and the vendors
updated the Task Force about impending changes in their products or business
plans. These ongoing conversations have proven invaluable to the work of the
Task Force. At the ALA meeting, the Task Force learned that Gale plans to
dedicate the majority of their efforts to growing Academic OneFile, with a
diminishing emphasis on Expanded Academic ASAP. EBSCO also is redirecting
their focus from developing Academic Search Premier to accelerate the
expansion of Academic Search Complete.

Conducted librarian interviews: During the assessment, the Task Force
learned that other libraries had undertaken and completed similar studies to
compare the effectiveness and success of the Gale products with the EBSCO
resources in meeting the multidisciplinary information needs of diverse academic
communities. Conversations with two California State University librarians,
subsequent to the announcement that many CSU campuses had opted to
participate in a California State University consortial licensing agreement with
EBSCO, reaffirmed the conclusions of the Task Force that the EBSCO products
met our users’ current and near-future multidisciplinary information needs.
Likewise, a conversation with a librarian charged to head an assessment team
comparing the two EBSCO databases, ASP and ASC, and determine the best
resource to license for use by a large, renowned research institution confirmed
the findings of the Task Force that Academic Search Complete did not offer
appreciably more academic content than did Academic Search Premier.
Although these three librarians generously shared verbally their insights and
observations, issues of confidentiality governed their willingness to make their
formal assessments public outside their institutions.
9
IV. Analysis
Charge #1: Assess Unique Coverage and Overlap
Charge#2: Assess Completeness of Content
When viewed against the formidable installed base of content available to UC users from
scores of other article databases and e-journal packages, parsing notable pockets of
unique content and coverage from four general databases featuring several thousand
journals, magazines, newspapers, and related publications is a daunting task. If our
legacy Expanded Academic ASAP subscription was dropped without replacement, then
there would certainly be some loss of exclusive content (690 of the database’s 2224
SCP-cataloged titles have no additional SCP links to full text), but any substitution by the
Gale or EBSCO successors now under consideration would render unique content
losses minor or even null. Some 250 of the current ASAP exclusives would be provided
by ASC and MasterFILE Premier, and both potential successors would bring
countervailing fresh exclusives not presently within the UC stable of full-text periodicals;
licensing OneFile as the replacement for ASAP would assure complete coverage of the
690 exclusives. The Gale and EBSCO contenders are perhaps best viewed not as
primary contributors of unique or exclusive content but as convenient multipurpose
gateways serving broad rather than specialty audiences.
The candidate databases do carry full-text content that overlaps (usually in partial dates)
with offerings from existing system-wide licensed resources, including LexisNexis
Academic, Business Source Premier, JSTOR, Project MUSE, Literature Online,
Periodicals Index Online, Education Full Text, some SAGE subject collections, and
numerous publisher e-journal packages. In most instances, the overlaps involve small
portions (less than 10%) of our large candidate databases and somewhat larger portions
of smaller external sources. In the absence of an actual database overlap tool to aid our
analysis, it appears from searches of Melvyl and campus catalogs that the highest fulltext replication rates (partial date overlap) with the 222 Expanded Academic ASAP titles
with SCP cataloging hit Project MUSE (125 of 348 titles), JSTOR (201 of 1048), and
Literature Online (99 of 202) journals.
The typical patron encounter with a database is not via its title list, but with its search
interface and results screen, and thus the Task Force performed more than two dozen
sample searches drawn from recent campus experiences to help gauge the “real world”
retrieval performance of each candidate product, plus the related MasterFILE Premier
database. These searches, which comprise single-term, phrase, and Boolean entries,
were conducted via the default (keyword) search box; tallies were then made of total
hits, total full text hits, hits by vendor publication type (academic, magazine, news,
other), and hits (and full text hits) from 2000 and 2006 onwards. The raw results from
these test searches are presented as Appendix B. Compiled totals and category
percentages are shown below in Table 1.
10
Our principal findings from these retrieval snapshots are:
1) Gale Academic OneFile, as perhaps befits a product covering more than 10,600
publications and boasting in excess of 24 million articles, is the overall retrieval
champion, outpacing the legacy Expanded Academic ASAP and the EBSCO
competition with the most hits in nearly all search category instances. Much of
its retrieval lead in total hits and total full text hits comes from a large advantage
in “News” category results, drawn considerably from The New York Times, The
Financial Times, and The Times (London), all in full text.
2) Although EBSCO Academic Search Complete carries 1000 or so more titles than
its Academic Search Premier sibling, its more robust title list does not translate
much into actual search retrieval totals. The hits differences between the two
EBSCO databases are rather slight, with the advantage for Complete
consistently running around 5% or less across all spreadsheet categories. The
Premier and Complete “News” tallies are practically identical, drawn as they are
from the same four newspapers (The New York Times and The Wall Street
Journal as abstracts, Christian Science Monitor and USA Today with full text).
3) The retrievals competition between Expanded Academic ASAP and the
Academic Search siblings reveals a rough equivalence between the vendor
camps. Some searches yield more total results in the Gale product and some
searches perform better via the EBSCO pair, with the overall effect being an
approximate draw. The aggregated search figures show considerably stronger
“News” category performance from Expanded Academic and higher overall
“Academic” and “Magazine” totals from Premier/Complete. Indeed, both Gale
products distribute their hits in roughly equal shares across the “Academic,”
“Magazine,” and “News” categories; the category distributions from the Academic
Search databases are weighted heavily to “Academic” and “Magazine” hits.
4) The percentage of internal full text content (embedded HTML or PDF) in the
aggregated retrieval sets is highest in Academic Onefile (almost 70%), with
Expanded Academic ASAP and the Academic Search duo delivering just over
half of all hits with full text. Of course, full-text availability is further enhanced by
UC-eLinks connections to external targets, but the Task Force has not measured
or compared these quantities across the candidate databases.
