LJ SE RI E THEBIGTOOS ]

THEBy Judy Luther

& Maureen C. Kelly N

"GEN

OFA casual Google searchmay well be good enough for a dailytask. But if you are a college studentconducting his or her first search forpeer-reviewed content, or an establishedscholar taking up a new line of inquiry,then the stakes are a lot higher. Thechallenge for academic libraries, caughtin the seismic shift from print to elec-tronic resources, is to offer an experi-ence that has the simplicity of Google-which users expect-while searchingthe library's rich digital and print collec-tions-which users need. Increasingly,they are turning to a new generation of

ER

The stage is setfor a simpler searchfor users, but choosinga product is muchmore complex

"EXT

search tools, called discovery, for help.Libraries have been striving to re-

spond to this challenge for years. Themetasearch tools of the past decade-while different (and, ultimately, tooslow)-were the first attempts to meetthis user expectation by querying each ofthe databases a library subscribed to andreturning a single set of results.

Enter discovery, which is modeled

Judy Luther is President and Maureen C. Kellyis a Consultant at Informed Strategies LLC,Ardmore, PA. The authors acknowledge thecontributions of the librarians and vendorswho participated in interviews conducted inthe preparation of this article

66 1 LIBRARY JOUIRNAL I MARCH 15,2011

1T10

on the Google-style approach of build-ing and then searching a unified indexof available resources, instead of search-ing each database individually. WhileGoogle's general index focuses on pub-licly available web content, these newdiscovery tools-including EBSCODiscovery Service and Serials Solutions'Summon, among others-provide uni-fied indexes of the licensed scholarlypublications combined with locally heldcontent (like the catalog).

In effect, discovery tools make goodon the promise of those earlier search so-lutions by shifting some of the IT man-agement responsibilities to the cloud,streamlining search, and improving therelevance ranking of results. And us-ers get to enter a single query-i laGoogle-to search the rich content ofthe collection with the speed they havecome to expect. Still brand new, and in

I

L

action in only a handful of academic li-braries, these tools are expected to trans-form search as we know it.

The challenge of findabilityIn a March 1994 Wired magazine ar-ticle, nearly two years before the startof the research project that would be-come Google, futurist Paul Saffo madea prediction: "The future belongs toneither the conduit or content play-ers, but those who control the filtering,searching, and sense-making tools wewill rely on to navigate through the ex-panses of cyberspace."

That insight is as relevant to today'sworld of scholarly information as it con-tinues to be for the other digital mediathat fill the Internet. When we lookback at the early days of Internet search,we see that, while breadth of contentwas critical for search engines, the realsuccess came from the algorithms that

brought the most relevant informationto the top of the results list. When con-tent is abundant, finding the right con-tent becomes the challenge.

While we may settle for sufficient andconvenient resources in our everydaylives, precision (just relevant documents)and recall (all relevant documents) arevital for scholarly information.

Because of its convenience, many peo-ple use Google as the starting point forinformation quests. But for scholars, it isonly a starting point. Academic librariesare treasure troves of carefully selectedcollections and resources that Googledoes not consistently index. GoogleScholar, a bibliographic index of schol-arly literature, has attempted to fill thegap but has only achieved partial success,and its content coverage is unclear.

Until recently, scholars and studentshave been left to augment Google results

by also searching library databases indi-vidually. Librarians hoped that metase-arch engines, also referred to as federatedsearch engines, would simplify search-ing across these databases, but they havefallen short of librarian expectations-owing in part to structural complexities,as connectors to each resource are hardto maintain. They have also disappointedusers-due to their slowness of response,problems with relevance ranking, andinadequate handling of duplicates.

The new unified-index discoverytools offer great potential for simplify-ing scholarly search and making it moreeffective. As with all technology solu-tions, however, myriad details need tobe sorted out in the move from conceptto operational success. And the differ-ences in how these tools are being im-plemented have implications for both li-braries and for the publishers that supplythe information.

