Abstract
This article discusses full‐text source lists used by full‐text finding tools, such as serials management systems, OpenURL link resolvers, and imported e‐journal MARC records. Although the vendors of full‐text finding tools claim that they frequently update their full‐text source lists with changes in full‐text titles, ISSNs, coverage dates, and other information, they actually rely on content providers to offer title lists and coverage information. Not all content providers offer accurate and updated full‐text source lists in terms of full‐text titles included, coverage dates and embargo periods, and formats and file types. As a result, librarians and users using serials management systems, OpenURL link resolvers, or OPACs for finding full‐text periodicals are sometimes taken to dead ends. Vendors of both full‐text finding tools and full‐text content need to improve the accuracy and currency of their services.
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications,Information Systems
Reference4 articles.
1. Brooks, S. (2003), “Academic journal embargoes and full text databases”, Library Quarterly, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 243‐60.
2. Oder, N. (2001), “How serials solutions works”, Library Journal, Vol. 126 No. 13, p. 46.
3. Sitko, M., Tafuri, N., Szczyrbak, G. and Park, T. (2002), “E‐journal management systems: trends, trials, and trade‐offs”, Serials Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 176‐93.
4. Watson, P. (2003), “E‐journals: access and management”, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 44‐68.
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献