View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Choosing Discovery: A Literature Review on the Selection and Evaluation of Discovery Layers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Choosing Discovery: A Literature Review on the Selection and Evaluation of Discovery Layers
Language: English
Authors: Moore, Kate B., Greene, Courtney
Source: Journal of Web Librarianship. 2012 6(3):145-163.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Physical Description: PDF
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2012
Document Type: Information Analyses
Journal Articles
Descriptors: Libraries, Online Catalogs, Computer Interfaces, Discovery Processes, Usability, Computer Software Evaluation, Evaluation Criteria, Computer Software Selection, User Needs (Information), Expertise, Novices, Information Literacy, Librarian Attitudes
DOI: 10.1080/19322909.2012.689602
ISSN: 1932-2909
Abstract: Within the next few years, traditional online public access catalogs will be replaced by more robust and interconnected discovery layers that can serve as primary public interfaces to simultaneously search many separate collections of resources. Librarians have envisioned this type of discovery tool since the 1980s, and research shows that discovery layer functionality and features have already resolved, or will soon remedy, many of the known issues with the traditional online public access catalog. The authors of this article review the literature on discovery, focusing on the evolution from the traditional online public access catalog to newer discovery interfaces, and summarize what has been published regarding the selection and evaluation of these new tools. Based on this review, emerging trends in the acquisition of discovery layers are described, including: the amount of time libraries devote to selection and evaluation, the staff involved and their areas of expertise, which discovery tools were selected to review, the evaluation methods used, and the features and functionality evaluated. The authors conclude with a discussion of the opportunities and concerns for libraries and their patrons related to discovery efforts, and provide direction for future research. While discovery layers are still developing, they show great promise in increasing the use and usability of library resources. (Contains 2 tables.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 46
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: EJ976962
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEZcZrFOXI2bjGaedIheZQpAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAITJENmLaAaAkdWfAIBEICBmozhPqkdZx6A8mADzbNWpyYoc2fK1XwRfMQ0dpLbJedu8BxRlpJGbGH4NJCcKZ_zKHwdaYYnaszszR8vwtu2qLd9FJkvFjP90DG9rTiIJN5fIt4tiAQbND6A4cjo6V9VophzsSdWCfQWs9tYSa8XVFzM-v8SGtlzF9cVYtWeiN-XQfIT9kr_jTpvQwx5VQXD8GI1PX0cGVDtEyI=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0079291782;[31rh]01jul.12;2019Mar25.12:58;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0079291782-1">Choosing Discovery: A Literature Review on the Selection and Evaluation of Discovery Layers. </title> <p>Within the next few years, traditional online public access catalogs will be replaced by more robust and interconnected discovery layers that can serve as primary public interfaces to simultaneously search many separate collections of resources. Librarians have envisioned this type of discovery tool since the 1980s, and research shows that discovery layer functionality and features have already resolved, or will soon remedy, many of the known issues with the traditional online public access catalog. The authors of this article review the literature on discovery, focusing on the evolution from the traditional online public access catalog to newer discovery interfaces, and summarize what has been published regarding the selection and evaluation of these new tools. Based on this review, emerging trends in the acquisition of discovery layers are described, including: the amount of time libraries devote to selection and evaluation, the staff involved and their areas of expertise, which discovery tools were selected to review, the evaluation methods used, and the features and functionality evaluated. The authors conclude with a discussion of the opportunities and concerns for libraries and their patrons related to discovery efforts, and provide direction for future research. While discovery layers are still developing, they show great promise in increasing the use and usability of library resources.</p> <p>Keywords: next-generation catalogs; discovery layers; Web-scale discovery; OPACs; library catalogs; evaluation; selection; discovery</p> <hd id="AN0079291782-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>The ultimate goal of any discovery service, bar none, is to place content in the hands of the user or, more specifically, to discover, present, and deliver relevant content in a convenient, intuitive manner to today's researcher.</p> <p>—Jason Vaughan ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref1">40</reflink>]b, 48–49).</p> <p>As libraries vie for the attention of students, many of whom rely heavily on Google for their research, providing "one-stop shopping" access to widely sourced library content is increasingly important in ensuring our institutions' long-term viability. Discovery layers and next-generation catalogs are terms often used interchangeably to describe library services that offer access to a greater diversity of sources than those represented within the traditional online public access catalog (OPAC), all with features and functionality similar to commercial products like Amazon, Google, and Facebook. Similarly, the emerging products dubbed "Web-scale discovery tools" share these characteristics and provide extensive content in a large, single index, including, but not limited to, library catalog records, resources from institutional repositories, digital libraries, indexing and abstracting services, and vendor databases.</p> <p>While the terms "next-generation catalogs" and "discovery layers" are used interchangeably in the literature, each represents a separate development in the scope of what a discovery tool incorporates. The next-generation catalog (NGC) represented a first step towards better discoverability in the catalog, and the term was coined in the context of Web 2.0 technologies (Mercûn and Žumer 2008). Many of the characteristics of the NGC focus on integrating these new technologies, such as RSS feeds, tagging, and the inclusion of social media in the library catalog interface. The term "discovery layer" emerged to better elucidate the idea of an interface separate from the integrated library system (ILS) with the features and functionality of an NGC, as well as the ability to incorporate more than what was traditionally available through a library's catalog, including institutional repositories and digital libraries. Later, as more vendors began to create and market discovery tools that included a central index of content from the library as well as vendor and publisher databases, the term "Web-scale discovery tools" was coined to highlight this inclusion. According to the literature reviewed by the authors of this article, these discovery layers—whether NGCs or Web-scale services—better support users' expectations regarding the behavior of online search systems, and provide more user-friendly interfaces than the traditional library catalog.</p> <p>Both commercial companies and libraries have created discovery layer products, and choosing the best product for a particular library depends upon a variety of factors. A discussion of the specific strengths and weaknesses of particular discovery layers is out of the scope of this article, and because the landscape of discovery layers is changing so rapidly, such a discussion would most likely be out-of-date before this article went to press. However, the current literature on discovery layers does provide some insight into important features and functionality to take into consideration when reviewing and rating these tools. This article includes a review of the literature on the evaluation and selection process, summarizing trends for libraries considering which discovery layers will be the best fit. The authors conclude with a discussion of the implications of the adoption of discovery interfaces related to providing library services and access to collections.