In the feedback we have been gathering we are aware of the inclusion of aggretated full text title list in KB+ being a clear priority for a number of you.
The key challenges are how to manage packages in KB+ where there is both a very large number of titles and on-going change to the titles. From initial investigations we have found;
- Because ISSNs are often missing (ISSN is an essential identifier to help us guarantee data quality) it would be difficult to load all of the content from an aggregator into KB+
- Because of the contradictions between the data already in the KB+ system and data from aggregators, which means a lot of manual verification, the inclusion of aggregator title lists will be time consuming and potentially come at a cost to other important activities
We would now welcome your input on the best approach to for us to take in order to meet your requirements:
- Should we only upload journals and magazines (excluding the non-journal/magazine material such as conference proceedings and grey literature)?
- Should we only upload material that has an ISSN. This will include journals, magazines, conference proceedings, etc.?
- Should we only upload a set of “preferred titles”. The list of “preferred titles” would have to be provided by institutions?
In addition, the team is looking for recommendations on which collections are more relevant to institutions
We would welcome your feedback in helping us to decide workflows and set priorities, please email email@example.com.