A comparison of database administration offerings reveals service gaps and unheralded benefits When librarians license databases, they must configure features for maximum patron utility. Vendors have created administrative tools to assist in this process, but more uniform and common administrative features would significantly change the way database products are used and managed. A standardized set of factors is needed, including validation methods, linking tools, and title list services. To some extent, link resolvers, federated search tools, proxy servers, title list management services, and customized methods of collecting statistics have been developed to supplement the limited interoperability and standardization of existing databases. Librarians have let database vendors and ILS systems off the hook by adopting these separate integration products rather that requiring better built-in features. Many librarians will continue to rely on the native features of each database because they do not have the resources to develop custom solutions or purchase additional applications. E-journal databases need to go beyond Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources (COUNTER) compliance to provide standardized, easily automated, and aggregated usage statistics using SUSHI and other emerging standards. A wider selection of common methods of user validation is still needed, as is broad deployment of new validation methods like Shibboleth and NCIP. Timely, accurate, and easy-to-access serials title list management tools need to become a fixture of all journal database products.

Database integration

Librarians need to manage a growing number of databases collectively. Because database products are becoming increasingly integrated, we focus on administrative features that assist interoperability, particularly linking aspects, title list features for OpenURL linking, and federated searching. Since database usage is largely happening outside library buildings, remote authentication services are included. E-journal databases, abstract and index products, and full-text journals from publishers and aggregators offer a wide range of web-accessible administrative features. Each vendor's unique administrative service allows setting search parameters, collecting usage statistics, and changing colors or adding a local library logo. We reviewed ABC-CLIO, Cambridge Scientific Ilumina, EBSCOhost, Elsevier Science Direct, Gale InfoTrac, OCLC FirstSearch, ProQuest, Springer Link, and WilsonWeb.

Statistical reporting

COUNTER is an international standard for database statistical reporting. All but two of the reviewed databases offer some level of COUNTER-compliant statistics. Compliance is a good first step, but librarians managing large numbers of databases need a number of additions. Six of the reviewed databases provide automated emailing of statistical reports, which offers major time savings from running individual monthly reports for each database. Getting statistical reports into a common format that can be merged into Excel is the obvious choice for this task. Most databases provide output that can be used in Excel with a little effort, but, surprisingly, multiple database reports cannot be directly merged into Excel because each report varies slightly. This makes merging reports quite time-consuming. EBSCO stands out from the pack by enabling librarians to customize reports, rearrange fields, and standardize report layout. As the number of library-licensed databases grows, more detailed statistics become important. Usage statistics by individual journal title are a COUNTER requirement and are available from all but ABC-CLIO and OCLC FirstSearch. More detailed reports, such as statistics by IP (Internet protocol) address, can show where a user accesses databases and indicate which workstations are most popular. Only ABC-CLIO, EBSCO, and ProQuest offer IP-based user statistics. Four others say they can provide IP usage reports by special request, but directly available services are much more convenient. Many databases offer personalization features that allow users to save searches, get search alerts, or otherwise customize use. Seven of the reviewed databases offer some form of user customization. However, only three have any usage statistics for user-customized services, and none provide complete statistics for these features. Vendors are certainly collecting this information for their own reference, and it's important that librarians demand access to this valuable user profiling. Since linking among databases has become popular, statistics on how linking is used are significant, particularly for libraries without a separate link resolver, which can provide such statistics. CSA, EBSCO, and Elsevier are the only vendors providing statistics on link usage from their databases.

User validation

Validation of authorized users is a central feature of any database management system. IP validation is the only uniformly available method for the reviewed group of databases. It allows database access from computers within a particular Internet address's range (IP numbers) from within a particular library, consortia, or affiliated institution. Additional methods of validation are necessary for remote access; however, it is useful to be able to create passwords for privileged individuals or groups, a feature enabled by four of the reviewed databases. Gale will do this only by special request, and four offer no special password access at all. Referral page validation is increasingly useful. This permits database access as long as the request comes from a particular trusted web page, like a secured library database page. It may be restricted to particular PCs or may require a password for access. This method is offered by seven of the reviewed databases, but only by special request from four. Barcode pattern matching is a way of authenticating patrons by checking a user's library barcode number. The user is allowed access to the database if the barcode fits within a range of numbers, or contains particular combinations of numbers. This system is not as secure as checking the barcode against the live catalog database, but it is an easy and very popular alternative for remote access, particularly in public libraries. Barcode pattern matching is only offered by four of the reviewed vendors.

