Download to read offline
Uploaded bySAGE Publishing
Discovery Beyond Google
The document discusses discoverability in scholarly publishing. It defines discoverability as scholars' ability to locate relevant content. Discovery is important because of information overload and limited library use. The document outlines strategies to improve discovery, including open web search, institutional search tools, and cross-sector collaboration. It also summarizes several published studies on discovery and notes that improved discovery requires cross-sector strategies, better discovery tools, detailed indexing, and seamless identification.
Discovery Beyond Google
- 1. Dis c overyBeyond Google S oc iety for S c holarly Publis hing M y 0– Jn 1 2 1 a3 ue , 0 2 Lettie Y. C onrad Ma a , On e P odu Ma a n ger lin r ct n gemen t S AGE Public ations Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 2. Is there discoverybeyond Google? ● What is discoverability? ● Why do we care? ● What are we going to do about it? Society for Scholarly Publishing, Annual Meeting 2012 Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 3. Discoverability (working definition): Scholars’capacity to locate relevant content in the scholarly corpus as needed to advance research and other creative activity at appropriate points in the academic workflow. Society for Scholarly Publishing, Annual Meeting 2012 Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 4. Discovery – whyit’s a buzz ● Information overload ● Distractions abound ● Limited use of library ● Dominance of Google, Wikipedia, etc. ● Usage metrics drive sales ● Discovery drives usage Society for Scholarly Publishing, Annual Meeting 2012 Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 5. Discovery strategies Open websearch Institutional search ● Creative linking ● Metadata building ● Widgets ● Open data ● Training ● Semantic enrichment ● Usability testing Society for Scholarly Publishing, Annual Meeting 2012 Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 6. Improving the Discoverabilityof Scholarly Content in the Twenty-First Century ● Best practices ● Challenges ● Opportunities ● Recommendations / observations Society for Scholarly Publishing, Annual Meeting 2012 Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 7. Cross-sector Interviews ●Scholarly publishers ● Published authors ● Search engine developers, database providers, A&I ● Electronic Resource Management (ERM) and Integrated Library System (ILS) vendors ● Leaders in library discovery Society for Scholarly Publishing, Annual Meeting 2012 Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 8. Published Studies fromEurope, USA, Asia, & Australia Aymonin, D., et a B r lisic, dema d t e impos ible: Compa is of 4dis er l., e ea t n h s r on cov y toolsu in r l da a a t e E F L a y T cn aR p r Ėc lP leh iq e s g ea t t h P L ibr r . eh icl e ot o o t n u , e yc Fd rld L ua n , S it rn , D cm e 1 , 2 1 . ė ė a e a sn e wz l d ee b r 9 0 1 e ea C ai, H., et a Ef te p rah s ote vl tn n sl tn f d c vr l. fc a po c e t h ea a a d e c o a isoey e iv u io e io to IIA L 1Po ed g o te 3h t n tn lo f e c o A iap cic o lnC D '1 rce in s fh 1 t ine a ac n rn e n s - aif . r io e d it lrrsf c lrleit e ko l g d sm a n a df ue ra n iga ibaie: o uuah r g , n w d e ise in t , n u r cet , l r t a e io t io S rg r el , 2 1 . pin e- rg 0 1 V a Howard, D., & ie rn sC C lr so k L rrn’ rs o s t wbsa W ba d , . uue h c: ibaia s ep ne o e cl t e sac . 2 1 A I Iom tn n e o f e c, A s a L rr a dIom tn erh 0 1 L n r a O l C n rn e ut l ibay n n r a A f io in e ria f io A sc tn Fbu r 2 1 . so ia , e ray 0 1 io Pradhan, D. R., et a S ac in o le eo re in e d c vr e vo m nsA l., erh g n rsucs n w isoey nirn e t in : s t o teateie . 8 inen tn l A IE , G a n esyI ia M rh 0 1 t e fh - rrv w t t a aC L R o U ivr , n , ac 2 1 . a- - h r io B it d IF IN TC nr, A m d b d G ja I ia N L E e t h e a a , u rt n . B e a , d Vaughan, J . W bsa d c vr wa a dwy L a y T n e cl isoey h t n h? ibr r ech olog R e : y epors4 ( , t 7 1 Jn ay 0 1 51 . au r 2 1 ) - 1, Society for Scholarly Publishing, Annual Meeting 2012 Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 9. Symbiotic (but disrupted)Ecosystem ● Librarians manage institutional discovery ● Publishers disseminate work ● Libraries’ vendors connect to content ● Publishers’ vendors supply platforms Society for Scholarly Publishing, Annual Meeting 2012 Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 10. Improved Discovery Requires ● Cross- sector strategies ● Discovery tools ● Detailed indexing ● Seamless identification Society for Scholarly Publishing, Annual Meeting 2012 Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 11. Conversation Starters ● Bestpractices for online product design ● Open, standardized approaches to data ● Understand researcher needs / user behavior ● Revisit how business is done to best serve users Society for Scholarly Publishing, Annual Meeting 2012 Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
- 12. Conversations Underway ● NISO Open Discovery Initiative ● ORCHID, JATS, PIE-J, etc. ● Libraries at Webscale, OCLC January 2012 ● Chicago Collaborative ● SSP’s Annual Meeting! Society for Scholarly Publishing, Annual Meeting 2012 Los Angeles | London | New Delhi Singapore | Washington DC
Editor's Notes
- #3 Pleasure to lay foundation for discussion Brief agenda – try to frame our conversation. Then co-presenters share fantastic examples of innovative ways their organizations have unlocked this puzzle and achieved successful discovery First, some basics on our topic – what does it mean to optimize discoverability in today’s world of online research? why does it matter so much? why are publishers, librarians, and our many product and service vendors concerned about this puzzle? Once foundation in place what SAGE has learned – and published in a recent whitepaper how the scholarly publishing community might respond to this still relatively new puzzle
- #4 I’d like to present the following working definition of discoverability scholars’ capacity to locate relevant content as needed to advance research at appropriate points in their workflow. There are some key points here to zero in on – the content must be relevant to the reader! (this may be obvious but poses challenges in both understanding our readers and revealing the semantics behind our content) it must be discovered as needed ! (and not when / where / how we decide is best for a given product or manuscript.) it must fit within scholars’ own workflows ! (the channels for information dissemination have exploded, as has been established in countless discussions during the past half-dozen SSP Annual Meetings, at least.)
