Thursday, July 16, 2015

5 things Google Scholar does better than your library discovery service

I have had experience implementing Summon in my previous institution and currently have some experience with EDS and Primo (Primo Central).

The main thing that struck me is that while they have differences (eg. Default Primo interface is extremely customizable though requires lots of work to get it into shape, while Summon is pretty much excellent UI wise out of the box but less customizable,  EDS is basically Summon but with tons of features already included in the UI), they pretty much have the same strengths and weaknesses via Google Scholar.

So far, my experience with faculty here in my new institution is similar to that from my former's, more and more of them are shifting towards Google Scholar and even Google.

Though Web scale discovery is our library's current closest attempt at mimicking Google Technology it is still different it is in the differences that Google Scholar shines.

Why is Google Scholar, a daring of faculty?

To anticipate the whole argument, Google Scholar serves one particular use case very well - the need to locate recent articles and to provide a comprehensive search.

While library discovery services are hampered by not just technological issues but also the need to balance support for various use cases including the need to support known item searching for book titles, journal titles and database titles.

It is no surprise a jack of all trades tool comes out behind.

Here are some things Google Scholar does better.


1. Google Scholar updates much quicker

One feedback I tend to get is from faculty asking me why their paper (often hot off the press) wasn't appearing in the discovery service.

In the early days of library discovery service, often the journal title simply wasn't covered in the index, so that was that.

These days more often than not the journal title would be listed as covered in the index particularly if it was a well known mainstream journal. So why wasn't the particular article in the discovery service?

Unfortunately, typically I would discover the issue lies with the recency of the article. The article was so new it didn't appear in the discovery service index yet.

Yet I would notice time and time again for example whenever an article appeared on say Springer, within a day or two it would appear in Google Scholar while it would take over a month if that to appear in our discovery service index.

Google Scholar simply updates very quickly using it's crawlers compared to library discovery services which may use other slower methods to update.

Also I have found library discovery services may often not index "early access/edition" versions, while Google Scholar, whose harvesters seem to happily grab anything on the allowed publisher domain have less issues.

The discovery service providers might argue, Google Scholar tends to employ almost zero human oversight and quality control and that as such they provide less accurate results.

This may be so, but it's unclear if the trade-off is worth it, in today's fast paced world where excited faculty just want to see the article with their name appear.


2. Covers scholarly material not on usual "Scholarly" sources   

Besides speed of updates, Google Scholar shines in identifying and linking to Scholar material even if they are not found in the usual publisher domains.

Take the experience back in 2014 of a Library Director who was trying to access a hot new paper on "Evaluating big deal journal bundles".

The library director was smart enough to know it wouldn't appear in the discovery service and so did an ILL for the article and it turns out she could have just used Google Scholar to find a free PDF that the author linked off his homepage.

Here we see the great ability of  Google Scholar's harvester to spot "Scholarly" papers (famously with some false positives), even if it resides on non-traditional sites. For instance it can link to pdfs that authors have linked off their personal homepages (which may or may not be university domains).

This is something none of our library discovery services even attempt to do. In general our discovery services build their index at a higher level of aggregation, typically at journal level or database level, so there is no way it would spot individual papers sitting on some domain.

3. Greater and more reliable coverage of Open Access and free sources

It's a irony that I find discovery services generally have much poorer coverage of Open Access than Google Scholar.

Most discovery services have indexed DOAJ (Directory of Open access Journal), but many libraries experience so bad linking experience (linking may not be at article level and/or lead to broken links), they just turn it off. (Discovery indexes that cover OAIster might have better luck?)

How about institutional repositories? Something created and managed by Libraries? On most discovery services, you typically can add only contents of your own institutional repository and you have a very limited selection of other institution repositories on the same discovery service you can add

Typically you can add only the libraries that have volunteered to open their institutional repositories to other customers on the same discovery service and this is a very short list (probably a dozen or so).

The list is even shorter when you realise some of these institutions are not wholly full text and the discovery service makes it difficult to offer only full text items from these Institutional repositories when you activate them, so you are eventually forced to turn them off.

I am not well versed enough with institutional repositories and OAI-PMH to understand why there is so much difficulty to figure out which items listed in them are full text or not, but all I can say is Google Scholar's harvesters have no such issues identifying free full text and making it available. I would add some of it is not quite legal (look at the pdfs in academia.edu, researchgate etc surfacing in Google Scholar).

Reason #2 and #3 above is the main reason why Google Scholar is by far the most efficient way to find free full text and why apps like Google Scholar Chrome button and Lazy Scholar are so useful.


4. Better Relevancy due to technology and the need to just support article searching

Going through the few head to head comparisons between Google Scholar and discovery services in the literature (refer to the excellent - Discovery Tools, a Bibliography), it's hard to say which one is superior in terms of relevancy, though Google Scholar does come up on top a few times.

My own personal experience is Google Scholar does indeed have some "secret source" that makes it do better ranking. There are many reasons to suspect it is better from the fact it can personalize, uses many more signals (particularly the network of links and link text) and just sheer technical know-how that made it the world's premier Search company.

A somewhat lesser often expressed reason why Google Scholar seems to do so well is that unlike library discovery services, Google Scholar is designed for one primary use case - to allow users to find primarily journal literature.

A library discovery services on the hand according to Exlibris has 5 possible cases



I would argue library discovery services are handicapped because they need to handle at the very least "Access to known book or journal" + "Find materials for a course assignment" + "Locate latest articles in the field".

Trying to balance all these cases simultaneously (which includes ranking totally different material types such as Books/articles/DVDs/Microforms etc) results in a relevancy ranking that can be mediocre compared to one that is optimised just for finding relevant journal articles aka Google Scholar.

During the early days of library web scale discovery, libraries and discovery service vendors learnt a costly lesson that despite the name "Discovery", a large proportion of searches (I see around 50% in most studies) was for known items. This included known items of book titles, journal titles and database titles.

Not catering for such users would typically lead to great unhappiness, so you started seeing many discovery service vendors working on their relevancy to support known item searching and adding features like featured boxes, recommenders to help with this.

All this meant that library web scale discovery services would always be a disadvantage compared to Google Scholar which focused on one main goal , discovery of articles as nobody goes to Google Scholar to look for known book titles, journal titles or database titles.

They do go to Google Scholar for known article title searches but "ranking" of such queries is easy given how unique and long the titles tend to be. In any case, doing well for article known item search is less a matter of ranking and more a matter of ensuring the article needed is in the index and as we have seen above Google Scholar is superior in terms of coverage due to broader sources and faster updates.


5. Nice consistent features

Google Scholar has a small but nice set of features. It has a "related articles" function, you won't find in most web scale discovery services unless you subscribe to BX recommender.

Many users like the "Cited by" function. Your library discovery service doesn't come with that natively, though mutual customers of Scopus or Web of Science can get citation networks from those two databases.