5) The largest clusters of non-print content (see “Other” category) are found in
Academic Onefile (links to NPR broadcast audio) and MasterFILE Premier (UPI
and Getty images).
11
Table 1 – Aggregate Results From Sample Searches
Database
Academic OneFile
Academic Search
Complete
Academic Search
Premier
Expanded Academic
ASAP
MasterFILE Premier
Academic OneFile
Academic Search
Complete
Academic Search
Premier
Expanded Academic
ASAP
MasterFILE Premier
Total
Hits
40992
28830
Full Text
Academic
Magazine
News
Other
28623
16303
11278
12136
12384
12405
16195
3673
1139
708
28127
15862
12014
11955
3638
64
27147
14548
9336
9297
8498
16
26586
17491
n/a
21535
4098
1155
40992
28830
% Full
Text
69.8%
56.5%
%
Academic
27.5%
42.1%
%
Magazine
30.2%
43.0%
%
News
39.5%
12.7%
%
Other
2.8%
2.5%
28127
56.4%
42.7%
42.5%
12.9%
0.2%
27147
53.6%
34.4%
34.2%
31.3%
0.1%
26586
65.8%
n/a
81.0%
15.4%
4.3%
Time did not allow for a comparison between EBSCO’s Newspaper Source and Gale’s
news content coverage. However, the description appearing on EBSCO’s website states
that 28 national and international newspapers, including The Christian Science Monitor,
USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Times (London), and
the Toronto Star, are available in cover-to-cover full text. From a recent EBSCO email
communication, it appears that The New York Times, now freely available online, also
will be conveniently accessible in Newspaper Source. For each major newspaper
EBSCO negotiated a contract directly with the publisher. The database contains, in
addition, selected full-text articles from 260 regional U.S. newspapers, as well as full-text
television and radio news transcripts for ABC, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NPR
programming. EBSCO negotiated a separate contract with The McClatchy Company to
gain access to this mix of full-text content. With this additional news coverage, EBSCO
resources, particularly ASC, match or parallel OneFile more closely in the scope of
coverage and the number of records retrieved, although the boosted “News” retrievals
from EBSCO would come from a separate database.
12
Charge #3: Assess reliability and stability of content
Completeness:
Each vendor provides regularly updated lists detailing the content of each of the
databases under review (links provided below). For the purpose of this review lists for
July/August 2007 were used to provide a comparative snapshot of the relative scope
and size of the databases. Both vendors provide similar information in the lists including
ISSN, publication title, publisher, abstracting and indexing coverage dates, full-text
coverage dates, embargoes or full-text publication delays, peer-review status, etc. The
table below provides comparisons for total number of titles, total full-text titles, total
inactive full-text titles and number of peer-reviewed titles for each database.
Table 2 -- Title counts (Based on July/Aug. 2007 lists):
EBSCO
GALE
Complete
PremierASAP
OneFile
Total
9,386
8,240
4,808
10,673
Total full txt
5,411
4,511
2,516
4,342
A striking feature of the above table is the relatively small difference between the
number of titles in EBSCO’s Academic Search Premier (ASP) and Academic Search
Total inactive
full txtThe vendor has
878indicated that
836this is a result
732of the fact the
918
Complete
(ASC).
ASC is a
relatively new product, still in active development with titles being continually added.
This is borne out by the fact that a more recent title list shows an increase of close to
500
titles in ASC and
only 10 new titles
to the7,480
vendor,
Totaladditional
peer reviewed
8,165
7,159in ASP. According
2946
while ASC will continue to add titles and grow, ASP can be considered essentially
complete with few titles planned for addition in the future.
The high percentage of peer-reviewed titles for each vendor provides some indication of
the level of scholarly content available from each of the databases. Both vendors provide
information detailing their policies for determining whether or not a title is peer-reviewed.
Both vendors identify peer-reviewed titles as those identified as such in a standard
library reference source (e.g.,Ulrich’s or Serials Directory), or in the publisher’s
marketing or prefatory material concerning the publication. EBSCO additionally uses
“[f]eedback from librarians and professionals” and “EBSCO Publishing staff librarians” as
a basis for determining whether or not a title is considered to be peer reviewed.
Coverage is better for current years. In a sampling of titles from Academic Search
Complete and Academic Onefile, indexing earlier than 10/1997 was available for
13
approximately 34% of the titles in the EBSCO product and 40% of the titles in the Gale
database, indicating that Gale provides a deeper index.
The issue of embargoed titles needs to be considered in any assessment of
completeness of content. The number of embargoed titles for each of the databases
under review is shown below.
Table 3 -- Embargoed titles
Complete
EBSCO
GALE
2,441
Premier2,225
ASAP
OneFile 430
2,208 (12 months or more)
2,033 (12 months or more)
332
197 (12 months or more)
239 (12 months or more)
As this table demonstrates, EBSCO databases have a significant number of embargoed
titles, a substantial portion of which are embargoed for one year or more. EBSCO
representatives have asserted, and spot checks of the embargoed titles have confirmed,
that the majority of these heavily embargoed titles are from publishers that UC has
ejournal package subscriptions (Taylor & Francis, MIT, Blackwell/Synergy, for example)
with. As a result, while current content isn’t available in the aggregator’s database it is
readily available to our users via UC-eLinks. We feel that it is important to note that,
should an EBSCO product be selected, UC librarians will need to emphasize the
teaching of UC-eLinks use to our undergraduates, since embargoed titles available on
UC-eLinks will be missed by users who limit to full-text articles.
Persistence/Reliability:
Persistence and reliability can be viewed in at least two different ways, in terms of either
database availability or stability of content. Both vendors provide reports detailing
additions and deletions for their respective databases. Because both vendors, as
aggregators, are bound by the terms publishers are willing to agree to in terms of
providing content, it is understood that there may be fluctuation in availability of content.
