Desire | Research, Deliverables: D3.4 Information Gateways Handbook, Peer review

	About Us	News	Services	Research	Subject Gateways
	\| Working Papers \| Publications \| Demonstrators \| Software \| Deliverables \|

Research: Deliverables: D3.4 Information Gateways Handbook: Peer review 1

Peer Review Report

Project Number:	RE 4004 (RE)
Project Title:	DESIRE II - Development of a European Service for Information on Research and Education II
Deliverable Number:	(D3.4)
Deliverable Title:	Information Gateways Handbook v1.0
Deliverable Type:	(PU)
Deliverable Kind:	(RE)

Principal Reviewer:	Name	Toini Alhainen
	Address	P.O Box 35 FIN-40351 Jyväskylä, Finland
	E-Mail	Toini.alhainen@library.jyu.fi
	Telephone	+358 14 260 3384
	Fax	+358 14 2603371
	Credentials	M.A. University of Jyväskylä, Chief of Information Service Department, in Jyväskylä University Library (1964 -), project co-ordinator in Finnish Virtual Library Project (1996 -), taking part in two projects of FinELib - National Electronic Library (1999)
Other Reviewers:	(if relevant)
Summary:	Relevant	4 (1 = poor, 5 = excellent)
	State-of-Art	5
	Meets Objectives	5
	Clarity	4
	Value to Users	5
Specific Criticisms	1	- see the free text comments
Developer Response:		We will address the points raised in this review over the next month, when some minor modifications are made to the handbook and some additional content added. All the issues raised here will be addressed in V2.0 of the handbook The issues raised in connection with the reviewers project will be addressed as a priority.

Some general comments on chapters 1 and 2 of the Desire-handbook

This handbook seems to contain excellent and complete instructions on all the things you have to take into consideration when you start to set up a Subject Gateway. In addition to this kind of general handbook, every Subject Gateway also needs its own specific guidebook which contains instructions that have been drawn up for that particular service and which are to be followed in that service. The examples in this handbook provide a good basis for that. It is also excellent and very practical, that the handbook has specified target groups, which means that not everything is meant for everybody ( e.g. technical aspects, content issues, management).

The handbook is very extensive and in places maybe too detailed, so that essential contents get lost in all the explanations. In some places the book is also perhaps too educational, e.g. concerning information searching on the Internet. The book is not meant for laymen, so it could perhaps rely more on the expertise of information specialists. Precise instructions and warnings are of course all right for the training of new employees. Numerous examples with their www-addresses make the contents more concrete but the updating of the book may cause problems. Elements that increase the clarity of the handbook are for example chapters: conclusions, recommendations, tips.

If the Subject Gateway you are setting up is multi-disciplinary, you have to also take into account the differences between disciplines when defining the material types, for example tests, standards and patents are only an essential part of some disciplines. In Subject Gateways, classification is mostly used for browsing purposes. Therefore it is best to use classifications that are typically used in each discipline, interoperability is not so important in this respect. I think, cross-searching is more important than cross-browsing. Therefore it is more important when thesauri and glossaries are chosen as indexing tools.

When a Subject Gateway is set up, the functioning of its different parts has to be tested using a small (but adequate) sample. Continuous user-feedback is very important. If a Subject Gateway is multi-disciplinary, the different disciplines cannot be perfectly balanced in terms of quantity, because there are differences in the amount of materials available in different subject areas.

Cooperation is of vital importance in the construction of a multi disciplinary Subject Gateway since one department can seldom provide all the expertise needed. Decision-making models have to be agreed upon when planning the activity and also after it has been initiated. Decisions on instructions and matters concerning the Subject Gateway in general should be based on the best expertise and democratic practices. Instructions (e.g. cataloguing instructions) should be drawn up by a team of experts. According to our experiences, e-mail via a closed mailing list is an excellent means in the management of Subject Gateways and as a discussion forum especially in a decentralized Subject Gateway model.

I hope that this handbook encourages people to set up Subject Gateways, and that those who are interested are not disheartened by the potential difficulties and problems brought up in the book. Because you also learn from your mistakes and you can hardly make it your goal to produce a service which is perfect and flawless in every respect. The handbook could maybe be more encouraging (or maybe it is not meant to be that). It could also encourage you to start with a small, central set of material, for a Subject Gateway is never ready. It has to be complemented and altered all the time.

Some corrections concerning The Finnish Virtual Library Project:

we have started the project 1996
it is partly funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education
now we have produced more than 50 virtual libraries
our project takes part in the Nordic Novagate cooperation
now we have in the Finnish Virtual Library 6 databases, and 4 of them are ROADS-based gateways