Because Google Scholar creates their own citation network, they can not only rank better but also provide the very popular Google Scholar Citations service. Preliminary results from this survey, seems to indicate Google Scholar citations profile are popular then on Academia.edu, Researchgate etc.

But more important than all this is the fact that it is worth while to invest in mastering Google Scholar. All major academic libraries will support Google Scholar via library links/open url, so you can carry this with you no matter which institution you are at.

On the other hand, if you invest in learning the library discovery service interface at your current institution, there's no guarantee you will have access to the same system at your next institution given that there are four major discovery services on the market (not counting libraries that use discovery service apis to create their own interfaces).


Conclusion

Does this mean library web scale discovery are useless? Not really.

I would argue that web scale discovery tools are designed to be versatile.

While they may come up second best in the following cases


  • In-depth literature review (both Google Scholar and Subject indexes are superior to web scale discovery in different ways)
  • Known item search for books/journal titles/database titles (Catalogues and A-Z journals and database lists are superior)


There are no other tools that can be "pretty good" in all these tasks, hence their popularity with undergraduates who want a all-in-one tool.

Can we solve this issue of being jack of all trades but master of none?

One interesting idea I have heard and read about in various conferences including Ebscohost's webinars was the idea of a popup appearing after entering the keyword and clicking search, asking the user whether he was trying to find a known item or a subject search or any other scenarios and based on the answer the search would execute differently.

Somehow though I suspect it might get annoying fast.








Sunday, May 31, 2015

Rethinking Citation linkers & A-Z lists (I)

I am right now involved in helping my current institution shift towards a new Library Service Platform and discovery service (Alma and Primo) and this has given me an opportunity once again to rethink traditional library tools like citation linkers, A-Z journal and databases lists.

It's pretty obvious such tools need a refresh as they were created

  • before Google/Google Scholar and web scale discovery.
  • in an era where electronic was not yet hugely dominant.


For this post, I will discuss citation linkers and how some vendors or libraries have attempted to update it for the current new environment of discovery followed by a further post on  ideas to update the A-Z database and journal list.


Citation linkers - a outdated tool?


The idea of citation linker (sometimes known as citation finder or article finder) function was meant to be straight forward. You entered a reference and the library would hopefully link you to full text of an article via the library's openurl resolver.

Most link resolvers such as ExLibris's SFX, Innovative's Web Bridge, Ebsco's Linksource etc offer a variant of such a tool.

Below we see some typical citation linkers across different vendors.





Typical citation linker from Proquest's 360 link




Typical SFX citation linker




Typical EBSCO LinkSource Citation finder




Typical Alma Uresolver Citation linker





I first encountered this tool myself pretty late in 2012, when implementing the suite of then Serialssolutions (now Proquest) services including Summon and 360link in my former institution.

Initially, I was totally confused by the fact that simply entering the article title alone would not work! You had to painstakingly enter various pieces of information which even then would often fail to work, depending on the accuracy of the citation fields you entered.

My confusion is understandable because I came upon this tool after the rise of web scale discovery where entering an article title was usually sufficient to get to the full text.

Even after I grasped the concept of how it worked, I realized how unlikely a user would be willing to use it, much less successfully use it since it was much easier to just enter the article title in Google Scholar or a library discovery service.

Sure as I discussed in Different ways of finding a known article - Which is best? way back in 2012, searching by article title via Discovery index has drawbacks (eg it can't find non-indexed items) but it is far easier and more convenient for the user and if there is anything I learnt in my years working in the library, convenience tends to trump everything else.


Can we improve on it? Autocomplete to the rescue


How would I create a citation linker 2.0?

A obvious improvement would to be to work on UX.

One study on the usability of the SFX citation linker  noted that while users who tried finding articles via the Journal A-Z list had issues, it was even worse when using the citation linker.

They suggested improving the usability of the tool by removing unnecessary fields such as author and article title fields which were usually not used for openurl resolution.

Georgia Tech Library seems to have followed this recommendation, as unlike the default sfx link finder
they hid the various author fields (first name, last name, initial) etc








A more interesting proposal to improve the tool was made by Peter Murray way back in 2006 entitled A Known Citation Discovery Tool in a Library2.0 World

"The page also has an HTML form with fields for citation elements. As the user keys information into the form fields, AJAX calls update the results area of the web page with relevant hits. For instance, if a user types the first few letters of the author’s last name, the results area of the web page shows articles by that author in the journal. (We could also help the user with form-field completion based on name authority records and other author tables so that even as the user types the first few letters of the last name he or she could then pick the full name out of a list.) With luck, the user might find the desired article without any additional data entry!"

Essentially he is suggesting that each of the fields in the citation linker would have autocomplete features via ajax which helps the user as well as adding a "Results area" which displays likely articles that the user is searching for. He goes on to suggest similar ideas for various fields such as volume and issue fields.

"Another path into the citation results via the link resolver: if a user types the volume into the form field, the AJAX calls cause links to appear to issues of that volume in addition to updating the results to a reverse chronological listing of articles. If a user then types the issue into the HTML form field or clicks the issue link, the results area displays articles from that issue in page number order. Selecting the link of an article would show the list of sources where the article can be found (as our OpenURL resolvers do now), and off the user goes."

At the time of the proposal, such a feature was not possible because it would require a large article index to draw results from. Today we of course have web scale discovery systems.




Auto parsing of citations 


One of the weaknesses of citation linkers is that it requires the user to parse the citation and enter each piece of information one by one into various fields. Not all users are capable of that or even patient enough to do that.

Why not simply allow users to cut and paste the citation and let the software figure it all out?





Brown University's free cite tool, allows you to toss in a citation and it will try to parse out each citation field. I believe there are a few other similar tools out there. The logical idea of course is to use this parsed output to fill in the citation linker field.

This is exactly what UIUC Journal and Article Linker tries to do.







A interesting variant of this is done by EBSCO.

EBSCO has an app called EBSCO Citation Resolver  via it's new Orbit platform, an Online Catalog of EBSCO Discovery Service™ Apps.



This uses the above mentioned Brown University's Free cite to parse references but instead of passing over the data to a traditional citation linker to try to get to the full text via OpenURL as UIUC does, it passes the data over to EDS itself.



As you can see above, the parsed information is sent to EDS for advanced searching using field searching.

We will get back to this example later.


Finding full text by text and voice recognition


Also why restrict oneself to cutting and pasting citations? What about other input methods? There used to be a ios app, I believe by Thompson Reuter's Web of Science that allowed you to take a photo of a reference and by the magic of OCR and text recognition combined with the citation parser, link you to the full text.

Unfortunately I lost track of that app but I recall it didn't work very well because it was limited to linking you to article entries in Web of Science and the text recognition combined with citation parser wasn't that good.

Still as technology advances I think the idea has legs. I have no doubt if Google desires, they can easily set this up to work with Google Scholar.

