标题：Drilling deeper into the core: an analysis of journal evaluation methodologies used to create the “Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials,” third edition
摘要：Objective: The paper analyzes the journal evaluation criteria used to create the third edition of a core list of veterinary serials to determine the impact of each criterion on the final composition of the list in order to assess the value of using multiple criteria in creating a core list. Methods: Three additional lists were generated from criteria that were previously combined to prepare the third edition of the “Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials”: a list based on journal recommendations from veterinary specialty organizations, another list based on journals selected by veterinary librarians, and a list based on both indexing coverage and scholarly rank. The top fifteen journals in each of the three lists were then compared to reveal potential biases. Subject representation on the full lists generated by each of these methods was also compared. Results: The list based on journal recommendations from veterinary specialty organizations exhibited a focus on clinically relevant titles. The list based on veterinary librarian recommendations resulted in the broadest subject coverage. The list based on indexing and scholarly rank, while emphasizing research titles, produced the largest number of unique titles. Conclusion: A combination approach that includes objective evaluation measures and practical input, whether from librarians or discipline experts, can improve coverage and can result in a list that balances research-based with clinical practice journals. Highlights Analysis of criteria used to create the “Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials” reveals biases inherent in different quality measures that result in different journal emphases. Use of indexing or scholarly rank is often thought of as a limiting factor, but in this study, the journals that were scored solely on these two criteria resulted in the inclusion of the greatest number of unique titles. Librarian input produced the broadest subject coverage of any list. Implications An analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies reveals clear evidence for using both objective and subjective criteria in developing a core list. Collection development decisions would equally benefit from this approach. Comparison of the top titles on core lists underscores the value of input from practitioners or discipline experts in collection decisions. Bias toward clinical content revealed in the input from the veterinary specialty organizations indicates the importance of understanding the purpose and compilation methods used in creating recommended lists before using them in collection development.
Loading...