</p> <hd id="AN0079291782-3">THE EVOLUTION OF THE DISCOVERY LAYER</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0079291782-4">Problems with the Traditional OPAC</hd> <p>Librarians have long been frustrated by the inability of the traditional OPAC to provide more than basic information for students and faculty—that is, whether or not a resource is available in the local library. In 2006, Lorcan Dempsey addressed this issue, making a distinction between discovery (knowing what there is to find) and location (actually getting it). He pointed out that in a world where "information resources are relatively abundant, and user attention is relatively scarce ... [the] catalogue will need to be blended in some way with the discovery apparatus" for the wide variety of content types to which institutions provide their users access (local and shared print and electronic collections, digital collections, etc.) (Dempsey [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref2">11</reflink>], sec. Discovery and Location Are Different Functions). Dempsey quite rightly defined the metamorphosis of the online catalog as one factor in "the complex set of questions we will address as we re-architect the discovery-to-delivery apparatus in ways appropriate to changing network behaviors" (Dempsey [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>], sec. Conclusion).</p> <p>Karen Markey ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref4">25</reflink>]) noted that basic functionality requested by users of the OPAC for at least two decades included improved subject searching and the addition of more content, such as table of contents, book jacket information, and full text. Since at least the early 1980s, researchers have investigated how to improve the features and functionality available in OPACs (Hildreth [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref5">21</reflink>]); however, most improvements primarily focused on the interface, rather than making changes to the underlying functionality (Borgman [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref6">4</reflink>]). Markey lists reasons behind the delay in upgrading catalog functionality, including lack of money; a desire to maintain the level of descriptive cataloging already in use; a shift in focus from technical services to public services; and, perhaps most daunting, a lack of consensus as to what functionality a catalog should have (Markey [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref7">25</reflink>]). Tanja Mercûn and Maja Žumer also give a brief and helpful retrospective summary on the evolution of the online catalog in their 2008 article comparing six library catalogs (five NGCs and one "traditional" catalog) to Amazon.</p> <p>For the purposes of this article, the authors will posit that the current conversation on discovery coalesced in the mid-2000s. This coincided with the adoption of Endeca, a commercial search engine, by the North Carolina State University Library (Breeding [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]). In a 2006 report prepared for the Library of Congress, Karen Calhoun wrote that the life cycle of the traditional catalog is ending as expectations of the user experience are shaped by commercial companies like Google and Amazon (<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref9">26</reflink>). Karen Schneider and others echoed the sentiment that the traditional library catalog is ill-equipped to user search behavior shaped by online search engines (Schneider [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref10">34</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref11">35</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref12">36</reflink>]; Morgan [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]). Kristen Antelman, Emily Lynema, and Andrew Pace noted in their article about Endeca that "the catalog has become for many students a call-number lookup system, with resource discovery happening elsewhere" ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>], 128).</p> <hd id="AN0079291782-5">Defining Discovery</hd> <p>Although there is broad agreement about its high-level attributes, there is no universally shared definition of what makes a tool a discovery layer, nor is there a single way of referring to these new systems, which are variously referred to as next-generation catalogs, catalog overlays, and discovery layers. Sharon Yang and Melissa Hofmann ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref15">45</reflink>]) noted that a shift in terminology from "next-generation catalog" to "discovery layer" seems to have taken place between the mid-to-late 2000s and 2011.</p> <p>In 2006, Eric Lease Morgan articulated four principles that can serve as an overarching framework for discovery: it is not a catalog; it avoids multiple databases; it is bent on providing services against search results; "and it is built using open source software, open standards, and open content" (Morgan [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref16">30</reflink>]). Andrew Nagy, in his 2011 <emph>Library Technology Reports</emph> issue on NGCs, further elaborated on these four principles: the scope and functionality of a discovery layer is much greater than a catalog; the NGC is not a federated search but has a central index from which to return results; it provides faceted navigation, filters, and integration with outside sources; and finally, it uses open platforms, open source license software, and open content where possible (Nagy [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref17">31</reflink>]). Nagy notes that none of the NGCs he reviewed fully embodied any of these principles, although many of them were able to incorporate parts of the third and fourth principles in their systems (Nagy [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref18">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to these overarching principles, several authors have put together summaries of more specific characteristics of discovery layers (see Table 1). Perhaps the most influential of these appeared in Marshall Breeding's 2007 <emph>Library Technology Reports</emph> and includes, among other items, faceted navigation, relevancy ranking, recommendations, and user contributions (Breeding [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>]). Sharon Yang and Kurt Wagner presented a list of twelve NGC characteristics in 2010, and found that none of the discovery layer systems they evaluated demonstrated all characteristics; LibraryFind performed best, meeting ten criteria (2010, 705–6). Sharon Yang and Melissa Hofmann's ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref20">45</reflink>]) later study of OPACs of 260 academic libraries found that only three percent of the sample demonstrated seven or more criteria.</p> <p>TABLE 1 Criteria for Evaluating NGCs/Web-Scale Discovery Tools Appearing in Selected Reviewed Articles</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Breeding (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2007b</xref>)</td><td>Yang & Wagner (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2010</xref>); Yang & Hofmann (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr45">2011</xref>)</td><td>Marcin & Morris (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2008</xref>)</td><td>Brubaker, Leach–Murray, & Parker (2011)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><graphic href="wjwl_a_689602_o_t0001.gif" content-type="Graph" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0079291782-6">Discovery Layers and Usability</hd> <p>In her 2009 article "Next Generation Catalogs: What Do They Do and Why Should We Care?" Jenny Emanuel emphasized the increased usability of NGCs, because of their calibration for the search style of the general public rather than for that of the librarian or expert searcher. In other words, NGCs allow the user to start with a broad, simple keyword search which is then narrowed to filter out results deemed to be irrelevant, rather than by first formulating a complex search strategy. Emanuel reports that in usability testing conducted at the University of Illinois, "only two users out of fifty specified that they would prefer the traditional catalog to either VuFind or WorldCat Local" ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>], 119).