Now imagine combining this with voice commands such as Google Now, "Ok Google, find me such and such article by so and so in journal of abc".

Output accuracy should improve too.


Making it easy to input the citation is just one part of the equation, making sure full text can be reached is the other.

Coming back to the EBSCO Citation Resolver a interesting point to note is that after parsing the reference instead of passing it over to a citation linker such as their own Linksource citation finder (see below), it dumps the information into the discovery service Ebsco discovery service.


Parsed citation did not get passed to LinkSource's article finder


Why would one send the information to the discovery service and not the citation linker tool?

Part of the reason is that linking via OpenURL is often hit and miss in terms of linking to full text.

Some studies put full text linking success at around 80% of the time due to well known openurl issues which IOTA and KBART and are trying to solve.

Summon and EDS provide more stable forms of linking (often called direct linking that can work up to 95% of the time), which can be used whenever possible on-top of OpenURL. (Note : 360Link v2.0 provides the same type of direct linking as Summon)

Add the fact that automatic citation parser's is going to be somehwat inaccurate at text recognition, it might be easier to employ strategies that involve just extracting the author and article title to work with the discovery service , then trying to identify every citation field (eg vol, issue, page) to work with the full openurl resolver as the latter method is very error prone, requiring a large number of fields to be recognised correctly to work well.

That said as more citation styles require dois to be added, the work of parsing citation becomes easier as often the doi alone is sufficent to get to the full text. I also suspect the increased use of citations created by reference managers (eg Mendeley, Zotero) and the increased support of  Citation Style Language (CSL) for various styles may eventually make things more consistent and easier for the citation parser.

I can go further and imagine a hybrid system for output that would even work with Google Scholar for free pdfs + Web Scale Discovery direct linking + Openurl linking to give the best chance of reaching the full text.

You can see this hybrid multiple approach system somewhat in play in the Lazy Scholar extension (supports Chrome and Firefox) that checks Google Scholar for free full text and also offers openurl resolution.






This could work either the same way link resolver menus work now and display various options or there would be some intelligent system in the background deciding whether to use the discovery service or Google Scholar to find the full text (how likely was the first result in Summon say based on a title only phrase search the hit?) or to rely on traditional openurl resolution.


Conclusion


All in all though, I don't see much of a future for a stand-alone citation linker sitting on your website.

Few people have the patience to use it.

Ideally a web scale discovery service - basically the big 4 - Summon, EDS, Primo and Worldcat , should be built to handle cases when users copy and paste the whole citation. (I understand Primo has enhancements that handle it).

As it is, I notice the rise of such user behaviour in search logs of discovery services under my care. It's a small but significant amount, something noted in other studies that analyse discovery search logs.


Can Summon handle cutting and pasting full references?


Discovery services should definitely be trained to identify such cases and automatically call the citation linker function.

Perhaps the system would then try to

a) Recognise the likely type of material sought (book, book chapter, article etc)
b) Depending on material type, focus on identifying with high likelihood the title, doi, author etc.
c) Use either the discovery index, doi resolution or traditional openurl methods depending on a) and b)

I expect, usually the system would try a phrase search for an article title, perhaps further narrowed by author in the article index (the top match usually is highly likely to be the right one), sometimes it would resolve the doi and yet other times it would try the traditional citation finder method.

With tons of statistics on success rates, it might be possible to get a reasonably accurate system.

Depending on how certain you are on the model you are using, it could show all the options (similar to how link resolvers menus work now and in particular Umlaut is worth looking at), or it could just show the highest probability match.

Next up, do we really need A-Z database and A-Z Journal lists?

Friday, April 17, 2015

Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office - some improvements

I've recently been involved in analysing  LibQual+ Survey at my new institution and one of the things recommended nowadays when doing LIBQUAL analysis is to do a plot of performance of various items versus how important those items are to users.





Above we see sample data from Library Assessment and LibQUAL+®: Data Analysis


We proxy importance of a factor by the mean desire score on the vertical axis and the how well a factor is performing by the adequacy mean score on the horizontal axis, so the higher the dot the more important it is.

In the above sample data IC 1 or "Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office" is the 2nd to 3rd most important factor, and I suspect this is typical for most libraries.

Also do note that the analysis above is for to *all* users. Undergraduates traditionally have high desire for space, if we include only faculty, it will probably be even higher ranked.

LibQual questions can be hard to pindown on what they mean, though in this case, I would suspect it is the accessibility from home that is the issue. Currently, most forward looking academic libraries try to make access as seamless as possible by ip authentication in-campus so users don't need to use proxy methods within campus. (Expecting users to start from the library homepage to access resources is a futile goal)

Off campus access is more tricky since not all users will be informed enough or bother to VPN even if that is an option.


Meeting Researchers Where They Start: Streamlining Access to Scholarly Resources 

Is seamless access to library resources particularly off-campus really that difficult? Roger C. Schonfeld in the recent Meeting Researchers Where They Start: Streamlining Access to Scholarly Resources believes so. He wrote ,  "Instead of the rich and seamless digital library for scholarship that they need researchers today encounter archipelagos of content bridged by infrastructure that is insufficient and often outdated." 

He makes the following points
  • The library is not the starting point   
  • The campus is not the work location
  • The proxy is not the answer
  • The index is not current  (discovery services often have lag time compared to Google/Scholar)
  • The PC is not the device (despite the mobile push in the last 5 years, publisher interfaces are still not 100% polished) 
  • User accounts are not well implemented
Most of these points are not really new to many of us in academic libraries, though it is still worth a read as a roundup of issues researchers face.

Still the listing above misses one very important issue, that is the classic problem of the "Appropriate copy problem" that the openurl resolver was invented to fix. The key problem is that openurl still isn't widely implemented and while Google Scholar, supports it , Google itself doesn't and it is extremely easy to end up on an article abstract page without any opportunity to use openurl to get to the appropriate copy. More on that later.

BTW Bibliographic Wilderness responds to Roger Schonfeld from the library side of things, pointing out among other things the appropriate copy issue and difficulties of getting vendors to improve their UX (aka we can't cancel stuff based on UX!).


Shibboleth and vendor login pages

So what should be ideal view when a user lands on a article abstract page and needs to authenticate because he is off campus and/or without proxy? 

One way is Shibboleth but that is not something I have experience with but it seems it is poorly supported and as poor usability.  Without Shibboleth is there a way for vendors to make sign-ins easier when users are off campus and land directly on the article page without the proxy?

The way JSTOR has done it (for last 1-2 years?) has always impressed me. 



JSTOR will intelligently look at your ip and suggest institutions to login from. As far as I know you don't have to have Athens/Shibboleth or do anything special for this to work.


Recently Stephen Francoeur brought to my attention the following announcement from Proquest



Essentially the Proquest login screen is redesigned to make it simple to allow users to enter their institution and the system will attempt to authenticate you using the usual method.l

"Today we are debuting a simplified login experience for institutions that use a remote login method such as Proxy, Shibboleth, OpenAthens, or barcode to authenticate users into ProQuest (search.proquest.com/login)."

