{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02265625, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003125, 'mean_word_length': 5.373134328358209, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of Three Library and Information Science Databases

The focus of this study was to compare Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA), Library Literature & Information Science Full-Text Articles (LLISFT), and Information Science & Technology Abstracts (ISTA) scholarly databases. Five different search strategies were used to identify differences among the three library and information science (LIS) databases’ coverage of selected topics and the degree of overlap in the coverage of those topics. This study used similar search strategies as a previous LIS database comparison study by Read and Smith (2000) so that results over time selected topics among the three LIS databases. While LISTA has the widest range of subject coverage, ISTA has greater strength of coverage of technology-related topics, and LLISFT has greater strength of coverage in more traditional library-related topics. Since LISTA has the broadest range of coverage, it would be a logical choice for libraries that can only afford a subscription to one LIS database. Libraries that support LIS degree program should consider subscription to all three databases to ensure coverage of technical topics as well as more traditional topics related to library programs and services.