CUWL Reference Coordinators Committee Meeting

Friday 8 October 2004

10:00 am – noon

Pyle Center, Madison

 

Members Present

UW-Colleges                Marc Boucher

UW-Eau Claire             Mimi King
UW-Green Bay             Ann Kasuboski
UW-La Crosse             Randy Hoelzen
UW-Madison                Steve Frye
UW-Milwaukee            Linda Kopecky

UW-Oshkosh                Sarah Neises
UW-Parkside                Cynthia Bryan

UW-Parkside                Kim Bartosz

UW-Platteville              John Leonard Berg

UW-River Falls             Brad Gee

UW-Stevens Point         Patti Becker
UW-Stout                     Jana Reeg-Steidinger
UW-Superior                Ella Cross
UW-Whitewater           Barbara Bren
UW System Admin       Lorie Docken
UW System Admin       Paul Moriarty

Minutes

CUWL RCC Chair Jana Reeg-Steidinger called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.  RCC Secretary/Chair-elect Linda Kopecky took the minutes.  Comparison of ABI/Inform with EBSCOhost Business Source Premiere was added to the Product Evaluations portion of the agenda.  Attendees completed self-introductions.

 

1.       Marc Boucher moved to approve the minutes of the 10 June 2004 teleconference meeting (motion seconded by Brad Gee).  Randy Hoelzen’s name was removed from those attending and the spelling of Ann Kasuboski’s name was corrected (from Anne).  Minutes were approved as corrected.

 

2.       Product Evaluations.   Members were previously assigned various electronic resources to review and report back on.  Comments from the evaluators were distributed through a series of handouts and spreadsheets.

 

1. ABI/Inform, EBSCOhost Business Source Premiere (and LexisNexis Academic).  The committee reviewed a comparative summary made by John Jas. No definite conclusions were reached on these products and therefore will support continuation of ABI for 2005.  The evaluation was to determine if an upgrade from EBSCOhost Business Source “Elite” to “Premiere” would equal or surpass the content of ABI Inform at a cost savings.  (LexisNexis was disregarded for the discussion, as it is not primarily subscribed to for it’s general business content.)  For 2004/05, CUWL access to ABI/Inform costs $148,600; the EBSCO upgrade cost was not certain.  ABI strengths: Full text Wall Street Journal; superior advanced search capabilities.  Weaknesses:  E-mailed results are often problematic; customer service staff is not as responsive as that of other vendors.  EBSCO strengths:  Familiar interface is a plus with undergraduates.  Weaknesses: Poor thesaurus and authority control; limited search options.

 

2. X-referPlus.  The RCC agreed to not recommend this resource.  The evaluators felt the product was more appropriate to a public library audience.  Some titles were not the most recent published edition.

 

3. Gale Literature Resource Center.  The RCC agreed of those resources reviewed, at this meeting, the product was the best overall for broad reference needs; therefore the RCC supports the addition of this resource if sufficient funds should be identified.  The Colleges recently had a product trial and recommend it as an excellent resource for the undergraduates at all UW campuses.  Strengths:  Includes Dictionary of Literary Biography and Contemporary Literary Criticisms, which some libraries would cancel in print ($200+/volume; requires considerable new space yearly).  Weaknesses: Not working well with SFX; search functionality inconsistent.  Note:  Some worried a license requirement might include a no-cancellation agreement for the print.  That would negate many of the perceived benefits of the resource.

 

4. New York Times (ProQuest Historical Newspapers).  It is not known what impact a CUWL purchase might have on those campuses that have already purchased access.  Strengths:  Content is outstanding; broad multidisciplinary value; some campuses would cancel microfilm subscription (high cost; requires considerable new microfilm storage yearly).  Weaknesses:  SFX compatibility problems; precise searching can be tricky and most searches require limits to manage results.  A RCC recommendation will depend on overall cost and offer to libraries already subscribed, among other factors.  Note: It was suggested CUWL seek grant funding for this product (approximately $270,000).  CUWL staff indicated insufficient time, staff and resources to pursue that option.