Emerging authentication methods

The NISO Circulation Interchange Protocol (NCIP) is a standardized protocol for exchanging information and validating users into an integrated library system (ILS). To date, only OCLC offers NCIP validation. Shibboleth is a new method for institutions and vendors to check user credentials and share validation information about authorized users. Both Shibboleth and NCIP show great promise, although they are not yet widely used. EBSCO, Elsevier, and ProQuest offer Shibboleth authentication. Proxy servers like EZproxy, Virtual Private Networking (VPN), portals, and other methods of user validation are also becoming common. These new methods are making individual database validation less important. However, individual database validation methods are still essential for most libraries. They often work in conjunction with institutional security methods because of the need to customize access to each library.

Content linking

OpenURL linking is becoming an important part of a library's service layer. Linking references in one database to full text in other databases is now required. Another essential e-journal database feature is the ability to link into the library catalog for holdings. This can be performed directly or through the link resolver. All reviewed databases offer some form of linking to a library catalog, though some older ILS products do not support it. Elsevier has no built-in library catalog link and only offers linking to the library catalog through a separate third-party link resolver. All the reviewed databases provide customized features for connection to a separate link resolver like SFX from Ex Libris or Serials Solutions' Article Linker. Many have built-in services for particular resolvers. H.W. Wilson has gone a step further and includes linking features from the SFX Link Resolver with its databases.

Title list filtering

A surprising four of the reviewed databases do not offer link filtering based on journal holdings lists or the option to customize a title holdings list. Many vendors maintain title lists for common full-text databases. Database administrators can simply select the full-text products they own or license. EBSCO and ProQuest maintain title lists for hundreds of full-text databases, as well as offering features for creating and managing customized lists. A critical database linking feature lets you display search results based on whether a library holds a particular journal. For example, a 'link to full text' button should appear in database results only if full text is available from the library's holdings or licensed e-content. No link to full text button should appear if full text for the journal is not available from the library. To do this, tools for managing serials holdings lists are an important bonus of database products. CrossRef is an organization that maintains a central database of digital object identifier (DOI) links for journal articles from over 1500 publishers. Hopefully, the use of this centralized resource will increasingly relieve database vendors and libraries of the need to manage individual title lists. Some vendors, including ProQuest and EBSCO, already access the CrossRef database. The popularity of link resolvers means that many at larger libraries are less concerned with the linking capabilities of individual databases. However, features like title list filtering are still important to the functioning of separate link resolvers, and many at smaller libraries will continue to rely on the linking features of each database.

Journals A - Z

Libraries need easy access to database title information to maintain journal holdings lists for a variety of purposes. Catalogers often keep separate lists for link resolvers, separate A - Z services, and individual database products. Serials holding information must also be kept up-to-date in library catalogs. Since librarians manage many different database products, it is necessary to access all database administration information from one place. All of the reviewed databases provide publicly available journal title lists, but five of the nine don't provide access to this information from within the administrative service area. Title lists and title changes, as well as other services like usage statistics, are often found at separate web locations, sometimes requiring separate passwords. It is also common to merge lists of titles from different databases, but several vendors do not provide title lists in Excel. Lists of persistent URLs are provided by many vendors, including ABC-CLIO, CSA, and Gale. Several others provide syntax or instructions for constructing persistent URLs, instead of as a list that can be cut and pasted or merged. It is increasingly vital that all e-journal vendors provide accurate title lists, prompt title changes, and easy-to-access title information, including persistent URLs for online journals.

