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.
Alongside working with our Jisc colleagues to add the latest title list for NESLI2 deals and working with other publishers such as OECD we have also begun to look at smaller publishers based on your subscriptions.
(Details on tracking new additions to KB+ are available at, https://knowledgebaseplus.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/new-package-alerts/)
We are creating Master lists for smaller publishers such as ‘Academy of Management’ and ‘American Marketing Association’ based on the titles that we know you currently subscribe to. We hope to add further titles to these collections based on your feedback.
Our aim is to ensure we have the titles you require to manage your subscriptions effectively within KB+ so please let us know if there are any collections you are keen to see added to KB+
You can now easily track which new packages are added to KB+ either by email alerts or RSS feed.
Each time a new package is added, details are posted to a KB+ discussion forum at https://kbplus.zendesk.com/entries/26892807-Changes-related-to-kbplus. You will then see a list of the new packages added and the date.
To subscribe by email you need a login for the KB+ Discussion boards, details on how to register are available at https://knowledgebaseplus.wordpress.com/kb-support/basics-and-first-time-setup/creating-a-zendesk-login/. Once you have logged in, go back to the forum at https://kbplus.zendesk.com/entries/26892807-Changes-related-to-kbplus and you will see a ‘Subscribe’ icon (an envelope) at the top right of the forum display. Click on this to get email updates.
To subscribe using an RSS feed, use the following URL https://kbplus.zendesk.com/entries/26892807-Changes-related-to-kbplus.rss. No login is required to access the RSS feed.
For more information on using the KB+ Discussion boards, please watch the screencast below and see the support page on Communication and Collaboration
There has been some discussion about the legacy IDEAL collection of Academic Press titles that some institutions will have access to alongside the ScienceDirect Collections. We are unsure how many institutions will have this extended access however, wanted to let the community know we are aware of this issue. The start dates for entitlements are really easy to amend – once you have linked to the ScienceDirect package, you can find the relevant titles and click on the date in the Start Date column to change to your specific start date. Once changed, just click the tick icon to show as your entitlement.
If anyone has a list of the titles included in this collection we can get this posted to advise the community.
Any queries on how to do this, or any other KB+ issues, please get in touch on firstname.lastname@example.org
I have been in my new role as data manager for a few months and one of my main tasks is adding new collections of titles into KB+. Our first priority has been Nesli2 collections. In some cases publishers kindly supply KBART files of their collection, others direct us to a title list on their website or we garner the information directly from their web pages . Once we receive the files we need to reformat them in order to upload into KB+.
Before uploading we often attempt to check the data quality. This can include comparing against a title list acquired from a different source, comparing against last years list (using the comparison basket feature in KB+), checking for known title cessations or transfers. We are currently using tools such as SunCat to help with the data verification but are looking to other services and collaboration with international services to ensure consistency and accuracy. Depending on the outcome of these checks we are then faced with how best to resolve any found issues, such as title misspellings, incorrectly assigned DOIs, incorrect ISSNs before this data is loaded into KB+.
I have been mainly using Excel to manage and manipulate the data prior to loading into KB+ and therefore tools such as the ‘conditional formatting’ to find duplicate ISSNs have proven to be useful. I am planning investigating tools such as Google Refine to help manage this data more effectively, especially with regards to breaking down large title lists into appropriate collections and automate some standard formatting.
I am also looking forward to release 3.1 of KB+ which is looking to provide more integrated communication channels.
In working collaboratively and sharing data errors I think we can help build a good quality source of data.
Since the start of the new year JISC Collections have appointed two new Data Managers to the project. Myself (Damyanti Patel) & Christina Ley. I previously worked as eLibrary manager for Birmingham City University and Chrissie is currently working at Bangor University as Library Assistant (e-resources). We have joined Magaly Bascones who has been working on KB+ since the beginning. One of our key roles is to liaise with publishers and suppliers, gather list of titles within collections verify the information before loading into KB+. In the last couple of weeks we have added titles from a wide range of publishers highlights include
- American Chemical Society – including the ACS Chemical & Engineering news archive
- Brill – including the NESLI2 full collection
- Duke – including the NESLI2 expanded collection
- Karger – including the NESLI2 full collection
- Project Euclid – including the NESLI2 prime collection
- Royal Society of Chemistry
- SAGE Publications
- Taylor and Francis – including the NESLI2 collections STM & SSH
- Wiley – including the full NESLI2 collections, STM, SSH & library opt in titles
A full list of publishers we have added was sent to the subscribers mailing list (email@example.com) and full details of all the collections within KB+ are available on our exports page.