A review of the title change lists indicates that significant numbers of deleted titles are
infrequent for both vendors. The addition of titles has been fairly robust for both
Academic Search Complete and Gale Academic Onefile, reflecting the publishers’ intent
14
to increase the number of titles for these resources while capping the number for
Academic Search Premier and Expanded Academic ASAP in order to target other
markets for these databases.
Both vendors provide fairly reliable access to their products. EBSCO has stated that
their databases have been available over 99% of the time over the last two years. While
similar information hasn’t been made available from Gale, the CDL Resource Liaison for
Expanded Academic ASAP can report that there have been several outages of Gale
databases over the last year, although, to Gale’s credit, notification to customers and
restoration of access has been prompt in almost every case.
LINKS:
 For EBSCO’s Academic Search Premier and Academic Search Complete title
lists see:
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists.php?topicID=380&tabForward=titleLists&mar
ketID

Gale title lists for Expanded Academic ASAP and Academic OneFile can be
found at http://gale.cengage.com/title_lists/

EBSCO Publishing’s full peer review policy is available at:
http://www.elib.gov.ph/edatabase/elibgetdb.php/http/www.ebscohost.com/thisTop
ic.php?topicID=396&marketID=17.

The Gale peer review policy can be found at:
http://gale.cengage.com/title_lists/peer_review.htm
Charge #4: Identify any functionality that affects the usability of or access to
the content
Overall, the interface and functionality offered by both EBSCO and Gale is good. Users
inexperienced with the interface of each product can perform successful searches and
retrieve a range of citations relevant to their search query. Nevertheless, as is the case
with most commercial resources, library instruction can facilitate and enhance patron
use and search techniques for a database. Listed below are key features of functionality
frequently cited by librarians and patrons as essential or very important to successful
and satisfying search experiences; differences between EBSCO and Gale are noted:
Search Options:
Search interfaces: Although EBSCO and Gale have similar features, each vendor’s
interface has unique aspects as well.
Basic keyword searches: Only Gale allows a subject search directly from the Basic
search screen.
15
Adjacency features: EBSCO defaults to an Adjacency search when doing a keyword
search; Gale interprets the space as a proximity (Near 4 words) search.
Default operator to AND: EBSCO allows the user to set the default operator to AND,
whereas Gale does not.
Full text searches: Both vendors’ interfaces allow full text searching of a document and
both provide proximity search options, a boon with full text searching. Gale’s interface
makes it easier to identify that full text searching is available.
Limits: The types of limits available in each interface are very similar. EBSCO’s are
more obvious from the initial screen; Gale provides an option to hide the limits. Overall,
EBSCO also has more limiting options than Gale at the search screen: by publication
type (newspaper, magazine, etc.), if there are references in the article, number of pages,
cover stories.
Subject searches: Both EBSCO and Gale interfaces allow subject searching, but Gale
has a more sophisticated subject structure with better authority control.
Publications searches: Gale and EBSCO allow users to search for specific
publications; Gale allows limits on the publication search, a feature which EBSCO does
not incorporate. In Gale, a user can search for publications meeting certain criteria, not
just known titles (can limit to publication type, format, audience, language, and country of
publication).
Advanced searches: Both the Gale and EBSCO interfaces allow the patron to search
on a specific field. EBSCO has many more fields available for searchers to limit retrieval.
Additional search options: EBSCO provides more alternative types of searches,
including the Visual Search, which allows patrons to view results using graphics, not
pure text. EBSCO also provides the Image Search, which is much more robust than
Gale’s ability to limit to articles with images. In EBSCO’s Image Search, the patron
actually searches the image captions, providing better results when looking for graphs or
images of particular events or topics.
Manipulating, revising and viewing results:
Display result options: The two vendors’ interfaces are very similar, although EBSCO
allows patrons to configure their results (full versus brief display, for example). Gale
allows patrons to change their preferences for elements such as number of results per
page and font style.
Limit by article type: Gale provides the ability to limit by article type (editorial; full-text)
at the result screen, which EBSCO does not provide.
16
Limit to material type: EBSCO and Gale interfaces allow the patron to limit to material
type (journal versus magazine, for example) from the results display.
Limit to full text: Gale can easily limit to full text from the results screen; EBSCO does
not provide the option from the results screen.
Revising original search: While both the EBSCO and Gale interfaces provide the
means of revising the original search, the feature is much easier to find on the EBSCO
interface; the feature appears on a visible tab. To revise a search in Gale, the researcher
must first click on Previous Searches and then click on Revise.
Typographical errors: Both vendors offer a “Did you mean” feature in case of typos.
PDF quality: Image quality is difficult to judge, since clarity appears to vary by
publication and subject. In comparing art titles, Gale seemed to have a slightly clearer
font, and slightly truer colors to the original print title. In contrast, EBSCO offered up
medical images with more clarity and detail than did Gale. (See “Clinical, Histologic, and
Radiographic Outcomes of Distal Femoral Resurfacing with Hypothermically Stored
Osteoarticular Allografts.” By Davidson, Philip A., et al. American Journal of Sports
Medicine, July 2007, Vol. 35, Issue 7, p1082-1090 as an example for comparison.)
ADA: Both vendors recognize ADA requirements and claim to meet section 508.
However, EBSCO’s website promotes a more vigilant stance towards ensuring ADA
compliance than Gale’s does on their website.
Help Screens: Both vendor interfaces provide help screens, but Gale’s help feature is
context-sensitive; additionally Gale offers a dictionary (Merriam-Webster’s) on their site.
In sum, each vendor offers some unique, notable strengths in interface functionality.
Perhaps the most compelling feature unique to Gale is their more powerful subject
heading structure that offers users rational and powerful alternative headings to search
to increase their retrieval base. In addition, some of the Gale features (e.g., limiting to full
text) are more easily identified on the screen. EBSCO, on the other hand, provides more
limiting features and a greater variety of robust search options, including the Visual
Search and the Image Search.