</p> <p>Using Google Analytics, and through analysis of search logs, one study found that users were fifteen times more likely to refine searches in a discovery interface (Encore) than in the library's traditional OPAC (Innovative Interfaces) (Ballard [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>], 65). A 2010 literature review on usability studies of faceted searching revealed that use of facets in library systems was generally well-received by participants during user testing of several different discovery interfaces (Fagan [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref23">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Paula Webb and Muriel Nero ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref24">44</reflink>]) looked specifically at the social networking ability of three discovery layers: AquaBrowser, Encore, and LibraryThing, as well as the tagging software PennTags, developed by University of Pennsylvania. Using a modified version of Jakob Nielsen's "Ten Usability Heuristics" (<ulink href="http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic%5flist.html;accessedMarch23,2012">http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic%5flist.html;accessedMarch23,2012</ulink>), they noted whether or not each system included branding, lacked library jargon, enabled the ability to navigate through the system easily, was flexible yet easy to use, prevented and clarified errors, and provided easy-to-use help documentation. They found all four systems added value to the OPAC and were useful in providing additional methods of information retrieval (Webb and Nero [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref25">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>A study by Merčun and Žumer ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref26">26</reflink>]) investigated the differences between six library catalogs and Amazon. While several of these catalogs may not fit into what can now be considered the standard description of an NGC, five nevertheless showed some characteristics of discovery layers. Mercûn and Žumer split discovery layer characteristics into two broad main categories: improved functionality and the implementation of Web 2.0 trends. They found that library catalogs have improved in terms of the first broad characteristic, with the inclusion of content not previously found in library catalogs, including book jackets, table of contents, and reviews; however, catalogs had not improved as much in the latter category: social network features were not found in many of the catalogs surveyed, including tagging, user reviews and ratings, and recommendations based on previous check-outs or searches (Merčun and Žumer [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref27">26</reflink>]). It is interesting to note that log analysis of the VuFind installation at Western Michigan University showed that Library 2.0 features such as tagging, commenting, and other social networking-type functions were little used; perhaps more unexpectedly, facets were used in only about a third of basic searches (Ho, Kelley, and Garrison [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref28">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0079291782-7">Web-Scale Discovery</hd> <p>Recently, discussions have expanded to include Web-scale discovery, which "is—or certainly holds the potential to be—the evolution that libraries have long sought for information discovery" (Vaughan [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>], 5). Web-scale discovery incorporates the features and functionality already present in the literature on the NGC and other catalog-focused discovery layers, but expands upon their reach to encompass "combining access to both library catalog and journal database content in one search tool" (Gross and Sheridan [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref30">20</reflink>], 237). These services have the following further characteristics, as defined by the literature:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • They are "flexible services which provide quick and seamless discovery, delivery, and relevancy-ranking capabilities across a huge repository of content" (Vaughan [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref31">43</reflink>], 32–3).</item> <p></p> <item> • They are "delivered on demand to library users via the browser, with infrastructure, processing and indexing provided and maintained remotely by the vendor" (Howard and Wiebrands [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>], sec. Web scale discovery).</item> </ulist> <p>A few well-known examples of these Web-scale systems include EBSCO Discovery Service, Ex Libris' Primo, OCLC's WorldCat Local, and Serials Solutions' Summon.</p> <hd id="AN0079291782-8">EVALUATIVE METHODS AND ACQUISITION PROCESSES FOR DISCOVERY LAYERS</hd> <p>Several articles, and a small number of unpublished reports, currently exist on the evaluation and selection of discovery layers. Jason Vaughan provided an extremely helpful checklist of important considerations for any library investigating the purchase of a discovery layer in his <emph>Library Technology Reports</emph> issue, as well as in his detailed account of the recommendation and selection process undertaken at University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), published in <emph>Information Technology and Libraries</emph> (Vaughan [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref33">42</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref34">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Susan Marcin and Peter Morris discussed the process through which the DiMenna–Nyselius Library at Fairfield University evaluated and eventually selected a discovery layer to act as an interface to their SirsiDynix ILS system (2008). They evaluated five proprietary discovery layers, including AquaBrowser, Encore, WorldCat Local, SirsiDynix's then-unreleased NGC, and LibraryThing for Libraries. The eventual choice, Encore, was chosen in part because they felt that the runner up, WorldCat Local, "appeared too much like a traditional catalog" (Marcin and Morris [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref35">24</reflink>], 8).</p> <p>The criteria that a group at Fairfield University's DiMenna–Nyselius Library used for evaluation included many of the characteristics described by Marshall Breeding in his introduction to the 2007 <emph>Library Technology Reports</emph> issue that focused on NGCs (Marcin and Morris [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]; Breeding [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>]). In fact, the authors pointed to this issue as a starting off point for any library when evaluating discovery layers. Additional features not included in Breeding's article include ADA-compliance, ease of customization, ability to mark records for printing or exporting, and easy access to services offered by the library, including interlibrary loan (ILL) and "My Account" services (Marcin and Morris [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref38">24</reflink>], 7–8). In 2011, an Indiana University (IU) Libraries task force evaluated two open source discovery layers, Blacklight and VuFind, for potential use as the new public interface for IU's online catalog, IUCAT (Greene et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]). Their process included creating a rubric of core functionality and enumerating criteria in four overarching categories: general features and functionality; authentication and account management; export and share; and search functionality and results display. The task force found both candidate systems to be equally capable of fulfilling their baseline criteria but ultimately recommended Blacklight based on its "robust development community ... and scalable, flexible architecture that accommodates the multi-campus/multi-library structure of IU" (Moore and Greene [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref40">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>An article written by members of the Private Academic Library Network of Indiana (PALNI) Technology Advisory Group (PTAG) discussed the process through which the group evaluated five proprietary discovery layer tools and jointly acquired Ex Libris' Primo for the twenty-three libraries in their consortium (Brubaker, Leach–Murray, and Parker [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref41">7</reflink>]). The major priorities of the group focused on the amount and type of content available in each of the discovery layers, the appearance of the user interface, the ability for librarians to determine relevancy rankings, and the speed with which results were displayed. The article included a chart of additional features and functionalities that were discussed most frequently by PALNI librarians (Brubaker et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref42">7</reflink>], 23). They chose Ex Libris' Primo because it included the majority of the priorities defined. The PTAG group was particularly impressed with its flexibility, integration with many other services, and the ability for libraries to modify relevancy ranking (Brubaker et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref43">7</reflink>], 22–3).