Should a Single-Publisher Platform be Called a “Database”?

Another interesting discussion recently took place on the CHMINF listserv that tried to differentiate between publisher compilations and databases.  This topic is very relevant to patent searchers, since we are constantly trying to locate comprehensive, reliable sources of non-patent scientific literature that can be used as prior art.  If a patent searcher believes that they are accessing a comprehensive database that covers a wide range of materials, and the database is actually limited to only journal articles and books produced by a single publisher, then the searcher may overlook crucial non-patent literature (NPL) prior art if they focus the search on that one database.  A patent searcher should always look at multiple databases so as not to overlook any relevant NPL.  It makes the searcher’s job easier to access a platform that covers a wide range of publishers and journal titles, instead of only works by a single publisher.

After the jump, we’ll look at some of the highlights from the debate on the CHMINF listserv, try to define a database and a publisher compilation, and look at some examples of these single-publisher platforms.

Are you keeping up with the latest non-patent literature developments?

Does anybody else out there read the InfoToday newsbreaks or EcontentMag regularly? Information Today, Inc. hosts these great news services – you can subscribe via e-mail or get them in your RSS reader. Whenever I find out about a new development from a “non-patent” search provider, chances are it’s on their news feeds. There are lots of recent developments in the non-patent arena that I wanted to highlight:  Wiley replaces Interscience with a new platform, Elsevier releases SciVerse to aggregate all of their science search platforms, and ProQuest rolls out the much anticipated “ProQuest Dialog” platform.