Keep the patrons’ needs in mind. We know this is important, and it’s good to be reminded of it every once in a while.
A while back, I noticed that the coverage for one of our Academic Search Premier titles, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, was listed on ASP as having full-text from 2001 to 2005. The managed coverage recorded by EBSCO said 2002 to 2005. I used custom coverage to adjust the dates.
I noticed the record again yesterday and realized, hey, I should point this out to EBSCO so that 2001 to 2005 becomes the managed coverage. Then every library doesn’t have to adjust the same record in the same way. The EBSCO rep replied with this message from their content team:
According to CONSER, this title, ‘Journal of nutrition education & behavior’, didn’t even start publication until 2002. Even though EP often lists all the years of multiple titles in the title history, we prefer to list the coverage for the title specified on the website (in this case, just the coverage years for the title ‘Journal of nutrition education & behavior’). Therefore, the coverage will need to remain as it is now listed.
OK, that explanation makes sense. But what helps the patron? It would be helpful if the managed coverage reflected what ASP offers, but in this case ASP combines the record with the previous title. It’s one kind of accuracy vs. another: title holdings vs. publication holdings, or publication history vs. ASP availability. I think patrons would benefit from knowing about the coverage for both versions of the title, so I’m keeping the custom coverage of 2001 to 2005.