</p> <p>In 2008, a task force charged by the Missouri Education and Research Libraries Information Network (MERLIN) reviewed five discovery layer tools: VuFind, Encore, WorldCat Local, Primo, and AquaBrowser (MERLIN New Discovery Tools Task Force [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]). Using a set of required and recommended features and functionality, they found that most of the tools surveyed met their basic requirements, including spelling suggestions, the ability to be implemented across multiple campuses, relevancy ranking, and faceted navigation. While the report does not specify which product was ultimately chosen, it does note that VuFind was eventually dismissed as a candidate due to the level of expertise and amount of staff time required to implement and maintain any open source solution. Oregon State University has also made an unpublished report from their discovery services task force freely available on the Web; that group reviewed Summon and WorldCat Local (Boock et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref45">3</reflink>]). Their recommendation, made in December 2009, was to implement Summon, citing several particular strengths of that tool: the ability to unify journal content, access to full text, and positive feedback from user testing.</p> <p>Other articles include more limited information on the evaluation and selection of discovery layers. In the 2010 <emph>Proceedings of the North American Serials Interest Group</emph>, <emph>Inc.</emph>, Ellen Safley, Debbie Montgomery, and Sarah Gardner discussed the selection process of a discovery layer at the University of Texas (UT) at Dallas (2011, 164–8). Their process included the creation of a committee whose task was to evaluate the differences between three proprietary systems, and determine which would provide the most improved access to their electronic resources based on results from focus group testing conducted earlier on their traditional library catalog (Safley et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref46">33</reflink>]). Their final choice was Encore, which was unanimously voted as the best fit for the library by the staff.</p> <p>In a brief article on Summon for <emph>Library Journal</emph>, Ken Varnum mentioned the creation of a 45-item list of desirable features and functionality, and the development of an evaluation checklist, user "personas," and survey data, which guided the selection of Summon at the University of Michigan (Varnum [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref47">37</reflink>]). The full report and a supplemental report can be found on the MLibrary Web site (Varnum, Bhatnagar, et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref48">38</reflink>]; Varnum, Duque, et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref49">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Scott Garrison, George Boston, and Sheila Bair ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>]) discussed the evaluation and implementation of a discovery layer at Western Michigan Libraries in their paper based on an Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) presentation. In it, they lay out their five basic evaluative tools: cost, flexibility, ILS compatibility, self-sufficiency (whether the product could stand alone), and the number of libraries that were currently using the product. They initially chose VuFind to serve as their catalog interface because it is open source, it uses Apache Solr for searching, a growing number of libraries are implementing it, and it has the ability to provide Web 2.0 functionality, including tagging, recommendations, and comments. Western Michigan later also became a beta tester and eventual subscriber to Summon (Garrison, Boston, and Bair [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>For a 2011 ACRL Conference poster session, Jody Condit Fagan and Meris A. Mandernach of James Madison University compiled helpful documentation covering all aspects of the implementation of a discovery tool (in their case, EBSCO Discovery Service) on topics such as marketing, project management, customization, user testing, and implications for cataloging, for the Web site and for public services ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref52">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0079291782-9">Issues to Consider</hd> <p>The selection and evaluation of a discovery layer is a complex undertaking. While the literature provides general guidance on some points, other decisions are specific to each institution. One such highly institution-specific issue is the matter of the timeframe, which is necessarily affected by specific local factors such as budgetary practices, fiscal cycles, overall level of staff involvement, and institutional culture. The anticipated methods of evaluation also must be taken into consideration when implementing a timeframe. For example, conducting user studies on local test implementations will necessarily dictate a longer timeframe for evaluation than simply having vendors demonstrate their products to the library staff. The literature shows a considerable variance, and there is no ideal timeframe in which the evaluation and selection process should take place. Some reviews took as long as fifteen months, although this was due in part to the fact that several of the products identified for evaluation were publicly released several months into the process (Vaughan [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref53">43</reflink>], 35). Other reviews were conducted in a much shorter timeframe. Both the MERLIN task force and the IU Libraries group completed their evaluation and selection process in four months (MERLIN New Discovery Tools Task Force [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref54">27</reflink>]; Moore and Greene [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref55">28</reflink>]). Marcin and Morris ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref56">24</reflink>]) stated that their process took place over the summer.</p> <p>Similarly, decisions about how to assign staff to the project will be driven by institutional culture and practice, as well as what human resources are available. The literature points to two common compositions of the evaluation team: members who are involved primarily in library technology and members from a wide variety of library departments. The DiMenna–Nyselius Library at Fairfield University's selection group was composed of their "digital services and technology planning department," although feedback was solicited from all departments before the final product was selected (Marcin and Morris [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref57">24</reflink>]). Noah Brubaker, Susan Leach–Murray, and Sherri Parker ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref58">7</reflink>]) wrote that the PTAG group consisted of systems librarians from members of their consortia; however, discussions with all library staff throughout the process were encouraged. Vaughan noted that the UNLV task force consisted of "three directors and a broad cross section of staff from across the functional areas of the library, including back-of-the-house and public-service operations" (2011b, 35). The IU Libraries discovery layer task force and UT-Dallas discovery layer committee were also composed of both public service and technical service members (Moore and Greene [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref59">28</reflink>]; Safley et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref60">33</reflink>]). David Howard and Constance Wiebrands ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref61">23</reflink>]) posited that broad staff involvement in the evaluation process may help to allay initial concerns and promote more enthusiasm about the final product selected. Vaughan echoes this sentiment, noting that "throughout the process ... communication with and feedback from a variety of library staff was essential in ensuring success" (2012, 35).