We have also begun working on identifying further NESLI2 collections and non NESLI2 publishers to begin working with so hopefully we will be adding titles from publishers & collections such as JSTOR, Emerald, Springer, Elsevier and more.
We would appreciate your help in identifying titles and collections you are keen to see in KB+ so please drop us an email or leave a comment on any packages you would welcome seeing in KB+
Along side the work that we’ve been doing for KB+ to make sure that we have accurate data on the titles included in 2012 NESLi2 agreements, JISC Collections has been working with EDINA on a scoping study for an Entitlement Registry and PECAN2. These projects are almost at an end with final reports due in mid-April – and we are currently running workshops with institutions to review what has been done and what institutional priorities might be.
This work is very closely aligned with KB+, providing a historical record of title coverage, institutional subscriptions and post-cancellation access rights for NESLi2 agreements.
Unfortunately, as so often seems to be the case, this is easier said than done.
As one librarian said, at any one time there seem to be atleast 3 different records of what titles an institution subscribes to: the institution, the publisher and the subscription agent. Trying to reach agreement on this is enormously time consuming, but it also appears to be work that has to be repeated year in, year out at enormous cost and effort on all sides.
Now, some may say that this isn’t important and no one is claiming that there are huge issues with access to subscribed content, but I think there are some important reasons why as a community we should have a solid understanding of what we do and don’t have rights to:
- Institutional knowledge – at the moment many institutions have to ask third parties for information on what that institution has and hasn’t subscribed to, yet they seldom have huge faith in the answers that they receive from those external partners.
- Best practice – at a very simple level it makes sense to understand what has been purchased and what rights one has to that content. From a licensing perspective, it should be up to institutions, publishers and those who act on their behalf such as JISC Collections, to make sure that the licences are clear on this.
- Understanding an offer – being able to understand the impact of an offer and any decisions you may wish to make about cancellations, renewals, substitutions etc requires a knowledge of what the impact on access will be.
- Transition to electronic and relegation of print – uncertainty about post-cancellation access rights is a barrier to institutions when considering getting rid of their print collections or fully moving to electronic.
- Decision making – time repeatedly spent working out what has been purchased and what rights apply to it, is time that isn’t spent on more important decisions about collection development, improving the user experience or considering the nature of the library service that will be delivered.
- Improved services – being able to make accurate records of this information available could provide an opportunity for subscription agents, systems vendors, publishers and negotiating bodies to improve the services that they can provide to institutions.
However, we are where we are and the amount of work involved in putting this right is considerable, but based on the work undertaken so far and the valuable feedback from institutions we are starting to understand some priorities and some practical ways of achieving these that could be beneficial to all.
As you know, the quite simple question: which titles are in the NESLi2 deals? Is not that easy to answer.
As part of the key deliverables of the KB+ project we have requested that the publishers provide their title lists in the KBART format. KBART format is a clear and simple standard that suits the KB+ initial purposes. Not all the publishers are KBART compliant. However, in general the publishers’ response has been fabulous. They have collaborated with us, untangling the discrepancies between their title lists and the NESLI2 agreements.
As you may know, verifying and standardising title list is a demanding and time consuming task. It takes us time to deal with the essence of the serial publications. The serials publications are not static, they are alive and they live their life: they move house (transfers between publishers) , they get married (mergers), they have children (supplements), they change their names, they have nicknames, they go on holiday (stop for a while and come back again), they die (ceased).
Furthermore, we have encountered other cases of a higher complexity: for example the case of Camden 5th (CUP) has several series, starting at different times, all with Volume 1 Issue 1.
Of course, we are not trying to solve all the challenges related to the serials publications. Nevertheless, our key aims are to be able to give a straight and clear answer to the question above and to have the extra, necessary metadata for our technical team. This has forced us to move forward and decide how the metadata needs to be presented. We have, for example, identified in separate files, the open access and free titles and the additional titles (those that are not part of the Nesli2 deals but to which the libraries can subscribe independently at a reduce fee).