Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The paper analyzes the journal evaluation criteria used to create the third edition of a core list of veterinary serials to determine the impact of each criterion on the final composition of the list in order to assess the value of using multiple criteria in creating a core list. METHODS: Three additional lists were generated from criteria that were previously combined to prepare the third edition of the "Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials": a list based on journal recommendations from veterinary specialty organizations, another list based on journals selected by veterinary librarians, and a list based on both indexing coverage and scholarly rank. The top fifteen journals in each of the three lists were then compared to reveal potential biases. Subject representation on the full lists generated by each of these methods was also compared. RESULTS: The list based on journal recommendations from veterinary specialty organizations exhibited a focus on clinically relevant titles. The list based on veterinary librarian recommendations resulted in the broadest subject coverage. The list based on indexing and scholarly rank, while emphasizing research titles, produced the largest number of unique titles. CONCLUSION: A combination approach that includes objective evaluation measures and practical input, whether from librarians or discipline experts, can improve coverage and can result in a list that balances research-based with clinical practice journals.