</p> <p>The literature suggests that many libraries include a mix of commercial Web-scale and NGC candidates when selecting a new discovery interface, depending on what goal they hope to achieve through implementing the system (see Table 2). Decisions concerning which discovery tools to evaluate focused either on the most well-known tools (Brubaker et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref62">7</reflink>]) or all tools that were currently available in the market at the time of evaluation (Garrison et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref63">18</reflink>]; Marcin and Morris [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref64">24</reflink>]; Vaughan [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref65">42</reflink>]). Because the discovery layer is separate from other systems, libraries are not required to select the product offered by their ILS vendor or OpenURL link resolver vendor, giving the library more flexibility to focus on features and functionality rather than interoperability. However, many libraries note that a significant barrier is presented if a discovery tool has not yet been implemented in concert with a given ILS (Garrison et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref66">18</reflink>]; Brubaker et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref67">7</reflink>]; MERLIN New Discovery Tools Task Force [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref68">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>TABLE 2 Systems Appearing in Library Technology Reports Issues and in Reviewed Articles on Selection Processes in Libraries</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Aqua Browser (Serials Solutions)</td><td>Blacklight</td><td>EBSCO Discovery Service</td><td>Encore Synergy (III)</td><td>Endeca</td><td>Enterprise (SirsiDYNIX)</td><td>LibraryThing</td><td>Primo (Ex Libris)</td><td>Summon (Serials Solutions)</td><td>VuFind</td><td>WorldCat Local (OCLC)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><graphic href="wjwl_a_689602_o_t0002.gif" content-type="Graph" /></td></tr><tr><td><italic>Note.</italic> In some cases, as noted in the text, authors did not specify which candidate system was selected. In other cases, more than one system was selected. <italic>LTR</italic> issues are written for the purpose of aiding evaluation for all readers, and thus do not encompass selection.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The IU Libraries task force was distinctive in that it reviewed only open source discovery layers; however, the authors noted that any library investigating an open source product should be aware of the trade-off between the ability to modify the tool according to the library's own priorities and the amount of time and staff required to implement such changes (Moore and Greene [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref69">28</reflink>]). Garrison, Boston, and Bair noted that while commercial systems require less staff time and local hardware, these systems "can also breed greater skepticism and distrust ... if the development process is not as transparent as it can be for a local open source system" (2011, 454).</p> <p>Most libraries used a variety of methods to evaluate discovery layers. UNLV undertook extensive research in the fifteen months leading up to their selection of Summon, including conducting staff surveys, soliciting references from early-adopter academic libraries of the candidate systems, demonstrations and completion of a lengthy questionnaire by vendors, and a content-overlap analysis. Eight appendices detailing these processes follow the text of Vaughan's article, which more than meets its stated goal of serving as "a primer ... for those libraries wishing to learn more about Web scale discovery and perhaps begin an evaluation process of their own" (2012, 36). Safley and colleagues used on-site vendor demonstrations and recorded the sessions so that staff who were unable to attend could view them later (2011, 166). Both MERLIN and IU Libraries reviewed product installations on other library sites (MERLIN New Discovery Tools Task Force [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref70">27</reflink>]; Moore and Greene [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref71">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1 shows selected features and functionality that were included in the literature on discovery layers. Most of the review articles did not explicitly weight these items; final selection was dependent on a confluence of these factors. Western Michigan University rated the seven NGCs they evaluated based on five high-level attributes (Garrison et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref72">18</reflink>]); the IU Libraries, while considering numerous specific criteria, eventually made their decision based on six high-level priorities (Moore and Greene [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref73">28</reflink>]). Key features and functionality that the discovery layer should possess were typically identified early in the process, and discovery layers were rated according to whether or not each criterion was available. The MERLIN group came up with their required and recommended features from information gleaned from conferences, other libraries, and input from the committee, and requested that vendors comment on the ability of their product to meet these requirements (MERLIN New Discovery Tools Task Force [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref74">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0079291782-10">FUTURE OF DISCOVERY IN THE LIBRARY: CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES</hd> <p>In labeling something a disruptive technology, it does not necessarily follow that the disruption must be unwelcome; in the case of discovery layers, their potential to transform the workflow and the overall user experience of both internal and external users should be considered a response to the earlier calls for change summarized in an earlier section of this article. Nevertheless, some disruptions are easier to process than others, and with any new system, enhancements and adjustments will be required to best meet the needs of all researchers. At this early stage of development for discovery in the library environment, several areas requiring further attention can be identified.</p> <hd id="AN0079291782-11">Library Staff: Reactions to Discovery Tools</hd> <p>The literature documents some initial resistance to the implementation of discovery systems by library staff. Drastic technological changes have already created upheaval in the library, and the shift from the traditional library catalog to the discovery layer can be seen as a threat to maintaining hegemony over the burgeoning quantity of resources and subscriptions managed by libraries. After selecting and implementing Serials Solutions' Summon at Edith Cowan University (ECU) Library, Howard and Wiebrands found that "the biggest risk we faced was negative librarian experiences and views flowing through to our users" ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref75">23</reflink>], sec. Abstract). While a later survey indicated much higher satisfaction with their new discovery layer, Howard and Wiebrands found that the main causes of concern cited by staff about their new discovery layer were uncertainty about coverage, concern that the tool was "dumbing down" search or that it lacked sufficient functionality for expert users, questions about the return on investment, the availability and inclusion of Australian content, and numerous issues centering around trust and change management (2011, sec. Is it a good search tool?).