Charge #5: Highlight barriers to use
The UC libraries consortially and individually have enjoyed contractual relationships with
both Gale and EBSCO for the past several years. Products offered by both vendors are
staples in the mix of Tier I and Tier 2 electronic resources available to UC students and
faculty. Both vendors have assured the Task Force that the licensing features they
currently offer UC in regard to perpetual access, interlibrary loan sharing of resources,
17
and instructional and reserves uses will remain consistent if UC libraries opt to upgrade
to Gale’s OneFile or move to EBSCO’s ASP/ASC products.
Thomson Gale recently was purchased by an investment firm; the business is now
called Cengage Learning. With the recent acquisition, it is premature to know what new
directions, different philosophies or changing business practices incompatible with UC
expectations and standards might be introduced by Gale’s new parent. EBSCO is a
privately held company which conceivably can respond more quickly to customer
feedback. Both Gale and EBSCO are aggregators of journal content published by other
companies. As such, both vendors are dependent on and subject to the publishers’
agendas and demands.
At this time it appears that no barrier to use exists beyond what is stated in our current
contracts with Gale and EBSCO.
Charge #6: Analyze the cost benefits for each product, considering the
impact of campus co-investments if the Task Force made the
recommendation to discontinue Expanded Academic ASAP.
As implied earlier in several sections of this report, a simple cost-benefit analysis of
ASAP, OneFile, ASP and ASC is neither straightforward, nor concise. While the report
has addressed the various aspects delineated by the Task Force charges, one major
dimension in any cost/benefit analysis of licensing a costly electronic product is missing
– patron success and satisfaction in using the resource. To acquire this essential
perspective the Task Force turned to the responses submitted by skilled users, our UC
librarian-colleagues, and less skilled searchers, typically UC faculty and students, who
participated in our surveys, focus groups and usability tests.
Although the surveys yielded imperfect data, all comments submitted by participants are
nevertheless useful. Each of the surveys asked different questions; consequently, the
responses elicited varied in specificity and character. Other variables among
respondents include:
 Affiliation/status of respondent (librarian, graduate student, undergraduate, etc.)
 Extent of respondent expertise with searching the Gale and/or EBSCO
databases and interfaces
 Subject expertise of respondent
 Previous use of resource and/or interface
 Time and depth of prior search experience
 Whether respondent completed the comparisons among two or more databases
18
 Selection of search topic
 Complexity of search
Despite the variability in the surveys and the respondents, some observations and
comments can be made:
Survey participation:
1) Participation in the surveys was surprisingly low.
2) Several campuses did not contribute feedback, or contributed very minimally.
3) Faculty did not participate in any of the local campus surveys, with the possible
exception of the two UCLA responses.
4) Graduate students contributed very minimally to the local campus surveys.
5) Few librarians from the sciences participated in the surveys.
Database use:
1) Previous users familiar with EBSCO’s ASP or ASC submitted more favorable
comments for the EBSCO resources than for the Gale products.
2) Many students had little or no familiarity with Gale’s Expanded Academic ASAP.
3) Some participants opted not to perform comparative searches across the four
different databases and instead searched one or more databases offered by one vendor.
Searchability:
1) Many respondents commented about both the Gale and EBSCO interfaces and
search features; comments for both interfaces ranged from positive to negative.
Results:
1) More users opted to test the EBSCO databases, while not trying the same searches
in the Gale products.
2) Many librarian-respondents searched specialized topics, rather than the more
general, multidisciplinary topics undergraduates typically explore.
3) Users could not discern much, if any, difference in the comprehensiveness and scope
between EBSCO’s Academic Search Premier and Academic Search Complete.
19
V. Conclusions:
The Task Force reaffirms that the UC academic community needs access to a
convenient multidisciplinary database offering undergraduates and other users a
resource that covers a diversity of scholarly publications, popular periodicals and
additional content such as images, book reviews and other materials. We also agree that
users increasingly want to retrieve and access full-text content whenever possible. After
learning from Gale that the company plans to direct their development to Academic
OneFile, the Task Force concluded that Expanded Academic ASAP is likely to become a
static product not sufficiently robust to support the multidisciplinary needs of students
and scholars within the UC system.
During this assessment EBSCO conveyed to the Task Force that the company plans to
focus development on their Academic Search Complete (ASC) product. Although Task
Force members, librarian testers and even some student participants noted that at this
time Academic Search Complete did not offer an appreciable amount of content over the
less expensive Academic Search Premier, we question what ASP will offer in the near
future if, indeed, EBSCO focuses on developing ASC to the exclusion of ASP. EBSCO,
in fact, contends that they are directing their attention to quickly adding many more
academic titles, expanding content coverage and increasing the percentage of full-text
content in ASC. Evidence gathered over the past few months seems to bear out their
assertion. An additional criticism of ASC is that the resource lacked the scope of news
content readily available in OneFile. With access to MasterFILE Premier and Newspaper
Source, along with ASP or ASC, the gap in coverage between Gale and EBSCO is
quickly closing.
Task Force members did note that EBSCO has a higher percentage of embargoed titles
than does Gale. However, evidence shows that the UC has full text access to the
majority of these academic, peer-reviewed titles through licenses currently in place with
large vendors of electronic journal content such as Taylor and Francis, Elsevier and
others electronic journal publishers. By subscribing to OneFile, UC libraries will be
paying twice for the same content.
Neither vendor interface nor functionality package obviously stands out as superior to
the other. Novice users can undertake successful searches with little to no previous
instruction. Of course, better searches result from more experience and library
instruction. Participants and Task Force members vary in their preferences and opinions
about which interface and functionalities better serve users. While Gale offers some
outstanding options, including a hierarchical structure of suggested search term
alternatives, EBSCO seems to be preferred by patrons who have used the vendor
interface in the past. The one science librarian who participated in the test noted that
EBSCO maintains a more favorable reputation for providing the image quality and clarity
essential to health sciences patrons.
