WorldCat and SkyRiver
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5860/lrts.58n3.178Abstract
In 2009, a new company, SkyRiver, began offering bibliographic utility services to libraries in direct competition to OCLC’s WorldCat. This study examines the differences between the two databases in terms of hit rates, total number of records found for each title in the sample, number of non-English language records, and the presence and completeness of several elements in the most-held bibliographic record for each title. While this study discovered that the two databases had virtually the same hit rates and record fullness for the sample used—with encoding levels as the sole exception—the study results do indicate meaningful differences in the number of duplicate records and non-English-language records available in each database for recently published scholarly monographs.
References
(2013) nJudy Janes, '“SkyRiver or OCLC?”' Spectrum Online () November 21, 2011, accessed March 1, 2013, n'“OCLC: Is Its Future Up in the Clouds?”' Searcher (: 2012): 22-23nBrian Kenney, '“Being Innovative,”' Library Journal () 129, no. 14 (2004): 38–39, accessed May 3, 2013, nMeredith Schwartz, Bob Warburton, '“III Drops OCLC Suit, Will Absorb SkyRiver,”' Library Journal () 138, no. 6 (2013): 12, accessed May 3, 2013, nJoshua Barton, Lucas Mak, '“SkyRiver at Michigan State University Libraries: A Brief Overview,”' ALCTS Newsletter Online 21, no. 2 (2010), accessed April 25, 2013, n () accessed May 7, 2013, nDavid Rapp, '“SkyRiver, Donohue Group Announce Partnership,”' Library Journal 137 no. 2 (2012): 18n () accessed April 14, 2014, n () accessed May 7, 2013, n“SkyRiver.”n“OCLC,” 22–23nDavid Bade, '“The Perfect Bibliographic Record: Platonic Ideal, Rhetorical Strategy or Nonsense?”' Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 46 no. 1 (2008): 109-33nJay Shorten, Michele Seikel, Janet Ahrberg, '“Why Do You Still Use Dewey?”' Library Resources & Technical Services 49 no. 2 (April 2005): 123-36nRosemary E. Ross, '“A Comparison of OCLC and WLN Hit Rates for Monographs and an Analysis of the Types of Records Retrieved,”' Information Technology & Libraries 12 no.3 (1993): 359-60nDiane Hillman, Christopher Sugnet, '“Comparison of OCLC and RLIN: A Question of Quality,”' Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 4 no. 1 (1983): 70nSheila Intner, '“Much Ado about Nothing: OCLC and RLIN Cataloging Quality,”' Library Journal 114 no. 2 (1989): 38nIbid., 39–40nRoss, “Comparison of OCLC and WLN,” 355–59nWilliam E. Moen, '“Catalogers’ Use of MARC Content Designation over Time: An Analysis of MARC Records from 1972 to 2004,” 8, in' MARC Content Designation Utilization: Inquiry and Analysis (2007): accessed September 30, 2013, www.mcdu.unt.edu/wp-content/CatalogersUseOverTime_Final_30Dec2007.pdfn () OCLC, accessed March 14, 2014, nGlenn Patton, '“Posting to OCLC-CAT' () February 26, 2009,” accessed May 7, 2013, n'“SkyRiver at Michigan State University Libraries.”'nJanes, “SkyRiver or OCLC?”n () “SWAN Administrators’ Quarterly Meeting Minutes, March 3, 2011,” accessed April 25, 2013, n () August 1, 2012,” accessed April 25, 2013, n“Skyriver.”n () ” OCLC, accessed March 14, 2014, n“SkyRiver.”nJanes, “SkyRiver or OCLC?”; Barton and Mak, “SkyRiver at Michigan State University Libraries.”n“SWAN minutes”; “South Central minutes.”nPatton, “Posting to OCLC-CAT.”n () accessed March 10, 2014, nBecky Culberson, Yael Mandelstam, George Prager, '“Provider-Neutral E-Monograph MARC Record Guide,”' () accessed March 10, 2014, n“SkyRiver.”nJanes, “SkyRiver or OCLC?”n 'OCLC Global Advisory Group on Credits and Incentives, “Final Report,”' () accessed May 5, 2013. n
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after it has been accepted for publication. Sharing can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