</p> <p>Any change in services requires buy-in from library staff. The move from the traditional catalog to the discovery layer is "positively disruptive" (Garrison et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref76">18</reflink>], 448), and should involve a more concerted effort to not only reimagine the catalog interface, but to re-envision the entire focus of the library. The challenge for libraries is to question their previous practices and methods, and place their efforts in identifying goals that continue meeting the needs of their users. Jennifer Fabbi detailed how the UNLV technical services department, and gradually the entire library, transitioned its organizational focus to discovery before even beginning the process of investigating a discovery layer ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref77">14</reflink>]). Fabbi noted that this year-long process involved "understanding our services from the customers' point of view" and "transform[ing] frustration and uncertainty over the user experience of the services we are providing into a motivation to embrace potential futures" (2009, 168).</p> <hd id="AN0079291782-12">Potential of Current Systems to Meet Discovery Needs of Expert Searchers</hd> <p>The selection of a discovery layer is a positive step towards increasing the discoverability of library resources for students, staff, and faculty. While discovery layers have most definitely surpassed the traditional catalog in terms of interface features, this movement towards a single search that incorporates the majority of the library's resources has not yet addressed all of the aspirations of true discoverability.</p> <p>For the expert user, there is the possibility that a single search is unable to provide the level of specificity needed for their particular subject area. In a usability study of the University of Kansas' Web site and federated search engine, Judith Emde, Sara Morris, and Monica Claassen-Wilson ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref78">13</reflink>]) found that faculty members were more likely to prefer using subject-specific databases than a tool that combined disparate sources together, despite some faculty finding citations to relevant resources not available in their subject-specific database. Similarly, user assessment activities of Summon at Dartmouth College Library found that their graduate students "held a generally negative view ... compared to subject-specific databases" (Dartmouth College Library [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref79">10</reflink>], 5). More research into faculty reaction and use of discovery layers is necessary in order to determine how to enable advanced searching capabilities in discovery layers, so that expert users can find relevant research that might not otherwise be discoverable in subject-specific databases.</p> <hd id="AN0079291782-13">Novice Searchers: Discovery and Information Literacy</hd> <p>With the movement towards discovery layers, students are better able to navigate library systems; however, these developments have implications in the area of information literacy—being able to evaluate the results of a search and select the resources relevant to the research question at hand. As Julia Gross and Lutie Sheridan stated, the "simplicity of the searching interface does not solve the problem of complexity of content" (2011, 242). And Howard and Wiebrands noted, "We spend far too much time training students to use complicated systems that many will not encounter or have access to once they have left the university. This is not information literacy but an attempt to make up for poor system design" (2011, sec. Information literacy and the OPAC). In this area, as in many others, discovery tools may have a transformative impact: "the effect may be broader than teaching a new tool; it may mean real changes in what instruction librarians teach" (Buck and Mellinger [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref80">8</reflink>], 160).</p> <p>Students will find content in the discovery layer but may not be able to determine its appropriateness. Jody Fagan addressed this issue in a 2011 editorial in <emph>Journal of Web Librarianship</emph>, in which she compared the effectiveness of library Web sites and catalogs with discovery tools using outcomes from ACRL's "Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education." She noted that while discovery layers provide students with a wide range of content previously unavailable in a single search, they are inadequate for helping students recognize such key information literacy outcomes as differences in how discipline-specific resources are organized and distinguishing between different formats (Fagan [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref81">16</reflink>]). Fagan wrote that there is a need for more research into how to resolve the issues discovery layers are not addressing, as well as how to best take advantage of the areas in which discovery layers can best aid in information literacy skills (Fagan [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref82">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0079291782-14">Areas for Further Research</hd> <p>To function most effectively, discovery layers must meet the needs of both the novice searcher (who may not understand the inclusion of a wide variety of sources in a single results list) and the expert scholar (who desires to perform advanced, subject-specific searches). Further research is needed on how both novice and expert searchers, including library staff, interact with these new discovery systems in order to further our understanding of how these constituencies use the systems, what they need and want from the interface, and what improvements to implement for better discoverability. While the traditional catalog isn't yet extinct, the opportunities presented in the new landscape of discovery are enabling libraries to focus on the user and on satisfying user needs, rather than the tool itself.</p> <hd id="AN0079291782-15">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Libraries are increasingly moving from traditional OPACs to discovery layers, which promise much greater features and functionality. The selection and evaluation of these tools is an incredibly important task, and a review of the literature indicates that there is no single correct strategy for undertaking this process. Many libraries shared common methods and criteria for evaluation and selection, although the type of staff and review timeframe differed. Keeping all staff informed during the process was seen as important to the success of the implementation of the discovery layer; however, no studies exist that directly confirm this finding. The future of discovery tools holds both challenges and opportunities, and finding a way to satisfy the needs of both the expert user and the novice user represents perhaps the greatest test of all.</p> <ref id="AN0079291782-16"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref14" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Antelman, Kristen, Lynema, Emily and Pace, AndrewK.2006. Toward a Twenty-First Century Library Catalog. Information Technology & Libraries, 25(3): 128–39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref22" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ballard, Terry. 2011. Comparison of User Search Behaviors with Classic Online Catalogs and Discovery Platforms. Charleston Advisor, 12(3): 65–6. doi:10.5260/ chara.12.3.65</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref45" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Boock, Michael, Buck, Stefanie, Chadwell, Faye, Nichols, Jane and Reese, Terry. 2009. Discovery Services Task Force Recommendation to University Librarian, Oregon State University. <ulink href="http://hdl.handle.net/1957/13817">http://hdl.handle.net/1957/13817</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref6" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Borgman, ChristineL.1996. Why are Online Catalogs Still Hard to Use?. Journal of the American Society of Information Science, 47(7): 493–503. doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1097–4571(199607)47:7<493::AID-ASI3>3.0.CO;2-P</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref8" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Breeding, Marshall. 