Thursday, 5 August, 1999
Fellow Annelidans!
For those who have been frustrated over various aspects of Zoological
Record, here is a chance to be heard.
Greetings from a pleasantly sunny and summery Denmark,
Mary
Mary E. Petersen
Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen
Mepetersen at zmuc.ku.dk
-----Original Message-----
From: Alma Swan [SMTP:a.swan at ZETNET.CO.UK]
<mailto:[SMTP:a.swan at ZETNET.CO.UK]>
Sent: 05 August 1999 13:54
To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG <mailto:TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Subject: Zoological record
Hi folks,
I am trying to give some advice to the people at Zoological record about
how people use their service and how it could be improved. If anyone uses
ZR, or is a lapsed user of ZR, I'd be grateful for any comments you have in
the following areas:
1. What are the main problems associated with the product (e.g. time lag
before articles get indexed, coverage, lack of abstract, no author
addresses etc)?
2. What are the main advantages of the product for you? (these should
be things you wouldn't like to see change, so for example if you like the
print format or if you DON'T want to see extra information such as author
addresses added to each entry, these are the sort of comments I'd like to
know). Is the long back-run (to 1865, I think) important for your work?
3. Delivery. Is print OK still, or is there a massive demand for Web
delivery? If so, would there be any scope for selling access to PARTS of
ZR to you as an individual or to your work group, especially if your library
has already - or is thinking of - cancelling the subscription?
4. What are the alternative products that work for you (or not).
And any other comments about improvements, etc.......
Thanks for any help you can give.
Alma Swan, PhD.
[A. Swan e-mail is <a.swan at ZETNET.CO.UK>]
-- ANNELIDA LIST
Discuss = <annelida at net.bio.net> = talk to all members
Server = <biosci-server at net.bio.net> = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/
Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html
--