Although the Task Force was not asked to evaluate the customer service ethic or
practice of the two vendors, we cannot help but notice differences in communication
20
style between Gale and EBSCO. Representatives from both companies are helpful,
informative, professional, friendly and communicative when asked for assistance. We
noted that EBSCO representatives offer a higher, more holistic, level of service and
communication that is the hallmark of the company. With their reputation built on
proactive service as a print serials jobber, EBSCO has continued to offer the same
quality of fast, efficient and effective communication and problem solving with their own
electronic products. During the assessment, for example, EBSCO worked
conscientiously and tirelessly to resolve access problems that some UC campuses were
experiencing accessing EBSCO products through VPN; eventually the vendor diagnosed
the problem to local outdated computer hardware. Throughout the duration of the study,
EBSCO representatives regularly kept the Task Force informed of any recent
developments or changes with the ASP and ACS databases, changes in business plans
or new functionality or technological developments on the horizon. The Task Force
recently learned, for example, that EBSCO is working on developing federated search
options to use with their databases, and that in the months ahead thumbnail images of
the tables, graphs and other illustrative material within an article will display on the
citation record. Gale, perhaps because of their recent acquisition by Cengage Learning,
their new organizational structure and the departure of the representative assigned to
liaison with UC over the past few years, was much less proactive in developing and
maintaining communication channels with the Task Force.
Recommendations:
The last charge to the Task Force was to assess the cost benefits for each product, and
“consider the impact of campus co-investments” if we recommend that the Expanded
Academic ASAP contract not be renewed. For reasons stated above we feel that ASAP
is no longer a viable renewal option for the UC. The EBSCO Academic Search Premier
is the product comparably priced with ASAP, and as noted above, the majority of testers
stated that they currently are as satisfied with Premier as with Academic Search
Complete, a more expensive resource comparable in price to the Gale OneFile. Again,
for reasons stated above, ASP appears destined to join ASAP as a resource inadequate
to meet future UC needs, despite its popularity with testers at present. While the Gale
Academic Onefile offers many positive features, it does not have the competitive pricing
advantage that the EBSCO Academic Search Complete package offers. Therefore, the
Task Force recommends that the UC accept the EBSCO offer for Academic Search
Complete.
21
APPENDIX A: Charge to the EBSCO-Gale Database Evaluation Task Force
EBSCO-Gale Database Evaluation
Task Force
April 6, 2007
Background:
Currently, UC libraries license Gale’s Expanded Academic ASAP database to function
as a general multidisciplinary database, aimed at an undergraduate population.
Expanded Academic ASAP is funded centrally by SCAP, and campuses pay no coinvest share. In the years since this license was formalized, offerings by database
vendors have changed. Gale has introduced Academic OneFile, which offers
significantly more content at a significantly higher price. EBSCO is currently offering two
similar products: Academic Search Premier (which has been offered as a trial for UC
libraries until December, 2007) and Academic Search Complete. Among these four
products, CDC wishes to identify the general database that



best meets the needs of undergraduate students
best meets the needs of any user group interested in multidisciplinary coverage
of subjects; and
best meets the criteria of ease of use.
In considering the added-content pair (Academic OneFile and Academic Search
Complete), there are cost implications. While both basic products would be cost neutral
for the campuses, both added-content databases would require campus co-investments
on top of the CDL share.
It is recognized that exchanging one existing UC licensed resource for a comparable
other vended resource is a labor intensive process that should not be undertaken lightly.
Should such a decision be made, CDL will make every attempt to arrange a transition
period of at least 6 months during which both the new resource and old resource will be
available.
22
Charge:
A task force is charged by JSC to conduct an evaluation comparing the following
products from 2 major general multidisciplinary database vendors (Gale and EBSCO):
Basic Products – Cost Neutral
Added-Content Products – Requires
additional campus co-shares
Gale’s Expanded Academic ASAP
Gale’s Academic OneFile
EBSCO’s Academic Search Premier
EBSCO’s Academic Search Complete
The evaluation should include the strengths and limitations of each database and a
recommendation which names the most appropriate general, multidisciplinary database
which meets the current and near-term future needs of students. A recommendation to
upgrade to either Gale Academic OneFile or EBSCO Academic Search Complete will
require campus co-investment.
Any recommendation to change the current vended resource, Expanded Academic
ASAP, to another resource will have an effective date of July, 2008.
Specific Evaluation Components:
1) Identify unique (i.e. title/subject exclusives) content and coverage (i.e. dates,
selective or cover to cover) for each database evaluated. In assessing the value
of the full-text contained within each database, the task force should also
consider any overlap with existing systemwide licensed resources (e.g. with
journals licensed directly from the publisher).
2) Assess completeness of content (i.e. abstracts only, full-text)
3) Assess reliability/stability of content
4) Identify any functionality that affects the usability of or access to content (i.e.
search, retrieval, display, manipulation)
5) Highlight any barriers to use (i.e. licensing features, such as perpetual access,
ILL, or instructional/reserve use)
6) Analyze cost benefits for each database product, including the campus coinvestment implications if a recommendation is made to discontinue Expanded
Academic ASAP.
23
Timeframe:
Progress report due to UC CDC: August 1, 2007
Final report due: October 1, 2007
Evaluation Task Force Members:
Myra Appel (Chair)
Vicki Bloom (UCR, chair of General Reference Bibliographers Group)
Harold Colson (UCSD)
Frank Gravier (UCSC)
Cynthia Johnson (UCI)
Wendy Parfrey, ex officio (CDL)
Gail Yokote, ex officio (JSC)
CDL Contact:
Wendy Parfrey – business and licensing comparative information
JSC Contact:
Gail Yokote – questions about charge, progress, etc.