2007a. Chapter 1: Introduction. Next-Generation Library Catalogs. Library Technology Reports, 43(4): 5–14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref19" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Breeding, Marshall. 2007b. Next-Generation Library Catalogs. Library Technology Reports, 43(4): 1–42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref41" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brubaker, Noah, Leach-Murray, Susan and Parker, Sherri. 2011. Shapes in the Cloud. Online, 35(2): 20–6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref80" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Buck, Stefanie and Mellinger, Margaret. 2011. The Impact of Serial Solutions' SummonTM on Information Literacy Instruction: Librarian Perceptions. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 16(4): 159–81. doi:10.1080/10875301.2011.621864</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Calhoun, Karen. 2006. The Changing Nature of the Catalog and Its Integration with Other Discovery ToolsFinal report. Accessed April 2, 2012. <ulink href="http://www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf">http://www.loc.gov/catdir/calhoun-report-final.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dartmouth College Library. 2009. An Evaluation of Serials Solutions Summon As a Discovery Service for the Dartmouth College Libraryhttp://<ulink href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/~library/admin/docs/Summon%5fReport.pdf">www.dartmouth.edu/~library/admin/docs/Summon%5fReport.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dempsey, Lorcan. 2006. The Library Catalogue in the New Discovery Environment: Some Thoughts. Ariadne, 48<ulink href="http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue48/dempsey/">http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue48/dempsey/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emanuel, Jenny. 2009. Next Generation Catalogs: What Do They Do and Why Should We Care?. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 49(2): 117–20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Emde, JudithZ., Morris, SaraE. and Claassen-Wilson, Monica. 2009. Testing an Academic Library Website for Usability with Faculty and Graduate Students. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 4(4): 24–36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabbi, Jennifer. 2009. 'Discovery's Focus as Impetus for Organizational Learning. Information Technology & Libraries, 28(4): 164–71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fagan, JodyCondit. 2010. Usability Studies of Faceted Browsing: A Literature Review. Information Technology & Libraries, 29(2): 58–66.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fagan, JodyCondit. 2011. Discovery Tools and Information Literacy. Journal of Web Librarianship, 5(2): 171–8. doi:10.1080/19322909.2011.598332</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fagan, JodyCondit and Mandernach, MerisA.2011. A Roadmap for Discovery Service Implementation at an Academic Library. Poster session presented at the ACRL 2011 Conference, Philadelphia, PA, April 1. <ulink href="http://www.lib.jmu.edu/documents/discovery/roadmap.aspx">http://www.lib.jmu.edu/documents/discovery/roadmap.aspx</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garrison, Scott, Boston, George and Bair, Sheila. 2011. "Taming Lightning in More Than One Bottle: Implementing a Local Next-Generation Catalog Versus a Hosted Web Scale Discovery Service". In Declaration of Interdependence: The Proceedings of the ACRL 2011 Conference, 448–58. Philadelphia, PA: American Library Association. <ulink href="http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/events/national/2011/papers/taming%5flightning.pdf">http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/events/national/2011/papers/taming%5flightning.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greene, Courtney, Gushrowski, Barbara, Lent, Randall, Evin Long, Chris, Beth Minick, Mary, Banet Moore, Kate, Pershing, Gwendolyn, Pagliero Popp, Mary and Skekloff, Susan. 2011. IU Libraries Discovery Layer Task Force Summary Report and Recommendation, Indiana University Libraries. <ulink href="http://hdl.handle.net/2022/13621">http://hdl.handle.net/2022/13621</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gross, Julia and Sheridan, Lutie. 2011. Web Scale Discovery: The User Experience. New Library World, 112(5/6): 236–47. doi:10.1108/03074801111136275</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hildreth, CharlesR.1982. Online Public Access Catalogs: The User Interface, Dublin, OH: OCLC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ho, Birong, Kelley, Keith and Garrison, Scott. 2009. Implementing VuFind as an Alternative to Voyager's WebVoyage Interface: One Library's Experience. Library Hi Tech, 27(1): 82–92. doi:10.1108/07378830910942946</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howard, David and Wiebrands, Constance. 2011. Culture Shock: Librarians' Response to Web Scale Search. ECU Publications, <ulink href="http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks/6206">http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks/6206</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcin, Susan and Morris, Peter. 2008. OPAC: The Next Generation. Computers in Libraries, 28: 6–9. 62, 64, (May 2008)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markey, Karen. 2007. The Online Library Catalog: Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained?. D-Lib Magazine, 13(1/2): 1doi:10.1045/january2007-markey</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merčun, Tanja and Žumer, Maja. 2008. New Generation of Catalogues for the New Generation of Users: A Comparison of Six Library Catalogues. Program: Electronic Library & Information Systems, 42(3): 243–61. doi:10.1108/0033033 0810892668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MERLIN New Discovery Tools Task Force. 2009. MERLIN New Discovery Tools Task Force Report, Missouri: Missouri Education and Research Libraries Information Network. <ulink href="http://mulibraries.missouri.edu/staff/CurrentDocuments/MERLINNewDiscoveryToolsdraftfinal.doc">http://mulibraries.missouri.edu/staff/CurrentDocuments/MERLINNewDiscoveryToolsdraftfinal.doc</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, KateB. and Greene, Courtney. 2012. The Search for a New OPAC: Selecting an Open Source Discovery Layer. Serials Review, 38(1): 24–30. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2011.12.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, EricLease. 2006a. A 'Next Generation' Library Catalog—Introduction and Assumptions (Part #2 of 5). LITA Blog, Accessed March 22, 2012. <ulink href="http://litablog.org/2006/07/a-next-generation-library-catalog-introduction-and-assumptions-part-2-of-5">http://litablog.org/2006/07/a-next-generation-library-catalog-introduction-and-assumptions-part-2-of-5</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, EricLease. 2006b. A 'Next Generation' Library Catalog—Conclusion (Part #5 of 5). LITA Blog, <ulink href="http://litablog.org/2006/07/a-next-generation-library-catalog-conclusion-part-5-of-5">http://litablog.org/2006/07/a-next-generation-library-catalog-conclusion-part-5-of-5</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, Andrew. 2011a. Analyzing the Next-Generation Catalog. Library Technology Reports, 47(7): 1–27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, Andrew. 2011b. Chapter 3: Defining the Next-Generation Catalog. Library Technology Reports, 47(7): 11–5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Safley, Ellen, Montgomery, Debbie and Gardner, Sarah. 2011. Oasis or Quicksand: Implementing a Catalog Discovery Layer to Maximize Access to Electronic Resources. Serials Librarian, 60(1–4): 164–8. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2011.556028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, KarenG.2006a. How OPACs Suck, Part 1: Relevance Rank (Or the Lack of It). ALA TechSource, Accessed April 2, 2012. <ulink href="http://www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevance-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html">http://www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevance-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, KarenG.2006b. How OPACs Suck, Part 2: The Checklist of Shame. ALA TechSource, Accessed April 2, 2012. <ulink href="http://www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/04/how-opacs-suck-part-2-the-checklist-of-shame.html">http://www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/04/how-opacs-suck-part-2-the-checklist-of-shame.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, KarenG.2006c. How OPACs Suck, Part 3: The Big Picture. ALA TechSource, Accessed April 2, 2012. <ulink href="http://www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/05/how-opacs-suck-part-3-the-big-picture.html">http://www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/05/how-opacs-suck-part-3-the-big-picture.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Varnum, Ken. 2011. Serials Solutions' Summon: Familiarity Breeds Success. Library Journal, 136(Reference Supplement): 18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Varnum, Ken, Bhatnagar, Gaurav, Duque, Gabriel, MacEachern, Mark, (Henry) Samuel, Sara and Teasley, Stephanie. 2010. University of Michigan Library, Article Discovery Working Group, Supplemental Report, Final Reporthttp://<ulink href="http://www.lib.umich.edu/files/adwg/final-report.pdf">www.lib.umich.edu/files/adwg/final-report.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Varnum, Ken, Duque, Gabriel, (Henry) Samuel, Sara and MacEachern, Mark. 2010. University of Michigan Library, Article Discovery Working Group, Supplemental Reporthttp://<ulink href="http://www.lib.umich.edu/files/adwg/supplemental-report.pdf">www.lib.umich.edu/files/adwg/supplemental-report.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughan, Jason. 2011a. Chapter 1: Web Scale Discovery What and Why?. Library Technology Reports, 47(1): 5–11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughan, Jason. 2011b. Chapter 6: Differentiators and a Final Note. Library Technology Reports, 47(1): 48–53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughan, Jason. 2011c. Web Scale Discovery Services. Library Technology Reports, 47(1): 1–61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughan, Jason. 2012. Investigations into Library Web Scale Discovery Services. Information Technology and Libraries, 31(1)32–82. doi:10.6017/ital.v31i1.1916</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webb, PaulaL. and Nero, MurielD.2009. OPACs in the Clouds. Computers in Libraries, 29(9): 18–22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, SharonQ. and Hofmann, MelissaA.2011. Next Generation or Current Generation?: A Study of the OPACs of 260 Academic Libraries in the USA and Canada. Library Hi Tech, 29(2): 266–300. doi:10.1108/07378831111138170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, SharonQ. and Wagner, Kurt. 2010. Evaluating and Comparing Discovery Tools: How Close Are We Towards the Next Generation Catalog?. Library Hi Tech, 28(4): 690–709. doi:10.1108/07378831011096312</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By KateB. Moore and Courtney Greene</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref81"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ976962
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Choosing Discovery: A Literature Review on the Selection and Evaluation of Discovery Layers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Moore%2C+Kate+B%2E%22">Moore, Kate B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Greene%2C+Courtney%22">Greene, Courtney</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Web+Librarianship%22"><i>Journal of Web Librarianship</i></searchLink>. 2012 6(3):145-163.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: PhysDesc
  Label: Physical Description
  Group: PhysDesc
  Data: PDF
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Information Analyses<br />Journal Articles
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Libraries%22">Libraries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Online+Catalogs%22">Online Catalogs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Interfaces%22">Computer Interfaces</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Discovery+Processes%22">Discovery Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Usability%22">Usability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Software+Evaluation%22">Computer Software Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Criteria%22">Evaluation Criteria</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Software+Selection%22">Computer Software Selection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22User+Needs+%28Information%29%22">User Needs (Information)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expertise%22">Expertise</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Novices%22">Novices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Literacy%22">Information Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Librarian+Attitudes%22">Librarian Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/19322909.2012.689602
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1932-2909
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Within the next few years, traditional online public access catalogs will be replaced by more robust and interconnected discovery layers that can serve as primary public interfaces to simultaneously search many separate collections of resources. Librarians have envisioned this type of discovery tool since the 1980s, and research shows that discovery layer functionality and features have already resolved, or will soon remedy, many of the known issues with the traditional online public access catalog. The authors of this article review the literature on discovery, focusing on the evolution from the traditional online public access catalog to newer discovery interfaces, and summarize what has been published regarding the selection and evaluation of these new tools. Based on this review, emerging trends in the acquisition of discovery layers are described, including: the amount of time libraries devote to selection and evaluation, the staff involved and their areas of expertise, which discovery tools were selected to review, the evaluation methods used, and the features and functionality evaluated. The authors conclude with a discussion of the opportunities and concerns for libraries and their patrons related to discovery efforts, and provide direction for future research. While discovery layers are still developing, they show great promise in increasing the use and usability of library resources. (Contains 2 tables.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 46
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ976962
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ976962
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/19322909.2012.689602
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 145
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Libraries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Online Catalogs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Interfaces
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Discovery Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Usability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Software Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Criteria
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Software Selection
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: User Needs (Information)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expertise
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Novices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Librarian Attitudes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Choosing Discovery: A Literature Review on the Selection and Evaluation of Discovery Layers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Moore, Kate B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Greene, Courtney
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2012
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1932-2909
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 6
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Web Librarianship
              Type: main
ResultId 1