A number of problems were encountered when matching by title, which may have reduced the number of matches achieved. The BL comparison suggested that automated matching was more successful using ISSNs rather than titles. Unfortunately, many of the lists did not include this data. Therefore, given the data available, it was decided to undertake some comparison using sampling techniques. The results were quite surprising and suggested that the overlap between different collections is not as extensive as initially might have been thought.
Further analysis is to gain results that are more valid statistically.
A sample comparison between titles held at the NHM and two institutions was undertaken. A large specialist collection, Oxford University Plant Sciences Library and a smaller specialist Library, the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, were chosen. Oxford was chosen because ISSN data was available and so a match on this field could be undertaken. The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology was chosen because it was a relatively small collection and the titles could be compared manually with the NHM collection. A simple comparison between the number of current titles received at each library revealed that the NHM collection was by far the largest.