24
Appendix B: Comparison of Sample Search Topics
(Separate spreadsheet attached)
25
Appendix C: EBSCO-Gale Functionality Matrix
(Separate spreadsheet attached)
26
Appendix D: Summary of Survey Results
I. System-wide Survey Responses:
Location: CDL internal web site (password protected)
Survey Tool: Websurveyor
Time period: 88 days (June 15, 2007 - September 10, 2007)
Respondents: 15 librarians
UCSD – 5 surveys (2 respondents)
UCSB – 1 survey (1 respondent)
UCR – 3 surveys (2 respondents)
UCI – 11 surveys (8 respondents)
UCD – 2 surveys (2 respondents)
UCB – 1 email response to Task Force chair; respondent expressed a
preference for an EBSCO product, since ASP/ASC would complement
EBSCO’s Business Source Premier and offer users the same interface
Academic Search Premier (7 surveys submitted)
Highly recommend as CDL general multidisciplinary resource = 3
Recommend as CDL general multidisciplinary resource= 2
Do not recommend as CDL general multidisciplinary resource=
2
Overall rating (1-5 - 5 being the highest)
3.71
Academic Search Complete (9 surveys submitted)
Highly recommend as CDL general multidisciplinary resource=
6
Recommend as CDL general multidisciplinary resource=1
1
Do not recommend as CDL general multidisciplinary resource=
1
No comment =1
Overall rating (1-5 - 5 being the highest)
4.37
*it appears that one librarian got the ratings confused
Gale Academic OneFile (5 surveys submitted)
27
Highly recommend as CDL general multidisciplinary resource=1
Recommend as CDL general multidisciplinary resource=2
Do not recommend as CDL general multidisciplinary resource=2
Overall rating (1-5 - 5 being the highest)
3.6
Expanded Academic ASAP(1 survey submitted)
Recommend as CDL general multidisciplinary resource=1
Overall rating (1-5 - 5 being the highest)
3.0
UC Survey Questions:
Q1. Evaluator/Searcher name:
Q2. Bibliographer Group/Area of Expertise:
Q3. Campus:
Q4. Resource/Vendor:
Please rate on a scale of 1-5 (1 is poor; 5 is excellent)
Q5. Usefulness for most undergraduate research?
Q6. Usefulness for most interdisciplinary research?
Q7. Amount of full text articles of core journals in the discipline?
Q8. Access to content of relevant non-scholarly articles?
Q9. Friendliness (ease of navigation, clarity of presentation, aesthetics)?
Q10. Scope/Coverage (comprehensiveness of coverage, years included)?
Q11. Ease of remote access (requires client download?)?
Q12. On a scale of 1-5, my overall rating is?
Q13: Check the one that closely resembles your opinion:



I highly recommend as the CDL general multidisciplinary resource.
I recommend as the CDL general multidisciplinary resource.
I do not recommend as the CDL general multidisciplinary resource.
Q14: Other comments or feedback? Please provide specific examples.
II. UC Davis Survey Responses:
28
Location: UC Davis Library website
Time period: April 29, 2007 – September 20, 2007
Respondents: 9 (OneFile – 1 librarian; 1 student; ASP – 2 students; 1 graduate student;
1 library student employee, 1 staff member; ASC – 2 librarians)
The Davis survey did not query for overall recommendation. However,
most user responses were favorable to Ebsco. Only one person looked at
Gale’s Academic OneFile.
UC Davis Survey Questions:
Q1. Your UC Davis affiliation?
Q2. List the resources (Internet search engines, databases) that you use to look
for similar information.
Q3. Describe your experience using this resource.
Q4. Describe the subject that you searched for in this resource.
Q5. Describe why and how you might use this resource.
III. UCLA Survey:
Location: UCLA Library website
Time period: October 2007
Respondents: 2 (OneFile – 1, seemingly a faculty member or graduate student; ASC 1, seemingly a faculty member or graduate student)
The UCLA survey did not query for overall recommendation.
Respondents liked the databases as a source(s) for locating additional
materials not covered by their subject specific database (ASC & OneFile),
for finding international content (OneFile) and for offering an RSS feature
(OneFile). Both respondents cited the user-friendly interfaces of both
products.
IV. UC Riverside Survey:
Location: UC Riverside Libraries website + one student survey using a canned question
Time period: August 2007 - October 2007
29
Respondents: 10 (OneFile -1 staff member; ASP - 3 librarians; 1 graduate student;
ASC - 3 librarians)
Recommendations: mixed
ASP – 2 out of 4 - not as good as Expanded; 1 out of 4 - better; 1
- no recommendation
ASC – 1 out of 2 - better, 1 out of 2 - not as good as Expanded
OneFile – no recommendation
UCR Student response (ASP v. Expanded):
ASP
Expanded
Ease of use
9
8
Limiting
6
7
Full text
80%
70-80%
Relevancy
6
7
Marking &
10
6
Exporting
UC Riverside Survey Questions:
Q1. Your UCR affiliation?
Q2. What topic(s) did you search?
Q3. How easy was the database to use?
Q4. Describe your experience using this resource.
Q5. How relevant were the results found?
Q6. Describe why and how you might use this resource.
Q7. How does this resource compare to the other Gale general database, Expanded
Academic ASAP?
Q8. How does this resource compare to the other Ebsco general databases, namely
Academic Search Premier (ASP) and/or Academic Search Complete (ASC)?
UC Riverside focus group
30
Location: Rivera Library (using H-ITT classroom response system “clickers”)
Time period: October 16, 2007
Respondents: 4 undergraduate students; 1 graduate student
UC Riverside Focus Group Questions:
Ebsco
Q1. How easy is this database to use?
33% - EASY
50% - AVERAGE
17% - No opinion
Q2. How relevant are the results found?
40% - HIGHLY RELEVANT
RELEVANCE
40% - RELEVANT
20% - LIMITED
Q3. Is there an acceptable mix of scholarly articles, popular magazines,
newspapers, etc?