"To reduce this confusion, we've redesigned the login page (search.proquest.com/login) as shown below to make it easier for remote users to authenticate into ProQuest by adding the "Connect through your library or institution" form above the ProQuest account form. Further, remote users can select their institution on the login page, instead of having to click through to another page as they had to do previously. After users select their institution, they will be re-directed to the remote authentication method their institution set up with us."

Though it doesn't seem to suggest institutions, it's still fairly easy to use, just type in your institution and you will be asked to login (via ezproxy in my case).

Ebsco is another one that seems to make it possible to select your institution and login for full text but like the Proquest one above, I could never get it to work either at my old institution or new. This could be some configuration setting needed.



It's really amazing how few publishers follow the lead of JSTOR and Proquest. If the Elseviers/Sages etc of the world followed a similar format, I am sure there will be much less friction for accessing to paywall articles. Let's hope Proquest's move will lead to others converging to a similar login page, the way now many article databases look pretty much similar.


Appropriate copy problem revisited

Say most publishers start to wise up to UX matters and implement a login page like JSTOR so our users can select a institution and quickly get access. Will that solve every problem? Arguably no,

At my old institution, we had great success with promotion of the proxy bookmarklet, Libx etc to overcome proxy issues (part of it is because ALL access is through proxy whether in campus or off so the proxy bookmarklet would be essential all the time as long as you did not start from the library homepage) 

But even if a user was smart even to add the proxy string , that still led to a common problem.

Often even after proxying full access would still not be granted. The reason of course is because we may not have access to full text on that particular page but may have access somewhere else on another platform.

A classic example would be APA journals, where access would be available only via Psycharticles (which can be on Ovid or ebsco platform). Google results tend to favor publisher rather than aggregator sites, so one would often end up on a page where one would have access only via another site.

The more a academic library relies on aggregators like Ebsco or Proquest as opposed to publishers to supply full text the more the appropriate copy issue arises.

As mentioned before this issue can be solved if the user starts off searching at a source that supports openurl such as Google Scholar and access via the library links programme or even a reference manager like Mendeley. But with multiple ways of "discovery" you can't always guarantee this.

In fact, I am noticing the rise in number of people who tell me they don't even use Google Scholar but Google to find known item articles. Interestingly enough the recent ACRL 2015 proceedings Measuring Our Relevancy: Comparing Results in a Web-Scale Discovery Tool, Google & Google Scholar  finds that Google is even better than Google Scholar for known item searching. Google scored 91% relevancy in known item queries while Google Scholar and Summon both scored 74%!

If so, we will have ever increasing number of users who will land on article abstract pages without the opportunity of using link resolvers to find the appropriate copy.

Another example, I find many interesting articles including paywall articles via Twitter.  From the point of someone sharing, what is the right way to link it so others who will have different options for access will be able to get to it?

There's doesn't seem to be a obvious way (link via doi? link to a Google scholar search page?) and even if there was this would be troublesome to the sharer, so most of the time we end up with a link to a publisher version of the article which others may not be able to access.

 Lazy Scholar and the new Google Scholar Chrome extension

So what should we do, if we end up on a article page and we want to check access via our institution?

I've wrote about Libx before but my current favourite Chrome extension is Lazy Scholar, which I reviewed here. 

It exploits the excellent ability of Google Scholar to find free full text and also scrapes the link displayed by Google Scholar for the library link programme.

With more and more providers cooperating with Google Scholar (see the latest announcement by Proquest for Google Scholar to index full text from Proquest), Google Scholar is by far the largest storage of scholarly articles and every Scholar's first stop to check for the existence of an article.





Lazy Scholar automatically attempts to figure out if you are on a articles page and will search Google Scholar for the article and scrape what is available. In this case there is no free full text so it says no full text. But you can click on Ezproxy to proxy it or click on "Instit" which triggers the link resolver link found in Google Scholar (if any).

There are many other functions that the author has added to try to make the extension useful , I encourage you to try it yourself.

Interestingly in the last few days, Google themselves had a similar idea to help known item searches by exploiting the power of Google Scholar. They created the following Google Scholar Button extension.



It is very similar to Lazy Scholar but in the famous Google style a lot simpler.

On any page with an article, you can click on the button and it will attempt to figure out which article you are looking for an search for the title in Google Scholar and display the first result. This brings in all the usual goodies you can find in Google Scholar.



If the title detection isn't working or if you want to check for other articles say in the reference, you can highlight the title and click on the button.




It's interesting to see the future of both extensions, see here for a comparison between the features of Lazy Scholar vs Google Scholar button.


Conclusion

 "Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office" isn't as easy as it seems. A approach that combines

  • improved usability of publishers login pages
  • Plugins to support link resolvers and the ability to find free full text via Google Scholar
is probably the way to go for now, though even that doesn't address issues like seamless support for mobile etc. 

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

[Personal] Moving on from my first library job


After over 7 years of working at NUS, I am finally moving on.

I am very grateful for the opportunities given to me here and I have changed and grown far beyond I expected. This period has been by far the most eventful period in my life, I've changed so much I wager the newbie librarian who first stepped into NUS in 2007 could hardly recognise the person I am in 2015.


A much younger me, a few weeks after joining NUS in 2007



This is also the longest I have held any job so far, and I admit I have grown extremely comfortable to the culture, people and systems here. But I've always been driven by curiosity and the need to try new things and this has led to many new initiatives and even transfers to different departments to study the systems and procedures. But leaving NUS Libraries? That would be a far bigger change. 




Another early photo of me in NUS


So when the offer came from the Singapore Management University as Manager, Library Analytics, I was at a cross roads. I have always been impressed by the energy, passion and knowledge of the librarians at the Singapore Management University and I could see myself helping to make an impact working with such great colleagues. And yet there is of course the doubt that comes with any major change. Would I fit in? Could I adjust to a very different working style?

In many ways the safer choice would be to remain at NUS where I have been doing well and will probably continue to do well in the foreseeable future. But there are times in my life where you have to take risks to grow and I decided to push out of my comfort zone and accept the offer. Let's see what else I can learn elsewhere.

My last day

So on 23th Jan 2015, I came into NUS Libraries for my last official working day (was on leave for the next 4 weeks).

It was already a emotional week, after the announcement was publicly made. It was heartwarming to hear kind words from colleagues, staff and students (some of whom came as a surprise to me) who heard and reached out to say they appreciated what I had done and it made me feel that I had at least made a difference in my time here.

On my last working day, in an odd kind of symmetry in the morning I gave a final training/briefing session to the new librarians who were just starting their careers in NUS. [Another nice bit of symmetry, found out later that one of the new librarians was a former student who thanked me for some of the work we did 4 years back]. The rest of the day was spent saying goodbye to many colleagues who dropped by to chat and a final exit interview.

