Discovery and management of scholarly materials

Tamar Sadeh

Abstrakt


The discovery and management of scholarly materials have changed in recent years with the introduction of new-generation systems based on decoupled architecture. In addition to offering a modern user experience, new library discovery systems extend the scope of materials available through a single interface far beyond the physical collections of the library, reaching the wealth of scholarly collections of global significance. Such systems also leverage a body of usage data gathered from institutions worldwide to enhance the discoverability of materials. New management systems, built from the outset to manage all types of scholarly assets, harness technological advances, shared bibliographic metadata, and community collaboration to optimize library services. The paper examines some of the current trends in new-generation systems and focuses on the way in which collaboration among stakeholders and the aggregation of information—scholarly content, bibliographic metadata, and usage data—combine with the local and individual context to establish a new level of discovery and management of scholarly materials.

S nedávným nástupem systémů nové generace, založených na oddělené architektuře, se změnil způsob shromažďování a spravování vědeckých prací. S využitím moderního uživatelského prostředí nabízí nové knihovní Discovery systémy širokou škálu materiálů dostupných skrze jednotné rozhraní daleko za možnostmi fyzických sbírek knihovny. Sbírky odborných prací tak dosahují globálního významu. Tyto systémy mají také vliv na množství dat shromážděných od institucí celého světa a zvyšují tak úroveň vyhledatelnosti odborných dokumentů. Nové systémy, určené od samého počátku ke správě všech typů odborných dokumentů, využívají technologického vývoje, sdílení metadat a spolupráce odborné komunity k optimalizaci knihovních služeb. Článek se zabývá některými současnými trendy v oblasti systémů nové generace a věnuje pozornost tomu, jak shromažďování informací (odborného obsahu, bibliografických metadat a uživatelských dat) v lokálním a individuálním kontextu buduje novou úroveň organizace a správy odborných dokumentů.


Tamar Sadeh

Ex-Libris


Klíčová slova


usage data, search engine, relevance ranking, recommender, decoupled architecture, aggregated index

Full Text:

PDF (English)

