To all,

I just want to say thanks for all the input on Scopus. We are currently
trialing this product, and Elsevier staff is coming in on Friday for a
training session.  I have been adding all of your comments into our
Sharepoint discussion area hoping that they will help us when decision
time comes around.  As far as being suspicious...I would rather be
suspicious and hesitant than otherwise. We try to suspend all judgments,
listen to and examine each product with an open attitude but also with
our radar screens activated.  Limited budgets and rising costs
necessitate such a position.

Thanks to all,
Carmel Yurochko
Serials/E.R. Librarian
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh, PA

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 10:31 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: [SERIALST] My last post on this topic (RE: [SERIALST] Scopus
and conflict-of-interest)

>   I think if you are going to investigate the quality of the product
> empirically you are going to have to start with a set of null
> hypotheses and suspicion of Elsevier's game plan is one acceptable
> catalyst for same.  Charity is a virtue, but so is prudence.

The key word there is "catalyst."  By no means am I saying that we
shouldn't be suspicious of Scopus.  Please, be suspicious.  What I _am_
saying is that expressing suspicion about Scopus is not the same thing
as actually advancing an argument about it.

Suspicion is a feeling about what one's opinion might be if one took the
trouble to actually examine the product.  Saying "I'm suspicious" isn't
very useful.  Examining the product and then expressing an informed
opinion, on the other hand, is.

OK, I'm done.

----
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 784-6500 x273
rickand@unr.edu