How did I feel on that last day? I felt a little like JD from Scrubs (a character I identify with a lot).




"Endings are never easy; I always build them up so much in my head they cant possibly live up to my expectations, and I just end up disappointed. I'm not even sure why it matters to me so much how things end here.

I guess its because we all want to believe that what we do is very important, that people hang onto our every word, that they care what we think. The truth is: you should consider yourself lucky if you even occasionally get to make someone, anyone, feel a little better. After that its all about the people that you let into your life.

And as my mind drifted to faces I've seen here before, I was taken to memories of family, of coworkers, of lost loves, even of those who left us. And as I rounded that corner, they all came at me in a wave of shared experience.

And even though it felt warm and safe, I knew it had to end. Its never good to live in the past too long.As for the future, thanks to Dan, it didn't seem so scary anymore. It could be whatever I wanted it to be."
So to the future I go! Wish me luck.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

A Bento style search in LibGuides v2




LibGuides V2 Search Display


Like many libraries right now, my institution is working towards upgrading to SpringShare LibGuides V2.

Update 15/1/2014 just went live!

Like many libraries, we took the opportunity to revamp many aspects of Libguides v2. One of the areas, we spent the most effort on was the front page.



What follows is a joint post by my colleague  Feng Yikang and myself


Designing the LibGuides home page






One of the main questions that vexed us was, what should the LibGuides homepage do? What purpose should it serve that distinguished it from the library home page?

Most academic libraries use the LibGuides home as a landing page to list all their libraries' subject guides and topic guides. That is certainly one option.

We went the other way and designed it as an alternative home for research oriented users. 

Like many academic libraries, our library homepage was designed before the current slew of expertise based services likeScholar communication/ Open Access support, GIS services etc was common place and there was little "real estate" to link to such services on the main library homepage.

Also arguably, it was difficult to justify adding a link to a niche service like Scholarly Communication from the library home page because the vast majority of users (undergraduates and graduate students) would never need to use it on the main library home.

Our LibGuides homepage could be the logical place to add such links.

Also we noticed from the chat queries received on the LibGuides homepage, the questions we received were a mixture of the following

a) Users want to figure out how to place a hold and how to locate the book they wanted. as well as problems with passwords - (The "Find Book" and "Password" boxes handle this)

b) Graduate students and above trying to figure out what library support services were available. Often it was a case of a new experienced graduate student or faculty trying to see if the specialised support service they enjoyed in their prior institution was available here. (The "Research support" box handles this)

c) Users looking for specialised librarians in their area to support them. (The pull down menus on the right support this).

As such we designed the LibGuides homepage to encourage browsing of such services.

The drop down menus on the right, help users quickly locate the appropriate subject librarians, while the other categories are carefully curated based on a combination of usage, chat queries asked and just plain old institution. 

The design is of course currently tentative, and will evolve with time. 


What about search? Bento style ?

Of course browsing is all very well, but we know a lot of people will just search. Handling LibGuides search is probably an issue that has always causes me some amount of headache.

In LibGuides v1, you could customize your search. So you could add a keyword search to any of the following

1) Libguides search
2) Libanswers (FAQ) search
3) Classic catalogue search
4) Web Scale discovery search - eg Summon

or pretty much any search you wanted as long as you could craft the right url.

Below is how it looked in our Libguides v1 search. I had hooked it up to multiple options including search our web scale discovery search (dubbed "FindMore@NUSL") as well as a Google site search of our web pages ("All Library Pages"). There were the normal options of searching within all guides as well.



The problem was which default search was the right one?

Like most libraries, I initially set the default to search "All Guides".  It was a search in Libguides, so you expected Libguides results right? What else could be simpler?

The problem is I did an analysis of the keywords that people did in LibGuides v1, a few years ago and though I don't have the analysis now, I remember roughly 90% of searches resulted in no hits.

Why? Because users were searching very specific searches like singapore chinese temple architecture.

Most of such searches had zero results. 




As a sidenote, the same keyword search in LibGuides v2, does yield results, it seems likely in LibGuides v2, there isn't strict AND boolean going on. I am not sure if this is a good idea, since the user may not be aware this is happening and be disappointed at totally irrelevant guides appearing.


Such searches would be yield reasonable hits if you did them in a Web Scale discovery system like Summon, but not in a LibGuides search.

The other issue I found with using the default LibGuides search was that people were found searching for specific book titles using title, isbn, issn etc eg. "1984", journal titles "Nature", or databases "Scopus" in the Libguides search. In other words they were treating the Libguides search like a catalogue search.

For the more obscure databases or journal titles and most certainly books that were not listed in LibGuides this often led to no results. 

Even if the guide happened to list the item the person was looking for say a database was listed in the guide, you still ran into a problem. 

Below shows a search for "Realis" (a local real estate database). 



It isn't very obvious that the subpage - Databases in the Real Estate Guide has a link to Realis.

Many users might even click on the topmost "Real estate" link and hunt for the Realis link on the home of the real estate guide, not realising it is in the databases page.

All these searches were very common in my logs, and explains why a default LibGuides only search was not always the best.


So what was the solution? 


The idea we had which seems obvious in hindsight was suggested by my colleague Yikang. I was telling him how many research intensive Universities like Duke, Colombia, Princetion are currently spotting bento style search results

Such bento style search results would display multiple boxes of different types of content. By entering keywords, users will be presented with a holistic spread of results including resources, services, library guides, FAQs or more. 

So one could display results not only from the LibGuides but also from Libanswers, Catalogue, article index of discovery services and more, fitting every need.

Yikang realised that LibGuides v2 allows one to customize the search result template and this made it possible to pull in bento style results.




Below show some results, when someone searches for "Systematic Review".







In our current simple implementation of Bento, we have the simple "Our Guides" box and  "FAQs" box,

In addition, we have three more boxes - "Our Suggestions" , "Library Catalogue" and "Articles" which comes directly from our Summon API. 

They are drawing respectively from Summon best bets, Search filtered to "Library catalog" and filtered to article-like content types.

How do they work together?


The leftmost and most prominent box feeds you with LibGuides as expected. This can display LibGuides that are not just disciplines or subject specific but can also cover services like EndNote, Bibliometrics, GIS etc.

Below shows someone searching for bibliometrics and a relevant guide surfaces plus other relevant material.







But what if the keyword does not allow any good LibGuides matches? Hence the existence of other boxes.

The "Library Catalogue" box helps resolves searches where people are searching for specific book titles, database titles and most known items etc. Below we see an example of searching by database (Business Source Premier) and searching by isbn.




Below shows a search by ISBN




The "Articles" box, would at least show some results if the user searches for something highly specific not covered by any guide, pulling in at least a few relevant articles or books.






"Our Recommendations" could be customized based on what users are searching. It could be used to cover cases not covered by the other boxes. 




"FAQ box" comes from Libanswers, and it helps resolve common policy and procedural questions.






