ScienceDirect/Elsevier numbering Sophie Bradford 27 Aug 2003 13:22 UTC

[Apologies for cross posting]

I wonder if anyone has noticed discrepancies on Science Direct between the
way the journal is numbered in print form, and the way they are numbered on
the electronic version, via SD? Although it is not uncommon for
aggregators/host sites to modify such aspects as titles, numbering etc. it
seems that this could get confusing for readers, especially for those
trying to cite references from a particular journal. In most cases, the
content for the print and the electronic are the same (although there may
be various extras available from the e-journal) so do people agree that one
would want to be able to give a citation which would be applicable to the
content, whatever the format? I have tried to contact Science Direct and
Elsevier to find out whether they have a policy of keeping the
numbering/titles the same, but have had no response.

An example of this is the journal 'Card Technology Today'
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09652590): available
electronically from (as listed on the SD contents page) vol. 12, issue 1
Jan. 2000. However, when you look at this particular issue via the PDF
format the numbering in the top right hand corner of the page is: vol.
11, no. 5 Dec. 1999/Jan. 2000. I am assuming this is the original print
numbering but why should SD give a different numbering on the e-contents
page?

Another example concerns the title 'Comptes rendus de l'Academie des
Sciences - Series IIB - Mechanics, physics, chemistry, astronomy'
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/12518069)
This journal changed its title at least 4 times in print, and while each
one of these changes is reflected on the SD content (a separate
webpage for each title), for some reason which I cannot work out, they have
made the numbering with which the title changed different from that of the
print. Aside from the confusion this may cause to the reader, it also makes
them tricky to catalogue if a) you are using the separate record approach
and b) following the recent 'aggregator-neutral' rules issued by CONSER. I
would be very interested to know if anyone else has come across this, or
had any information from Science Direct/Elsevier.

Many thanks,
Sophie Bradford

-------------------------------------------

Sophie Bradford
Electronic Journals Cataloguer
Room 316
New Bodleian Library
Broad Street
Oxford OX1 3BG

Tel:01865 277095