Reference

Zobrazit literaturu Skrýt literaturu

  1. ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee. “2010 top ten trends in academic libraries.” College & Research Libraries News 71, no. 6 (June 2010): 286-292. http://crln.acrl.org/content/71/6/286.full.
  2. Association of College and Research Libraries (researched by Megan Oakleaf). Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2010. http://www.acrl.ala.org/value/.
  3. Bollen, Johan, and Herbert Van de Sompel. “An Architecture for the Aggregation and Analysis of Scholarly Usage Data. Paper presented at JCDL ’06, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, June 11–15, 2006. ACM 1-59593-354-9/06/0006. http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/papers/jcdl06_accepted_version.pdf.
  4. Centre for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (CIBER). Information behaviour of the researcher of the future. London: CIBER, 2008. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/slais/research/ciber/downloads/ggexecutive.pdf.
  5. Council on Library and Information Resources. No Brief Candle: Reconceiving Research Libraries for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Council on Library and Information Resources, 2008. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub142/pub142.pdf.
  6. De Rosa, Cathy, Joanne Cantrell, Diane Cellentani, Janet Hawk, Lillie Jenkins, and Alane Wilson. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 2005. http://www.oclc.org/reports/2005perceptions.htm.
  7. De Rosa, Cathy, Joanne Cantrell, Janet Hawk, and Alane Wilson. College Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 2006. http://www.oclc.org/reports/perceptionscollege.htm.
  8. De Rosa, Cathy, Joanne Cantrell, Andy Havens, Janet Hawk, and Lillie Jenkins. Sharing, Privacy and Trust in Our Networked World: A Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 2007. http://www.oclc.org/reports/sharing/default.htm.
  9. De Rosa, Cathy, Joanne Cantrell, Matthew Carlson, Peggy Gallagher, Janet Hawk, and Charlotte Sturtz. Perceptions of Libraries, 2010: Context and Community. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 2011. http://www.oclc.org/reports/2010perceptions/2010perceptions_all.pdf.
  10. Gentil-Beccot, Anne, Salvatore Mele, Annette Holtkamp, Heath B. O'Connell, and Travis C. Brooks. “Information Resources in High-Energy Physics: Surveying the Present Landscape and Charting the Future Course.” arXiv:0804.2701v2 [cs.DL]. arXiv, 2008. doi: 10.1002/asi.20944. (Journal reference: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60, no. 1 (2009): 150-160.)
  11. Haines, Laura L., J. Light, D. O'Malley, and F. A. Delwiche. “Information-Seeking Behavior of Basic Science Researchers: Implications for Library Services.” Journal of the Medical Library Association 98, no. 1 (2010): 73–81. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.98.1.019.
  12. Hearst, Marti A. “Clustering Versus Faceted Categories for Information Exploration.” Communications of the ACM 49, no. 4 (2006): 59-61. http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hearst/papers/cacm06.pdf. | DOI 10.1145/1121949.1121983
  13. Hemminger, Bradley M. Dihui Lu, K. T. L. Vaughan, and Stephanie J. Adams. “Information Seeking Behavior of Academic Scientists.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, no. 14 (2007): 2205–2225. doi: 10.1002/asi.20686.
  14. Jamali, H. R., and D. Nicholas. “Information-Seeking Behaviour of Physicists and Astronomers.” Aslib Proceedings 60, no. 5 (2008): 444-462. doi: 10.1108/00012530810908184. Version used for this study: http://eprints.rclis.org/16127/1/JAMALIi-FINAL-preprint.pdf | DOI 10.1108/00012530810908184.
  15. Johnson, L., A. Levine, and R. Smith. The 2009 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium, 2009. http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2009/.
  16. Johnson, L., A. Levine, R. Smith, and S. Stone. The 2010 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium, 2010. http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2010/.
  17. Long, Matthew P., and Roger C. Schonfeld. Ithaka S+R Library Survey 2010: Insights from U.S. Academic Library Directors. ITHAKA, 2010. http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/ithaka-s-r-library-survey-2010/insights-from-us-academic-library-directors.pdf.
  18. Michalko, James, Constance Malpas, and Arnold Arcolio. Research Libraries, Risk and Systemic Change. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Research, 2010. http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/library/2010/2010-03.pdf.
  19. Research Information Network. Researchers and discovery services: Behaviour, perceptions and needs. Research Information Network, 2006. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/using-and-accessing-information-resources/researchers-and-discovery-services-behaviour-perc.
  20. Sadeh, Tamar. “The Challenge of Metasearching.” New Library World 105, no. 1198/1199 (2004): 104-112. doi: 10.1108/03074800410526721.
  21. Sadeh, Tamar. “A Model of Scientists’ Information Seeking and a User-Interface Design.” PhD thesis, City University London, 2010.
  22. Sadeh, Tamar. “Multiple Dimensions of Search Results.” Paper presented at the Analogous Spaces Interdisciplinary Conference, Ghent University, Belgium, May 15-17, 2008.
  23. Sadeh, Tamar. “Time for a Change: New Approaches for a New Generation of Library Users. New Library World 108, no. 7/8 (2007): 307-316. doi: 10.1108/03074800710763608.
  24. Sadeh, Tamar. “User-Centric Solutions for Scholarly Research in the Library.” LIBER Quarterly 17, no. 3/4 (2007). http://liber.library.uu.nl/publish/issues/2007-3_4/index.html?000215
  25. Staley, David J., and Kara J. Malenfant, Futures Thinking for Academic Librarians: Higher Education in 2025. Association of College and Research Libraries, 2010. http://www.acrl.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/issues/value/futures2025.pdf.
  26. University of California Libraries Bibliographic Services Task Force. Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California. University of California, 2005. http://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf.
  27. University of Minnesota Libraries. Discoverability: Phase 2 Final Report. University of Minnesota, 2010. http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/99734/3/DiscoverabilityPhase2ReportFull.pdf.
  28. Van de Sompel, Herbert, and Oren Beit-Arie. “Open Linking in the Scholarly Information Environment Using the OpenURL Framework.” D-Lib Magazine 7, no. 3 (2001). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march01/vandesompel/03vandesompel.html.