60% - GOOD MIX
20% - NEED MORE SCHOLARLY
20% - DON’T KNOW
Q4. Grade IT: the amount of full text
60% - A
40% - B
Q5. How useful is the “Narrow Results by Subject”?
80% - HIGHLY USEFUL
20% -USEFUL
Q6. How useful is “Limit your Results”?
20% - HIGHLY USEFUL
NOTICE
20% -USEFUL
60% - DID NOT
Gale OneFile
Q1. How easy is this database to use?
80% - AVERAGE
20% - COMPLICATED
Q2. How relevant are the results found?
40% - HIGHLY RELEVANT
60% - RELEVANT
Q3. Is there an acceptable mix of scholarly articles, popular magazines,
newspapers, etc?
31
60% - GOOD MIX 20% - NEED MORE SCHOLARLY 20% - NEED MORE
POPULAR
Q4. Grade IT: the amount of full text
40% - A
60% - B
Q5. How useful is the “Related Subjects”? (asked twice – confusion on location)
33% – HIGHLY USEFUL
60% - USEFUL
USEFULNESS
67%- USEFUL
20% - USEFULNESS
20%- LIMITED
Q6. How useful is “Limit results”?
80% - USEFUL
20% - did not notice them
Q7. How does this resource compare to the first database?
The same - 40%
Not as good – 60%
32
SURVEY COMMENTS ORGANIZED BY CATEGORY
Legend:
UClibn
- UC wide survey
UCDlibn, staff, grad, stud
- UCD survey
UCRlibn, grad, stud
- UCR survey or focus group
INTERFACE & SEARCHING/INDEXING – “positive comments”
GALE
EBSCO
“Gale's original screen is simpler and its
display is simpler, which I think undergrads
would like.” UClibn
”I really like the Overall user interface of
EBSCOhost. Students will find the
database useful friendly and rich in
content.” UClibn
“Gale's highlighting is in red, which is
helpful on the screen. I like the Tools
box in the Gale product.” UClibn
“Gale One File seems to have one
unique feature that Academic Search
Complete lacks: a browsable author
index.” UClibn
“The search within results tool in ASAP
was nice.” UCDlibn
“I like the tabs.” UCRstud
“It looks cleaner to me than Gale.” UClibn
“Academic Search Complete has richer
interface that includes more basic and
advanced search options, including
limiting by publication /document type and
the number of article pages. It's easy to
clear or refine the existing search, and had
a better set of discovery options: related
records, hotlinked author names and
subject terms.” UClibn
“It’s much more intuitive than Gale…”
UCDstud
“It’s simpler looking.” UCRstud
“I like that your options for viewing
articles (pdf, html, etc.) are noted at the
ASC does a much better job of displaying
search results and offering the user
options to narrow them. You can
immediately select subsets by
document type (academic journal,
33
bottom of each individual search results.
This eliminates using UC-eLINKs unless
you absolutely have to.” UCRstud
magazines, newspapers, etc.) and the
"Narrow Results by Subject" may be useful
to narrow a larger search set. UClibn
“I think that separating the search results
into tabs (magazines, journals, book
reviews, etc.) is really helpful – it really
helps cut out the kinds of reviews or
articles that you’re not looking for.”
UCRstud
“While returning fewer results, I was
significantly happier with Ebsco…the
results …were displayed as a mixed
group with clear and self-explanatory links.
Browsing the results was simple and
intuitive.” UCDlibn
“I also really like the “search within the
results option.” Though there are no
suggested keywords to search for (like the
ones Ebsco provides), the search within
makes up for it.” UCRstud
“Ebsco uses larger icons with titles and file
sizes allowing a user to browse quickly.”
“I think Expanded Academic’s publication
search option is much more
accessible.” UCRstud
“The interface was straight forward and it
was not necessary for library help.”
UCRstud
“The citation view of a single article is very
neatly laid out and easy to read.”
UCRstud
“Accessing the full text was easier using
the Expanded Academic database.”
UCRstud
“This is an easy database to use and it
makes accessibility of non-traditional
journals easy.” UCRgrad
“Browsing publication titles was easier
to modify because the link is easily
noticed.” UCRstud
“Ebsco seemed to have more ways of
limiting the search by publications type,
document type, and articles with images.”
UCRstud
“It was easier to narrow my search using
the Narrow Results by Subject column on
the left.” UCRstud
34
INTERFACE & SEARCHING/INDEXING – “negative comments”
GALE
EBSCO
“I find the Gale interface a little busys
and the text layout is not as easy to read
as EBSCO.” UClibn
“I found the EBSCO interface cluttered
and confusing as compared to Expanded
Academic ASAP.” UClibn
“OneFile also lacked other features the
other database had (hotlinked authors,
related records, richer subject terms), and
overall, it's just a clunkier interface.”
UClibn
“It was missing some other basic features,
like a "clear search" button or the ability
to refine searches.” UClibn
“I also don't like how Gale identifies articles
without full-text as "Author Abstracts."
This is extremely misleading since users
are looking for articles and might stop
instead of taking the extra step to click the
UC-eLinks button.” UClibn
“…Gale does not allow one to look at a
mixed list…[of results].” UCDlibn
“Gale’s interface is simpler, but not as
good.” UCRstud
“I don’t want to see the titles only, I want
to see the abstracts displayed.”
UCRstud
“Why aren’t subject headings displayed
when you first do a search, why do they
show up at individual search results?”
“I did not like the inconsistency of the
bib.record- sometimes full page ranges
were given (p1342-1350, 9p) & sometimes
only the first page and total pages were
given (p464, 20p).” UClibn
“Some of the subject headings just don’t
make sense.” UCRlibn
“One of the things that did not work was
the "FIND MORE LIKE THIS." UClibn
“The search limiter to Government
Documents was a little misleading.”