 

5. CINAHL search interface options.  No RCC decision was reached as to preference of CINAHL via EBSCOhost or the current ProQuest interface. 

 

6. Biological Abstracts search interface options.  The RCC supports continuation of BIOSIS via SilverPlatter due to more advanced search capabilities used by faculty and graduate students.  The general preference of EBSCOhost products by undergraduates was noted.  There is no cost difference between vendors.

 

3. SFX/ExLibris Implementation Consistency Issues.

The RCC has been asked to provide input on System-wide consistency issues for the CUWL

ExLibris Advisory Implementation Committee meeting on October 13^th.  Paul Moriarty led

discussion utilizing the UW System test model. 

 

a.       SRX

                                                               i.      There were some comments that a consistent SFX “Find IT” label was not necessary. One member registered his library’s disappointment in their tremendous amount of planning and implementation hours, now potentially disregarded. He felt students could intuitively interpret different campuses’ SFX labels.  Another asked if there were plans for other retrospective consistency projects.

 

                                    NOTE: The audience for these comments actually would be CUWL not the ExLibris

                                    Team. (Reeg-Steidinger)

 

                                                             ii.      There was agreement that libraries display the four minimum SFX services as long as they are “conditional” (e.g., only list ILLiad if full text is not available)

·         a link to the full-text when it is available

·         a link to the local catalog

·         a link to the ILLIAD ILL form

·         a link to a reference service or help information

 

b.       MetaLib

                                                               i.      There was discussion that there should be consideration of having a consistent name for the metalib product and all its services.  “Super Search” was suggested because the terminology would be more familiar to students that Metalib.  Several agreed a set label was not necessary as MetaLib would have several invisible entry points.

 

                                                             ii.      The following were suggestions for labels of the five MetaLib services:

 

·         QuickSearch:  QuickSearch

Also suggested: “QuickSet Search”; Search Lite.

·         Find Database:  Find Database

“Find a Database” also mentioned. 

·         Find e-journal:  Find e-journal or Find Journal. 

Exact terminology dependant upon library’s presentation of e-

journals and/or print journals)

·         MetaSearch:  CustomSearch.

Also suggested: Cross Search (used by Maryland) and Megasearch.

·         My Space:  MySpace.

MySpace was objected to less than other suggestions including MyAccount.

 

Additional Recommendations:

·         Table View vs. Brief View:  Table View was the preference.

·         A “General Search” of basic shared resources for all libraries was NOT supported.   

·         Icons vs. labels: In general, a preference for labels over icons.

·         Unanimous in agreeing NOT to use the shopping cart icon.

·         In favor of  “logon” “exit” and “help” (logoff is too similar to logon)

·         My Space services:  The names of individual services were not discussed due to time limitations.  Paul and Jana support adding “My” in front of labels: e.g. My eShelf, My Databases, My e-Journals, My History, My Preferences.

 

4. Virtual Reference/UWLibraries

CUWL has charged the RCC to recommend whether UW libraries should pursue System-wide virtual reference services.  Due to insufficient time to discuss, Reeg-Steidinger suggested developing a survey to more fully elicit RCC members’ experiences and opinion of Virtual Reference.    A subcommittee (Boucher, Hoelzen, Kopecky and Reeg-Steidinger) will report back survey results to the RCC.  Paul Moriarty will also serve on the subcommittee. [Note: Boucher withdrew after the meeting.]

 

5. Agenda Items Postponed

Due to insufficient time, several agenda items were not discussed: 

1. Upcoming Meetings—frequency; meeting venue. Discussion on a Winter teleconference and/or March joint meeting with the CDC.

2. Roundtable discussions:

·         Scheduling software

·         Retention of specialized print indexes

·         LibQual report relevance to reference service evaluation

·         Reference collections currency and viability

·         Role of reference in new student orientation

·         Marketing in response to increased electronic use/ decreased in-library use

·         MLA Bibliography – potential consortium pricing?

 

The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

 

Note:  At 12:45 p.m. a joint meeting of the RCC and the CUWL Collection Development Committee was convened.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Linda A. Kopecky