In April 2004, many health sciences collection management librarians were dismayed to hear that, with Dorothy Hill's retirement, the Brandon/Hill lists were being discontinued after forty years. Doody Enterprises, in less than six months, decided to compile and publish an annual list by the end of the year to help medical librarians manage their collections in the wake of the end of the Brandon/Hill lists. Under the direction of an impressive list of sixteen library professionals on the Library Board of Advisors, Doody's has published a useful and well-organized collection management tool that includes a helpful “score” for each title. Doody's Core Titles in the Health Sciences (DCT) features 1,912 titles in 119 specialties in clinical medicine, basic sciences, nursing, allied health, and associated health professions. A title may appear in more than one category. The two main headings (under which the specialties appear) are health sciences and nursing.
The selection of titles for DCT was a 3-step process. First, 92 content specialists—academically affiliated medical, nursing, and allied health school faculty—compiled the first draft of core titles, using primarily the last edition of the Brandon/Hill lists, Doody's database of titles, and their own expertise to add titles. Second, a panel of 1 to 3 library selectors, reviewed each specialty in the list and added titles. Third, the library selectors scored each title on a scale of 0 to 3 based on key collection development criteria: authoritativeness of author(s) and publisher, scope and coverage of the subject matter, quality of content, usefulness/purpose, and value for the money. All selection and scoring participants signed disclosure agreements and were not compensated.
Titles with a score of 3.0 make up 17.5% of the titles (344) on the DCT list and are visually designated with an “essential core title” symbol. Another 703 titles have a score of between 2.6 and 2.9, and these are visually designated as “key core titles.” Doody's has also compiled some interesting tables that break down the number of titles by category as well as provide an average cost for the core titles.
DCT via the Web provides valuable features, such as being able to sort each specialty by author, title, score, copyright year, or price. Additionally, users can select an “expanded view” that makes browsing online easier. Future DCT editions are expected to have additional functionality, such as a searchable interface, the ability to download the list into a spreadsheet format, and the ability to more easily navigate the alphabetical list of titles. A downloadable portable document format (PDF) version is currently available.
All the names of the content specialists and library selectors (and the specialties they scored) are available for examination prior to purchasing the DCT. However, they are listed alphabetically by name and not by specialty. The option to view the selectors and scorers by specialty would be helpful. It should be noted that Doody's editorial staff served as the content specialists for eight subjects (allergy/clinical immunology, anatomy/ physiology, dental auxiliaries, emergency medicine, ophthalmology, podiatry, respiratory therapy, and theory), because volunteers could not be found for these subject areas. Additionally, one glaring omission from the subjects is the area of health policy/reform. The DCT has a managed care category, but it does not include broader titles on health policy or reform. For libraries collecting in public health and policy, adding this category to DCT would be beneficial.
The greatest strengths of the DCT are the comprehensiveness of the list and the participation of a large number of professionals. It is a very useful collection management tool and well worth the reasonable price.