Broad Implementation









For those interested in the details of setting, here is the report from my collegue Yikang. 

For this setup to work, I needed a proxy page, which will act as "middle-man" between our LibGuides page and the Summon server. 

Once a search query is entered into the LibGuides search page (A), a javascript sitting in the LibGuides search page will pass the query to this proxy server page (B), which will in turn parse the query to Summon server (C). 

The Summon server will then return the results in JSON format to the proxy server page (D), which will pass the results to the LibGuides search page (E) to be interpreted and displayed (F). 


The really difficult part was setting up the proxy server page as coding the proxy server page from scratch would be time-consuming, because it was foreign territory to me. Fortunately Virginia Tech University Library shared some sample php files at http://libx.lib.vt.edu/services/summon/ which I could refer to. I used the files, together with some HTTP_Request php files downloaded from PEAR
at http://pear.php.net/package/HTTP_Request/

They worked! The potentially time-consuming part of the job was done.

Next, I had to do some Javascript programming to design the Bento search layout results. Aside from
the layout, the Javascript interprets the various search API results for each compartment (LibGuides,
Summon, LibFAQ) and incorporates it into the search results page, in a presentable form. Javascript
was used to add the "see more" buttons. Each "see more" button opens a popup window showing
the full results of each respective result type compartment."

Conclusion

Our bento style search result page is in the scheme of things not exactly a new idea. Though it's the first example I know of that links the search from a LibGuides search as opposed to from the main library homepage.


By pilot testing the search display on LibGuides search only, we can carry out a small scale experiment, rather than rolling it out to all users on the main Library portal search bar.

Arguably, the bento style search for LibGuides is a much safer bet, because the use cases are more constrained.

Consider 3 Alternatives for the display of search results from LibGuides

1) Pointing to Libguides only results
2) Pointing to Web Scale discovery blended search ie Summon default search
3) Pointing to Bento style with boxes for Libguides and Discovery results.

If the user is searching in LibGuides and is really looking for a suitable LibGuide say the Economics or EndNote guide, chances are there are only a few relevant hits anyway in the LibGuides, so for such users, a box with 10 top hits for guides should be more than enough. Both Alternative 1 and 3 will be successful as they show ranked list of Libguides, while alternative 2 will fail.

Alternative 2, which is pointing solely to Summon may succeeded since LibGuides are indexed in Summon, but the blended style list and uncertain relevancy ranking means the user have to plough through many results to find the guide he needs.

For other use cases, whose searches are best satisfied by non-guides results, the bento style boxes (alternative 3) provide a far better option than a straight out LibGuides search (alternative 1) which would have no results.

Also as blended lists in Summon can have problem with known item searches , we handle this case by creating two separate boxes of content, "Library Catalogue" and "Articles" (though both are drawn via Summon api using different filters)

So what do you think?  Is this a general improvement from the default search?



Wednesday, December 31, 2014

A personal review of 2014

"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

Somehow though, I doubt successful libraries are all alike except in the most general of ways.

Still, these are some of the changes or trends in librarianship in the year of 2014 that resonated with me or occupied me. A lot of it probably is highly specific to my current institution and environment so your mileage might vary. 


1. Open Access finally takes off in academic libraries

I know many open access advocates and librarians are thinking, this isn't really new. But from my highly localized context, this was the year, my current institution formally created a "Scholarly Communication team" and created outreach teams. I had my first experience presenting on open access to faculty.

In the local (Singapore) context, this was the year with the passing of A*Star mandate for A*star funded research as well as the instruction from National Research Foundation that research institutions should have open access policies to tap on funding, meant finally Singapore is starting to get serious on this. Of course, this is just the beginning.

I also began to see some interest in altmetrics eg Plumx, though it may be still early days.



2. Shifts in mobile 

Yet another year and yet another new iPhone. What was different this year was the upgrade in screen sizes with Iphone 6 and Iphone 6 plus. Measuring 5.5 inch, the iPhone 6 plus is Apple's first venture into "phablet territory". Even the iphone 6 got a size upgrade from 4 inch to 4.7 inch.

I myself upgraded this year from Iphone 4s with a tiny 3.5 inch screen to perhaps currently the best Android smartphone/Phablet, a Samsung Galaxy Note 4 which has a large 5.7 inch screen. Note like most new owners of devices I am obviously biased. 



My Samsung Note 4


I have pretty long fingers, so I adapted to the large screen fast. The current trend is for flagships on Android to become bigger including the Nexus 6 (huge 6 inch screen), so it's clear to me that this will eventually lead to large screens becoming the normal on mobile.

My own experience mirrors most people, who find that after a few days, they just can't go back to smaller screens. Also like many have reported, my usage of  tablets has also fallen, in my case the Nexus 7 (2013) doesn't seem so useful anymore, though admittedly, the new Android Lollipop 5.0 on Nexus 7 did give it a new lease of life.

Looking at my own institutional statistics (sessions on portal, Libguides, Summon etc) for the last 6 months, it's somewhat surprising to me that besides the Iphones, the next most popular phone is the large Samsung Galaxy Note 3

This could be something unique to my situation, or it could be simply because people only bother to use our websites with large screens (there is build-in web responsive design for Summon 2 and Libguides 2 though but the library portal is a mobile page redirect).

Still, I think the upgrading to bigger screen sizes and phablets probably means more online reading and services like Browzine and the new Ebscohost's Flipster, a digital magazine  are going to benefit.

Browzine in particular just launched support for Android smartphones at the end of the year, just in time for our new subscription to Browzine and my new Phablet!



Browzine on Samsung Note 4

I used to be quite "hot" on mobile developments in libraries (refer to blog posts in 2010/2011) but somehow I felt after an initial furry of interest, it pretty much died out at least in academic libraries.

Most of us have mobile library pages, or a native app of sorts, typically from offering like Boopsie or Librarything Mobile. More recently, responsive web design has become popular, with library vendors from Databases, Discovery Services (e.g Summon) and LibGuides moving towards that. Library websites are also slowly moving towards that. 

All this is nice, but still pretty boring really. Still this year some interesting developments. 

Other mobile developments to watch

  • Adding of NFCs to iphone 6 , apple pay etc may make such technologies main stream



3. Upgrades lots of upgrades

This was the year my institution chose to upgrade to the following (some were already available in Aug 2013 but we wisely chose to wait until 2014)


Some upgrades were more major than others (eg 360Link v2 upgrade was relatively minor) but still all could be considered major upgrades with changes to functionality and UI that users would notice straight away.


This year, we finally managed to achieve the popular Bento style search that I have blogged about so much, though we are currently only linking it to the LibGuides v2 search.






From the redesigned Libguides V2 screen (see below), users can search and will see a modified LibGuides v2 search page that shows results from Libguides, Libanswers and Summon!



This helps solve one major issue I noticed in Libguides searches - users tend to search for article titles, books, or very specific search results that are best answered by a search results page from your discovery service. They also sometimes search for policies, opening hours etc. 

All this was achieved by a talented new colleague of mine and he will be doing a guest blog in the new year to explain how it was done.


Conclusion

I had a great 2014 though my blogging rate suffered, hopefully this will change in 2015. Still thank you all loyal blog readers for subscribing to my blog all these years and wish you all a amazing New year to come.




http://pixabay.com/en/fireworks-golden-shower-of-sparks-243641/

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Four possible Web Scale Discovery Future Scenarios

I was recently invited to give a talk at the Swedish Summon User Group meeting and I presented about possible scenarios for the future of web scale discovery.

As Web Scale Discovery in libraries goes back to roughly 2009, most academic libraries have by now had 2-3 years of grappling with the concept. Using the hype cycle concept many if not most have moved past the pains of trough of disillusionment and are moving up the slope of enlightenment or even at the plateau of Productivity as pointed out by Dave Pattern.

For example, mobody today here believes that web scale discovery in its current form can replace subject databases totally, an idea that was mooted during the peak of inflated exceptions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle#mediaviewer/File:Gartner_Hype_Cycle.svg


Still one wonders, what lies in store for web scale discovery in academic libraries? How would things looks like in 5 , 10 or even 15 years time?


How well is web scale discovery doing?

To forecast possible futures, we need to know where we are now. Generally I think many of us (where us = the odd mix of technologists including ILP librarians who have worked on implementing discovery services though we are of course biased)  think it is doing decently well based on any one of the criteria

a) Usage of web scale discovery is increasing year on year typically for most institutions (eg See University of Michigan's experience)

b) Statistics on Openurl origins show a substantial share from Discovery services (varies by institution but typical share would be 40% at least for most destinations)

c) Studies are appearing that show when controlling for various factors, institutions that have web scale discovery systems Summon or Primo , do seem to increase usage per FTE versus institutions that do not have any such systems.





This bright picture seems to contradict the sense we get (via surveys etc) that increasingly more users are favoring Google, Google Scholar, Medneley etc and that the University Library is slowly having a declining role as a Gateway for discovery.


 Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey 2012 above shows a slight improvement in 2012, though the trend is generally down.

Lorcan Demseley notes,“They have observed a declining role for the "gateway" function of the library, partly because it is at the wrong level or scale. Google and other network level services have become important gateways.”

So what is happening here? Is there a shift to other non-library sources of discovery? Or isn't there?


Lots of unknowns

One way to reconcile this contradiction is to note, undergraduates are by far the largest group typically, and we know undergraduates love web scale discovery while other groups particularly faculty do not, so it is not a surprise to note usage goes up when web scale discovery is initially implemented while noting most sophisticated users could be favoring something else.

A typical year on year increase in web scale discovery is good news. Still I suspect part of it is inertia, my experience is it takes a while for any major change to filter down to users. So if you implemented web scale discovery in say 2012. It is likely you will continue to see gains until 2015 (assuming a 4 year course), when the freshman who were the first batch to start using web scale discovery become final year students. As prior to that, the more senior students will likely to ignore it.

It is somewhat surprising to me even today that many students are surprised to know our default search tab handles articles as well as books though part of it could be a UX issue.

It's also unclear to me, what a say 10% increase usage of your discovery system year on year really means since we don't know how much the "demand for discovery" went up. So say between 2014 and 2015, required "discovery incidents" that one could conceivably use your discovery went up say 100% more but your usage of web scale discovery only went up 10%. Doesn't sound so good right?

Lastly, web scale discovery systems also work beautifully as known item article search tools by simply cutting and pasting articles, so the increased usage seen (a), or frequent use as openurl orgins (b) or even increased usage compared to peer control institution per FTEs could simply be due to increased ease in finding known articles as opposed to really helping in discovery.

In short, there is a lot of uncertainty here. It's not easy for libraries to know if Web Scale discovery has helped shift the balance of discovery from outside the library back to the library in both the short and long term.

I suspect the answer is probably not, indirect evidence I have on the use of the proxy bookmarklet (which is usage primarily when user does not start from library homepage) and link resolver usage of Google Scholar of my institution seem to suggest even though the implementation of Summon was successful, usage of both tools continued to rise. In fact in the following year after implementation of Summon, usage rose even higher than before. If this trends continues.....



Four Discovery Scenarios

In the long run, I suspect the ultimate fate of web scale discovery will fall into one of these four broad category


Discovery Dominant - Web Scale Discovery continues to grow and become the prime source of discovery displacing google, google scholar and other external sources (Unlikely)

II Discovery Deferred - Web Scale Discovery continues to be used along side other non-library tools. Most often it will be used as a secondary source after looking at other places first (Possible)

III Discovery Diminished - In this scenario, Web scale discovery services have been displaced in their discovery role, and are used for known item search only. Kinda like a glorified catalogue, except it includes article, conference etc titles (Perhaps)

IV Discovery Decommissioned - This is the most extreme scenario, where the whole system is removed and doesn't even play a role in known item searching. (Unlikely)



Discovery use matrix

After reading all the various arguments about the position of search in libraries, I was initially confused. But let's try to create a framework here.

Let's consider 2 dimensions of use here.

Firstly, are users using the web scale discovery for known item search or for discovery?

Secondly, it is their primary go-to tool? Or is it secondary?

Below shows one hypothetical use of one library discovery search.


Known item Search Subject Search
First Stop 50% 10%
Secondary Stop 30% 40%
Total 80% 50%

We could split this up further into content types, say search of books vs articles but let's keep it simple.

In this hypothetical example , say users have a "discovery need" 100,000 times a year.  (Look at the 2nd column)

10% of the time, they go straight to your discovery service and starting typing keywords.

40% of the time, they do some preliminary search elsewhere eg Wikipedia, Google, Google Scholar, but they do eventually end up doing subject searches in library discovery for whatever reason.

50% of the time, they totally ignore our tools and use something else such as Google Scholar, Mendeley to search.

Note : If one cares about library supplied tools, then one would need to take into account subject Abstract and indexining databases provided by the library such as Scopus, but I will ignore this for now.

Similarly say users have a need to find a known item 100,000 times a year (Look at the 1st column)

50% of the time, they go straight to your discovery service and starting searching for known item by entering article or book titles.

30% of the time, they do some preliminary search elsewhere eg Wikipedia, Google, Google Scholar, but they do eventually end up doing known item search in library discovery.

20% of the time, they totally ignore your discovery service for known item search. It could be they found it using another tool which could be either library related such as traditional catalogue, Browse A-Z list, or non-library related Google, Google Scholar, or it could be they use link resolvers from Google Scholar, Libx, or they just give up.


Discovery is not just keyword based search

One thing to note is that when there is a desire for discovery, search based tools like web scale discovery or Google Scholar are not the only options.

