No months in managed coverage

Access problems can often be resolved by correcting the holdings dates in the record. It’s unfortunate that the coverage is listed incorrectly to begin with, but it’s nice to know it will be correct for future users.

Sometimes it’s a difference between our subscription dates and the entire site’s content, so I update our holdings using Collection Editor’s custom coverage. Lately I’ve come across a few titles within a database that have incorrect coverage listed; when it’s a database, such as the subject of yesterday’s post, it’s really the managed coverage that should be corrected for the benefit of all EBSCO customers.

I’ve noticed a lot of problems with Gale databases. I’m going through the list of titles to pick out the discrepancies and I’m keeping a list that I’ll send off to EBSCO. Out of curiosity, I asked a rep I’ve been working with if EBSCO is in the practice of indicating months in the managed coverage dates. It’s always disappointing (to the patrons and to me) when a patron thinks he can access a December 2001 issue from a resource that offers, say, 1999-2001 access, only to discover that the coverage actually ends several months earlier (sometimes in the middle of a volume). The rep replied that

Currently A-to-Z does not support the display of months in managed coverage. We are however considering this as an enhancement for the future.

Hooray for enhancements: the more accurate the coverage, the better.

Advertisements
Posted in Access, EBSCO, Gale. Comments Off on No months in managed coverage
%d bloggers like this: