Academic Product Management And Advisory Committee

From LexisNexis Academic Knowledge Center
Revision as of 21:08, 22 December 2013 by JenniferMatheny (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Product Management
LexisNexis Academic is managed by the Academic & Library Solutions division of LexisNexis. Decisions about the design and content of LexisNexis Academic are made in consultation with the Advisory Committee, composed of librarians who represent diverse user communities. The committee meets quarterly with two in-person sessions at ALA Annual and ALA Midwinter.

Contents

LexisNexis Product Management Staff

Bill Madigan is the Senior Product Manager for LexisNexis Academic with a focus on content expansion and licensing. Bill has been with LexisNexis since 1994, working in a variety of editorial, marketing, and product management roles. He is originally from Newport, Rhode Island, and received a B.S. in Law Enforcement from George Mason University and a law degree from the Marshall-Wythe School of Law, the College of William and Mary.

Telephone: 800-446-3410, ext. 7522
Email: william.madigan@lexisnexis.com

Advisory Committee Members

The Content Advisory Committee meets with LexisNexis staff members quarterly to review and provide direction on content development. Once a year, during the American Library Association Annual Conference, the Committee reviews the Content Development Policy.

Harold Colson (Chairperson)
Head - Public Services International Relations & Pacific Studies Library
University of California—San Diego
Email: hcolson@weber.ucsd.edu

Ray Calvert
Director
Coastal Georgia Community College

Raili Throndson (Member Ex Officio)
Group Services Manager
Lyrasis

Sharon Clayton
Associate Librarian
Knox College Library

Richard Gause
Documents/Reference
University of Central Florida

Mary Gilles Librarian for College of Business;
Law; School of Economic Sciences;
and Apparel, Merchandising, Design & Textiles
Washington State University Libraries

LaRoi Lawton
Assistant Professor - Library & Learning Resources Department
Bronx Community College/CUNY

Meghan Sitar
Instruction and Outreach Librarian
University of Texas at Austin

Karen Wilhoit
Associate University Librarian for Collections
Wright State University

Peng Xu
Research Librarian for Business and Economics
Columbia University

Lynda Irons
Research and Instructional Services Librarian
Pacific University

Maggie Saponaro
Librarian for Journalism and Hearing Speech Sciences
University of Maryland

Norman Buchwald
Information Literacy and Technology Librarian
Chabot Community College

Advisory Committee Charge

Created 9/17/1999. Revised September 28, 2011

Responsibilities

  1. The committee shall systematically elicit subscriber community feedback on subject areas that should be developed within LexisNexis Academic.
  2. The committee shall advise LexisNexis on those content areas in which LexisNexis Academic should be strengthened and suggest representative titles for such areas.
  3. The committee shall review new LexisNexis content acquisitions that may be included in LexisNexis Academic and recommend inclusion or exclusion based on academic needs.
  4. The committee shall review and advise LexisNexis on issues related to enhancing the value of LexisNexis Academic to subscribing institutions. Such issues may include product functionality, user experience, compliance with standards and accepted practices, and integration with other library technologies.
  5. The committee shall keep the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) membership informed of LexisNexis Academic content issues.
  6. The committee shall provide and demonstrate a constructive cooperative working relationship between librarians and information providers.

Membership

  1. The committee consists of no few than ten and no more than twelve librarians from subscribing libraries.
  2. The ICOLC may name up to eight librarians and LexisNexis up to four librarians to the committee. An effort should be made to name librarians with subject expertise in the key areas covered by LexisNexis Academic, as well as individuals knowledgeable about electronic resources. The membership should include representatives from university, college, and community college libraries across the country.
  3. LexisNexis representation shall include one representative from Marketing/Sales, Product Development, and LexisNexis Acquisitions.
  4. The committee shall be co-chaired by a librarian and a LexisNexis staff member.

Meeting Schedule

  1. The committee shall meet regularly at least twice a year during ALA meetings. LexisNexis shall organize and arrange for these meetings.
  2. The committee shall meet virtually at least two additional times a year to conduct its business.

Collection Development Policy

Introduction

The LexisNexis Academic (LNA) Collection Development Policy (CDP) is a planning document produced by LexisNexis in conjunction with the LNA Content Advisory Committee which consists of librarians and LexisNexis staff members. The CDP establishes guidelines for the acquisition and integration of new content into the LNA collection within business dictated financial restrictions1 and to identify and communicate the long- and short-term collection goals and policies of LexisNexis Academic

Mission Statement

LexisNexis Academic is committed to supporting the evolving research needs of libraries and their users with our collection of highly current, accurate, and in-depth news, business, and legal information coverage via our Web-based tool. LNA is dedicated to maintaining and improving upon its database by providing a well-balanced catalog of current and archived sources, available in full-text whenever possible. LNA maintains a commitment to producing the finest electronic information access tool possible, and, therefore, is committed to improving the quality and quantity of this collection continually, with a focus on those content areas that users have come to expect from LexisNexis, particularly current events, news, business, and legal information.

The LNA mission supports the overall corporate LexisNexis mission, which is to be the preferred provider of decision support information and services to professionals in legal, business and government markets. LexisNexis is committed to providing value-added information that is relevant, timely, customized, and consistent.

Product Overview and History

LexisNexis Academic & Library Solutions' markets include academic (higher education and secondary school), public, special, and state libraries, offering new general reference information services tailored to the needs of these libraries. In 1998, LexisNexis Academic & Library Solutions released LexisNexis Academic (then Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe), a Web-based service providing access to comprehensive news, business, and legal information, as part of their "Universe" suite of on-line products available exclusively to the academic market.

This flagship service provides full-text documents from approximately 10,000 news, business, legal, medical, and reference publications2 with a variety of flexible search options.

Purpose

  1. Establish the link between the core mission of LNA and the selection of content.
  2. Establish core priorities in collection development for LNA as a framework for shaping a collection of materials that best supports the research needs of our customers.
  3. Provide guidelines (both general and content specific) on the selection of materials based on subject, publication types, focus, depth, availability and rights, language, and date of coverage.
  4. Identify goals for future development of collection.
  5. Codify the selection process to encourage quicker, more consistent decision-making.
  6. Identify strengths and weaknesses of the collection.
  7. Communicate with users and LN staff about the current status and future goals of the LNA collection. Communicate LNA collection development objectives and procedures to LN staff and librarians.

Long-term Goals

  1. Maintain a balanced and stable core collection that is integral to the academic market. To this end, LNA must maintain a balance between:
    1. Serial titles vs. monographic titles (but with a focus on serial titles).
    2. Highly current vs. historical archived titles.
    3. Broad as well as highly specialized subject matter.
  2. Availability issues (while full-text is the preference, LNA will make every effort to make titles available as selected text and abstract titles when not available in full-text due to licensing issues) when valuable titles are needed to supplement the collection.
  3. Respond to customer requests using collection development policy as guiding tool.
  4. Respond to technology changes while maintaining long-term content goals.

Short-term Goals

  1. Identify content weaknesses of current collection.
  2. Identify depth of access issues (rolling archives, etc.) of concern.
  3. Respond to identified issues in timely manner.

Title Selection

Methods for Targeting New Titles

  1. Title requests of librarians, sales force, etc.
  2. Subject areas, industries, specific titles, or other content types not currently covered, or not covered in depth, in LNA collection. In particular, content currently covered at minimal or basic level identified as areas to upgrade to study or research level within LNA.
  3. Periodic surveys of librarians, listserv members, or the LNA content committee.

Criteria For Selection: Titles That Are Part Of Content Roll-Outs3

In determining inclusion in LexisNexis Academic, the company will examine the following criteria and will base inclusion into LN Academic on:

  1. Relevance to the actual or potential needs of the user. Specifically, whether the source relates to the following content areas and/or meets the following criteria:
    1. Legal sources.
    2. Industry sources, especially if title provides current information about a particular industry or technology.
    3. General business sources, especially if title serves a foreign or global market.
    4. General news sources, especially if newspaper serves a relevant market. [e.g. major papers, papers serving major market areas, and regional papers. Local papers should be added based on apparent relevancy of content or if at the request of a library].
    5. Special interest sources, especially if title provides information on specific topics or current issues of interest to researchers that augments coverage of similar topics in general newspapers or industry sources or has a unique point of view that would be of interest to LNA user. [i.e. ethnic papers, policy papers].
  2. Scope and content
    1. Sources presenting data of research value and having global, national, regional, or statewide breadth of coverage for sources presenting data on the identified, relevant topical areas.
    2. Sources presenting data that, while in some respects may be limited in scope, geographically or otherwise, are best or most authoritative resources found for the subject or that present a unique analysis or viewpoint.
  3. Depth of the existing collection in the subject, specifically:
    1. Current level of coverage of similar titles in LNA (out-of-scope, and minimal, basic, study, and research level).
    2. Whether the source relates to content priorities established by LexisNexis Academic in conjunction with the LNA Content Advisory Committee.
    3. Whether the source complements the current collection (e.g. the addition of a state law review when we cover law reviews from most other states); conversely, whether the title duplicates similar, existing sources (e.g. 2 newspapers from same small city).
  4. Quality of source. Because of the diverse nature of the sources within LexisNexis Academic, multiple indicators of source quality will be considered to arrive at sound, overall judgments for each. To be selected for inclusion, a resource normally will be expected to satisfy one or more of the following criteria, which have been provided by the LexisNexis Content Advisory Committee. The Committee also provides ongoing advice to LexisNexis on the application of these criteria to individual selection decisions.
    1. The content is recognized as authoritative or reputable.
    2. The publication was issued by an important and/or recognized government agency, society, or other organization.
    3. The content is cited frequently by other academicians or practitioners.
    4. The content is included in other scholarly works or in prominent newspapers, news magazines or wire services.
    5. Other sources mentioned in the content (name of study, researcher's name, institution) are listed in footnotes or bibliographies, according to customary academic practice.
    6. The publication is considered “core” or important for a certain discipline or profession, as indicated by its inclusion in standard lists of recommended sources, favorable comment in scholarly reviews, or the title's inclusion or coverage by appropriate Indexing and Abstracting products.
    7. The content, while not satisfying the above criteria, provides relevant and important information for coverage of geographic areas or special topics.
  5. Currency
    1. Periodicity/frequency of being updated.
    2. Currency of LNA availability; embargo periods are of special concern .
    3. Availability of back-file coverage.
  6. Timeliness.
  7. Language and country of origin. Sources in Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish are currently available in LNA. Additional sources in these languages should complement current database, while still meeting other selection criteria.
  8. Depth of access (full-text, rolling archives/embargoes)
    1. Priority to be given to sources available in full-text.
    2. Selected full-text, abstracts, rolling archives, embargoed titles, and other titles with limited availability in LNA (usually related to licensing agreements with source) should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
    3. Availability of back-file coverage.
  9. Availability in other databases. LNA makes every attempt to have relevant, unique sources, not available in other databases. However, duplicate titles available in other databases also have value, as not all libraries can afford multiple, large, information databases.




Footnotes:

1 LexisNexis Academic is priced on a per student FTE (full time equivalent) basis to accommodate library budgets large and small. LNA is committed to delivering the highest quality product while maintaining low, per student costs. The CDP must take into account licensing costs when acquiring material for LNA, in order that no unnecessary costs are passed on to the users.

2 As of September 15, 2006

3 Content roll-outs: content acquired by LexisNexis Group for any of the various business, legal, and other databases. To be included in LexisNexis Academic database, the license agreement must allow use in academic markets.