There are recommender sources or systems (both humans and machines) as well as discovery based on citation based methods. In this case, I am assuming discovery here is keyword based discovery. In other words if there is a need to enter keywords, how many times do people use the library discovery service vs other systems.

It possible to envision a future where a powerful Google Now type recommender system becomes so dominant, keyword based discovery becomes obsolete but let's put aside this possibility.



Scenario I : Discovery Dominant 


Known item Search Subject Search
First Stop Variable High
Secondary Stop Variable Moderate
Total Variable Very high

This would be the ideal scenario. Our discovery tools become the dominant tool for discovery as first stop.

How popular such tools for known item search would be less critical, though I suspect it's easier to optimize  for one rather than both,


This scenario unfortunately I think is unlikely. It implies at least one of the following

a) All other non-library discovery sources dry up.

For example, Google giving up on Google Scholar would be a good example.

While Google Scholar is doing well now after 10 years, this has always been a possibility. Still, is hard to believe this will happen for all the competitors.

b) We created tools so compelling that it makes all other sources pale in comparison.

What would such compelling differences be?

I suspect the following would NOT be them

a) Gesture/Motion based inputs - eg Kinect/ Leapfrog

b) Augmented reality outputs - eg Oculus

While such features might eventually be included in future discovery tools, they don't give such tools any competitive advantages  They would be the equivalent of mobile responsive design features for example.

The following might give us a fighting chance

Personally tuned discovery layers - Championed by Ken Varnum - see his two recent presentations Personally-Tuned Discovery and Library Discovery: From Ponds to Oceans to Streams . The idea as I understand it is that libraries can create specially tuned features , particularly scopes that appeal specifically to their communities. So I suppose in the context of my institution we can create filters and features that are specially designed to work well with research on southeast asia. A more generic global system is unlikely to be able to tune the system to such an extent.

Improved semantic search - No doubt Google etc are working on this. However libraries particularly publishers like Ebsco have tons of expert assigned subject headings in specialised theasuri. Would a cross walked "mega theasuri" be leveraged to improve relevancy? Do note , I have practically no idea how linked data will come into this.


Scenario II : Discovery Deferred


Known item Search Subject Search
First Stop Low to Moderate Low
Secondary Stop Moderate to High Moderate
Total Moderate Moderate

This scenario is the scenario I think that is closest to the current situation. Our discovery tools are seldom the first stop in the discovery process. But many users do use it in combination with Google , Google Scholar etc. So overall use is moderate.

Use for known item searching is generally low to moderate. While tools like library links in Google Scholar , use of link resolvers in mendeley and other systems means that users can use the link resolver to check for availability after discovery direct, there is still sufficient numbers of users who do put in article titles or book titles in discovery services.

One can encourage use of discovery service has a secondary discovery source by various means.See for example 6 ways to use Web Scale Discovery tools without visiting library sites which provides some ideas, chief among them is to use Libx.  If you have Libx with Summon you can even pull off something interesting with the API.




For driving subject searches/discovery from Wikipedia, I've blogged about John Mark Ockerbloom's Forward to Libraries service that takes the title of the Wikipedia article you are on (among other things) and does the same search in your discovery service.









Scenario III : Discovery Diminished


Known item Search Subject Search
First Stop Moderate for books Extremely Low
Secondary Stop Moderate for books Extremely Low
Total Moderate for books Extremely Low


This is basically the situation prior to web scale discovery in 2009. Federated search wasn't successful , most users went to the library catalogue to do known item search for books and to a lesser extent search for books but not articles.

So with Web Scale Discovery we are happily over with this scenario and are in at least Scenario II, where some discovery at least happens in our tools right?

Is there any chance we should fall back to Scenario III?

I think Utrecht University believes so and was one of the first if not the first to talk about giving up discovery to focus on delivery or fulfillment.






I've blogged about this in the past. Essentially the idea here is that Google etc have won the discovery battle already and there is no point trying to compete with them.

Libraries should focus on supporting fulfillment. In other words Discovery occurs elsewhere say on Google or Google Scholar and we provide the way to check/obtain full text.

Google Scholar, of course has the well known library links program.



A newer idea would be collaboration that Worldcat is working on with Wikipedia that allows linking from references in Wikipedia to full text or library catalogues.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OCLC/Search


The title of the talk  is A library without a catalogue, though interestingly while the speaker has decided they won't bother to implement a web scale discovery system and will give up their federated search, they are not sure if they can give up the the normal traditional catalogue (stated at the end).

I suspect that while one can give up web scale discovery, giving up a catalogue for known item search is harder. Sure, one can contribute holdings to Worldcat, which will allow the holdings to be shown from various places including Google books but can this truly work for everything?



I somehow doubt it would be likely any library wouldn't have a search facility for known item search- or a comprehensive search of what is available to the institution since it wouldn't be a lot more work to do so especially after the effort spent on populating the ILS or Knowledgebase.

Under this scenario, libraries would maintain something similar to classic catalogues that are optimised for known item searching of books, DVDs etc. The difference is they may also include an article index but unlike Discovery services available between 2007-2014 they give up the pretense of serving discovery at all.

Some libraries may totally dispense with this if most major outside discovery tools have good linkages with link resolvers, catalogue apis etc. But as I said this is unlikely.

By focusing on known item search of books and articles, the relevancy issue would be much easier solved then trying to balance discovery and known item search needs. A bento type box search might even make more sense.



Discovery Decomissioned

Known item Search Subject Search
First Stop Low to zero Zero
Secondary Stop Low to zero Zero
Total Low to zero Zero

This is the most unlikely scenario. In this scenario, use of library discovery tools, for both known item and subject search is utterly destroyed!

This most unlikely Scenario was mentioned in The day library discovery died - 2035 . In this scenario, open access has won out completely, with open access been the norm in both books or articles.

How academic libraries may change when Open Access becomes the norm details the implications.

After summarizing the argument in the above scenario about losing the war in discovery and focusing on delivery, I proposed that the rise of open access

"has the potential to disrupt even the delivery or fulfilment role. In a open access world when most articles or perhaps even books (open access models for books exist, as well "as all you can eat" subscription services like Scribd, Oyster, Amazon Prime) can be gotten for free, academic libraries' role in both discovery and fulfillment will be greatly diminished."

In such a world, libraries would no longer need to maintain long lists of holdings for both books/traditional catalogue items as well as article index. Libraries don't even

As everything or nearly everything is open access, discovery and delivery would be coupled together. Where you do your discovery is where you get delivered the articles or books. There would still be some portion that would be unavailable immediately (special collections, older books , articles not digitized) but in time they would be reduced.

Even in such a world, some argument there may be a role for libraries in terms of aiding discovery by providing better curated collections, metadata etc - based the personal tuned discovery services argument above. It is of course unclear if that will be enough.


Conclusion

This is an extremely speculative piece of course but had to get it off my chest.

If you found it thought provoking, or at least entertaining do comment or share.





Share this!

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...