- #5 Simply put, the internet has changed the way we communicate – and the way we conduct our work. Research by Project Information Literacy and others document that students suffer from information overload = frustration / confusion from broad range of online resources find themselves distracted by all the activity in flickering screens we rely on they congregate in libraries for research and study – but they often do not enter stacks or consult a librarian ***PIL, Oct 2011: 39% used library equipment (printers etc) 11% used scholarly research databases & 9% used library books students at all levels report using Google and Wikipedia for their research PIL notes 82% use Google / 69% use Wikipedia SAGE’s own research = GScholar is a favorite among PhD candidates Yet still, in academic publishing and the library market – usage is king when it comes to library’s budget decisions – and usage is driven by researchers actually finding that content remember: if it’s *relevant* and when it’s *needed* within their *workflow*
- #6 For scholarly community, new patterns of researcher behavior = two spheres to attend to On the open web, mainstream search engines are one thing … Wikipedia /social sites drive traffic – OPPORUTNITY for creative links to authoritative material quality indexing = data must be readable by robots and humans alike requires a degree of openness we’re not typically comfortable with semantics have exploded = reveal the meanings behind content Equally sophisticated strategies for the institutional / library ecosystem masters of our own metadata = discomfort to revise systems, feed discovery services simple widgets –publishers to libraries– point to vetted resources @ institutions publishers /vendors partner with institutions in training = information literacy is a joint effort For both open web and institutional discovery - “build it, they will come” is a myth plan for iterative improvements to products and services informed by regular usability testing =sites optimized ergonomically simple and straightforward products = users will come back for more!
- #7 With all these things in mind – SAGE recently sponsored research into what the community was thinking and saying about discoverability. The result was a whitepaper published early this year authored by 2 distinguished librarians Mary Somerville, University Librarian, Professor, and Library Director at the University of Colorado Denver Barbara Schader, Associate University Librarian for Collections and Scholarly Communication, University of California Riverside along with a leader in the vendor community: John Sack, Founding Director of HighWire Press The research focus of this paper was to investigate: Best practices for access and discovery of content in libraries The challenges that publishers, vendors, and libraries need to solve Real solutions that librarians and publishers can implement Further observations for improving discoverability and visibility
- #8 Main method for this research was interviews with stakeholders across the community scholarly publishers published authors search engine developers, database providers, A&I services ERM and ILS vendors librarians who advance institutional discoverability
- #9 Following these interviews, the authors consulted published literature on these topics particularly those focusing on reviews of and commentary on the game-changing introduction of web-scale library discovery services I wanted to share a few citations with you on this research – because I’m a publisher and that’s what we do
- #10 Key finding of this research was the symbiotic – yet disrupted – scholarly ecosystem … where Librarians manage systems for institutional collection, dissemination, and retrieval of scholarly corpus Publishers produce and promote authors’ work through formats findable on the open Web and in library catalogs Libraries’ technology vendors connect publishers’ digital content to OPACs through ERMs and web scale discovery services Publishers’ technology vendors supply publishing platforms, software solutions and discovery services
- #11 Industry experts reported to the authors of this research that improved discoverability requires… initiating conversations about cross-sector strategies discovery tools in familiar web environments rich, detailed indexing for highly relevant and precise search results seamless indentification - “single sign on” – for barrier-free user experience
- #12 The results of this study = recommendations for cross-sector conversations in scholarly community. Key items authors recommend we use as conversation starters to tackle discovery challenges together: develop best practices for the design of online product interfaces and functionality public standards for both metadata surrounding publications as well as semantic data within the content itself further efforts to understand researcher behavior and user needs reconsider and discuss new ways to do business to best serve the users that embody our shared objectives of scholarship and academic progress
- #13 Pleased to report cross-sector communication and problem-solving = alive and well Late 2011, NISO convened a new working group which aims to define standards and/or best practices for the new generation of library discovery services that are based on indexed search Standards movements such as ORCHI, JATS, PIE-J, and many others New research efforts – such as OCLC’s January 2012 report that states “big collaboration in the information ecosystem will come not only from broader collaboration across libraries, library groups, consortia, and partnerships across the broader knowledge community – across researchers, publishers, commercial vendors, and Webscale providers such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook.” A number of cooperative groups in place that have the power to influence this process – Chicago Collaborative, among others This event! With that said, I’d like to turn it over…