UClibn
“They need to explain the tabs.” UCRstud
It is “a little distracting…they need to do
more [user] surveys.” UCRstud
“I don’t like the Ebsco interface much: had
35
trouble navigating, such as finding my
search history, using folders to print, etc.”
UCRlibn
UCRstud
“I would have liked to be able to filter out
"book reviews" from my results.”
UCRstaff
It’s surprising that Ebsco Keyword is only
author supplied, rather than information rich
fields.” UCRlibn
“Took awhile to find tab to refine search.
I imagine you can customize your default
search capabilities so it’s not so hard to find
such things?” UCRlibn
“Using Ebsco, browsing took a little more
work to identify the link.” UCRstud
COVERAGE – “positive comments”
GALE
EBSCO
“In my areas [government], the content for
this product was better than the other,
Ebsco. The list of government
documents is much more complete and
has some good sources such as the CRS
reports and briefs.” UClibn
“Academic Search Complete also provides
better coverage of [science] disciplines,
indexing most/all of the journals from the
American Chemical Society, Royal Society
of Chemistry, and Institute of Chemical
Engineers. They index the Science Direct
and Springer journals, and do a better job
with Blackwell, Annual Reviews and Nature
Publishing Group. Among the publishers
they index that Gale does not: Thieme,
World Scientific, Bentham, Taylor &
Francis, and Portland Press, and the Royal
Society. Ebsco indexes more of the key
science journals.” UClibn
“The news coverage is far superior to
the other product.” UClibn
“Expanded Academic did give me more
relevant newspaper articles.” UCRstud
“I find more scholarly resources when I
36
“The results in ASAP seemed more
relevant for my [under-graduate]
audience.” UClibn
search for 18th century authors.” UClibn
“There are more full-text articles.”
UCRstud
“There are more scholarly articles.
UCRstud
“Expanded did better in finding more
relevant hits and eliminating the riff raff.”
UCRlibn
COVERAGE – “negative comments”
“I didn't always get results when I
narrowed by subject.” UClibn
“[Gale] does not as reliably retrieve
scholarly resources as EBSCO
databases.” UClibn
“I was extremely disappointed that some
sociology journals - had no full text and
some had 12 month most recent embargo.
My searches were primarily in the social
sciences.” UClibn
“…the coverage by date is uneven for
many journals.” UClibn
“I got fewer results with Gale One File.
This product also does not cover my
disciplines thoroughly. It only indexes
about half of the American Chemical
Society journals, and doesn't even cover
Royal Society of Chemistry, American
Society for Biochemistry & Molecular
Biology, or Institute of Chemical Engineers.
And while it looks like most of the Elsevier
and Springer journals are indexed, their
coverage of Blackwell and Nature
Publishing Group is weak and other
publishers (Taylor & Francis, Bentham,
World Scientific, and most notably Wiley)
“News content is limited comparatively.”
UClibn
“Government document content is also
much less than the other database.”
UClibn
“Some titles were repeated or unrelated.”
UCDlibn
37
aren't included at all.” UClibn
“Not as good. Ebsco had 0 scholarly
articles on my subject, Gale had 8.”
UCRlibn
“[ASC] is not a good source for research
materials in Spanish, Portuguese, and
Latin American Literature -- lacks a
number of key titles in the field” UClibn
“I was very disappointed by the very
limited foreign language content of [ASP]
and even more disappointed by the
Spanish & Portuguse Language titles
contained in the database. Dutch 187
References French 25,715 Reference
German 4254 References Portuguese
1299 References Spanish 58,676
References.” UClibn
“[ASC] seems to lack any foreign
language sources.” UClibn
SAVING/EMAILING/DOWNLOADING – “positive comments”
EBSCO
“Emailing was also simple.” UClibn
“It was easy to download the PDF and
…easy to email.” UCDlibn
“The personal folder option was the
BEST feature of the entire database.
Keeping track of articles was very easy,
and the option to save, email or print any
38
article in just a click was really great.”
UCRstud
SAVING/EMAILING/DOWNLOADING – “negative comments”
GALE
EBSCO
“When adding to a folder, the “add” icon
changes and a second image must be
loaded. Ebsco does not show how many
items have been added to the folder.”
UCDstud
“The format of the email was long and
somewhat confusing, but there appears
to be options which would email less
information.” UCDstud
“The Sort by box is kinda clunky.”
UCRlibn
OTHER FEATURES - “positive comments”
GALE
EBSCO
“I think that Gale's help feature is
superior to Academic's. Gale's help is
context-sensitive and easy to use.” UClibn
“[It] can create RSS feed based on
searches, without having to create a
profile first. “UClibn
“Academic's help feature is not contextsensitive or even database-specific which I
found off-putting.” UClibn
“I like the visual search option.” UCDgrad
“Images are better than in Gale.” UCDlibn
39
“I did like cited references and the fact it
listed if cartoons, images, etc. were
given.” UClibn
OTHER FEATURES - “negative comments”
GALE
EBSCO
“Images are too poor to be used in
academic or clinical medicine. This may be
an issue in other scientific disciplines and
in humanities and social sciences, such as
art.” UCDlibn
“Tried using the visual search…it seemed
odd. When I clicked on it I thought it would
find images.” UCRlibn
It needs related field/databases… subject
categories for the databases not just the
names of the databases.” UCRstud
OVERALL STATEMENTS
“I still like EBSCO.” UClibn
“I cannot tell the difference in results between this [ASP] and "Complete". UClibn
“I don’t see much difference between the 2 Ebsco databases.” UCRlibn
“Not as Good [Ebsco].” UCRlibn
“There is nothing better on the market [Ebsco].” UCRlibn
“This database could be used for dissertation and thesis research. Given much literature
40
review work is done by graduate students, this database is invaluable. Better than
ASAP.” UCRgrad
“I just don't like the Gale products as much, but One File is definitely better than
Expanded Academic ASAP.” UClibn
41