Recent Deselections FAQs

See sections below:

• Why was the decision made to deselect databases?
• Who made the decision to deselect these databases?
• How was the decision made to select these databases?
• Tell me more about the Computer Database cancellation.
• Tell me more about the National Newspaper cancellation.
• There are a lot of different databases with newspapers in them. How can I tell where to go for the particular newspaper I need?
• Tell me more about the Current Contents cancellation.
• I use the Alerts service in Current Contents. What can I do now?
• What is the timeline for these changes?
• Will other databases be deselected?

Why was the decision made to deselect databases?

In 2003/04, $1 million will be cut from resource sharing funds. Because these funds subsidize the centrally-funded Shared Collections and Acquisitions program (SCAP) databases, the University Librarians asked for a review of possible cancellations of centrally funded resources in 2004/05 (carry forward funds will sustain 2003/04), in addition to looking for other savings.

Approximately $150,000 must be cut from the SCAP database expenditures for 2004/05 and over $225,000 is needed to cover inflation and avoid another deselection review for the next three years. Expenditures for 2003/04 are projected at $1,671,783 for journal and database subscriptions. A collective decision to deselect three databases has been finalized, resulting in a cost savings of $150,000 in 2004.

Who made the decision to deselect these databases?

The University Librarians asked the Collection Development Committee (CDC) to review the SCAP databases in light of a substantial cut in the resource sharing funds for 2003/04. The CDC asked the Joint Steering Committee on Shared Collections (JSC) to do an initial review, set deselection criteria and guidelines, and provide preliminary recommendations. The JSC then conducted a study of several possible databases for deselection.

A formal proposal to cancel the Computer Database (Gale), and the National Newspaper Index (Gale), and Current Contents (Ovid) then went to CDC, the Systemwide Planning and Operations Group (SOPAG), and the Chairs of Bibliographers Groups for campus review. All input was summarized, and a recommendation was made to the University Librarians. The University Librarians endorsed the recommendation in December 2003

How was the decision made to select these databases?

The JSC focused its review on general (not core), multidisciplinary databases in which there was potentially significant content duplication with other California Digital Library digital resources available systemwide. The JSC's reasoning was that most core disciplinary abstracting/indexing databases (e.g., BIOSIS, INSPEC, MLA Bibliography, and PsycInfo) would have to be subscribed to and funded by campuses, either collectively through recharges or individually without the benefit of consortial discounts. The core databases were the best candidates for continued funding as part of the resource sharing budget, and the general databases were targeted for deselection.

After reviewing seven general databases, two were identified for deselection in 2004: the Computer Database and the National Newspaper Index; one in 2005: Current Contents.

Tell me more about the Computer Database cancellation.

Usage of the Computer Database declined by nearly 50 percent to less than 15,000 searches across all campuses in 2003. The major value of the Computer Database is in its indexing and inclusion of the full text of popular computing titles. There is an overlap for many of the approximately 300 titles in the Computer Database with the INSPEC, Expanded Academic ASAP, ABI Inform, and other databases the UC licenses. Some non-scholarly coverage will be lost. Because some titles used by campus computing center staff and IT staff will be lost, those campus staff should be notified that this database is being deselected.

The main issues supporting deselection are: low usage at a high cost, lack of unique scholarly titles, and the fact that the database was offered to the CDL as part of an integrated vendor package and was not originally selected on its individual merits by subject bibliographers.

The JSC acknowledges that there will be technical services costs in cataloging and SFX (UC-eLinks) maintenance when the Computer Database with its 280 full text titles is deselected.

Tell me more about the National Newspaper cancellation.

Usage of the National Newspaper database declined 76 percent last year to fewer than 15,000 searches in 2003. The database provides indexing for five newspapers: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, and Los Angeles Times. The NYT Book Review and NYT Magazine are also included. All of these papers, including full text, are now available in licensed alternative resources, although there is no single database source that integrates searching for these five.

All of the UC libraries license LexisNexis Academic, which covers all of the newspapers, some as far back as 1977, except for the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal is covered back to 1869 in ProQuest Historical Newspapers and from 1985 to the present in ProQuest Newspapers (which also includes the Los Angeles Times and New York Times). America's Newspapers (NewsBank) includes the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Christian Science Monitor (among many others).

See a chart of other indexes in which the newspapers are duplicated.

There are a lot of different databases with newspapers in them. How can I tell where to go for the particular newspaper I need?

You can search for specific newspapers in the Melvyl Catalog or campus catalogs by their titles or by subject "Newspapers [city, county or country format]", or by "Journals" (in the Melvyl Catalog). Many campus libraries also have a listing for newspapers under their lists of electronic resources or subject guides.

Tell me more about the Current Contents cancellation.

Current Contents was launched in 1990, the second end user database after MEDLINE. UC students and faculty have relied for many years on Current Contents to provide a simple and effective general interdisciplinary database and table-of-contents alerting service. However, there is a content overlap of 100% for Current Contents in the larger Web of Science. (WoS is also an ISI database.) In reviewing the SCAP budget and content overlap of targeted databases, the JSC discussed Current Contents at length. While the JSC recognizes that Current Contents has historically been a widely used database, it is no longer desirable to pay for 100% duplicative digital content in the current UC budget environment.

I use the Alerts service in Current Contents. What can I do now?

The CDL has negotiated for free alerts in Web of Science. In addition, there a number of other free alerting services available to database and ejournal users.

What is the timeline for these changes?

The JSC recommends deselection of Computer Database and National Newspaper Index from SCAP support as of July 1, 2004 and Current Contents as of 2005. The Heads of Public Services (HOPS) confirms this decision.

Will other databases be deselected?

As part of its ongoing lifecycle and budgetary management, the CDL will continue to facilitate collective decision-making for future additional deselections.