Future solutions

E-journal databases are rapidly becoming more standardized and integrated in many ways. Wide acceptance of the COUNTER statistics standard has been an important step. That standard is being further developed, and SUSHI promises to standardize further the collection of reports and automatically transmit statistics. Use of the CrossRef OpenURL database is widespread and growing. The ONIX for Serials project is working on developing methods for transferring electronic serials holding information. Electronic resources management (ERM) systems such as Ex Libris's Verde are being developed to manage all database information centrally. New common search standards for federated database searching are also developing rapidly. We will soon be able to manage many databases from one location, to automate the export of multiple database statistical reports using XML. Despite these developments, current database administrative systems are still largely proprietary and unique to a fault. They were developed in isolation, with little thought to interaction with other systems. When databases offer common features or present common information, they do so in different ways. Library staff must be trained to use each administrative system individually. In many cases, librarians have developed workarounds to overcome the shortcomings of the vendors' services. A standard set of features, validation methods, linking features, and title list services, from all databases, are still needed and would significantly change the way database products can be used and managed.

---

LINK LIST
COUNTER www.projectcounter.org	CrossRef www.crossref.org	Digital Object Identifier www.doi.org
EZproxy www.usefulutilities.com	NCIP www.niso.org/committees /committee_at.html	ONIX www.editeur.org/onix.html
Serials Solution Article Linker www.serialssolutions.com /articlelinker.asp	Shibboleth shibboleth.internet2.edu/	SUSHI www.niso.org/committees /SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html

Selected Database Administration Functionality, April 2006.
Vendor	ABC-CLIO	CSA	Ebsco	Elsevier	Gale Infotrac	OCLC FirstSearch	ProQuest	WilsonWeb	SpringerLink
Statistics
COUNTER-compliant	No	4 Counter reports	4 Counter reports	3 Counter reports	4 Counter reports	No	4 Counter reports	4 Counter reports	1 Counter report
Stats Output format.	Excel-friendly HTML, CSV	HTML	HTML, CSV, Tab-delimited	CSV, Excel, ASCII, PDF	TEXT, CSV, Postscript	HTML, Excel	HTML, CSV	ASCII, CSV, HTML	Excel, CSV
Stats by IP	Yes	Yes, by special request support	Yes	Yes, by special request	No	Yes Via separate website.	Yes, by special request	Yes	No
"My database" features.(saved alerts/searchs)	YesSaved alerts.	Yes Saved alerts & searches.	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
"My database" usage stats	No	Yes, by special request	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes, users listed
Customizable reports	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No
Stats reports emailed	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Stats by hour of day	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No
Link Activity stats	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
Validation
Refering page	Yes, by special request	Yes, via Java applet	Yes	No	Yes, by special request	Yes	Yes, by special request	Yes, by special request	No
Password setup	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes, by special request	No	Yes	Yes	No
Barcode pattern matching	No	No	Yes	No	Yes, by special request	No	Yes	Yes, by special request	No
IP validation	Yes, by special request	Yes, by special request	Yes	Yes	Yes, by special request	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, by special request
Shibboleth NCIP	No	No	Shibboleth	Shibboleth	No	NCIP	Shibboleth	No	No
Linking
Link to OPAC	Yes	Yes	Yes	No. only via link resolver.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Linking to common full text collections	Yes 10 title collections	Yes 24 title collections.	Yes 48 title collections.	No	No	Yes, to JSTOR	Yes	Yes	No
Linking via Resolver	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes SFX, Wilsonlink.	Yes
Custom title list creation, and link filtering.	No	Yes By special request.	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
Title Lists
Title Lists from Admin. Module	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
Public title list	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Journal level persistent URLs	N/A	Yes Syntax provided.	Yes	Yes. syntax provided.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, syntax provided.	Yes
Title list format(s)	HTML, ASCII	HTML	HTML, Tab, Excel, PDF, MARC	HTML, CSV, RSS	HTML, Excel, Word, PDF	ASCII, HTML	HTML, Excel, text, Tab, CSV, custom.	HTML text, Excel	Excel, CSV
Title change alerts	No	Yes, from technical notes list.	Yes Separate email list.	Yes	Yes	Yes Separate email list.	Yes Separate email list.	Yes	No
Page Locations	Separate reports, admin. Separate passwords. And public webpages.	Separate reports, admin. and public webpages.	Admin, and public webpages.	Separate reports, admin,and public webpages.	Admin, and public webpages.	Separate admin, usage, and public webpages.	Admin, webpages.	Separate reports, admin. Separate passwords. And public webpages.	Admin, and public webpages.

---

Peter Webster is Information Systems Librarian, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, NS