What to considerLibrarians have been examining thesenew discovery tools carefully, but com-parisons have been frustrating becausethese products are new and enhance-ments are ongoing. Nonetheless, librar-ians have narrowed in on certain featuresand capabilities that are key to makingdecisions about these tools. Naturally,different institutions weigh each factordifferently based on local needs and ob-jectives, collections, users, and staffing.Leading factors are:

CONTENT"* Scope and depth of content being

indexed."* Richness (and consistency) of

metadata included in the indexes."* Frequency of content updates."* Ease of incorporating local content,

if desired.

WWW.LIBRARYJOURNAL.COM REVIEWS. NEWS, AND MORE

SEARCH"* Simplicity of the interface."* Quality of results, including

relevance ranking."* Ability to customize search and

relevance settings."* Availability of tools for navigating

search results (such as clustering,facets, etc.).

"* Ease of incorporation into existinginstitutional access tools.

* Support for new use environments,including mobile access and social-networking features.

FIT"* Ease of implementation."* Compatibility with existing

software and content."* Responsiveness of the vendor and

alignment of priorities regardingfuture developments.

"* Overall customer support, includingreputation and prior dealingswith the vendor.

COST"* As a new service in addition to

existing tools."* Instead of other finding tools or

delays to other upgrades."* Justification in light of libraries' goals

and objectives.

ContentTo create a unified index, vendors needto secure permission from each pub-lisher. While agreements take time, theamount of content included in the in-dexes is growing steadily. As more li-braries implement discovery tools, pri-mary publishers that have not yet agreedare likely to feel pressure from librariesthat expect acquired content to be acces-sible through these tools.

While it's possible to determinewhich databases or individual titles areincluded, a detailed comparison of dis-covery services at the title level is anoverwhelming task, as coverage of titlesvaries based on the depth of the archiveand the currency of the content.

Local content in institutional reposi-tories can be included with OAI (OpenArchive Initiative) harvesting of metadataand ingestion of MARC records from theOPAC. Catalogers may weigh in on thefields from MARC records that are in-dexed, which can affect discovery. Librari-ans may also need to consider special collec-tions or files with audio, video, and images.

MARCH 15,2011 I LIBRARY JOURNAL I 67

LJSERIE TH BI TOLS .ý~

Librarians need to think about therole they want discovery to play in theirlibraries. If the tool is considered a placeto start and a way to reach more libraryusers, then complete coverage in a uni-fied index may not be necessary forthe undergraduate who is simply seek-ing "an answer." Others might decide itis even more important for the startingpoint to be as complete as possible. If thesingle search box is viewed as being thefront door to all the libraries' resources,then librarians also need to consider howto present what is not included in theunified index.

SearchDiscovery tools can effectively integratelibraries' resources with a single queryacross multiple databases that normallyfunction as information silos. In essence,these tools create a unified space for in-tegrating access to a diverse group ofdigital and print resources.

Vendors are fine-tuning their algo-rithms to adjust the relevance of searchresults. For example, many users expectsearches to display a book itself before re-views of that book in a results set. With

68 1 LIBRARY JOURNAL I MARCH 15, 2011

journal articles, books, newspapers, con-ference proceedings, and other formatsindexed together, vendors must considerhow to weight the content types in re-sponse to queries.

The single search box lets users ap-proach discovery tools with what theyknow and rely on filters to narrow theresults. Scott Anderson at MillersvilleUniversity, PA, which uses EBSCO Dis-covery Service, says, "We liked the ideathat discovery tools reduce the cognitiveload that the user has to know about thelibrary." Facets that enable users to fil-ter results by content type, subject terms,publication date, language, and othercategories can also serve to acquaint us-ers with the scope of literature availableon a topic.

Librarians will need to decide whereto place the search box on the library'swebsite. Reference librarians may wish toidentify additional resources not includedin search results, or to highlight find-ing aids to help orient users. The singlesearch box can be placed in course man-agement applications such as Blackboard,or, ideally, into the student's workflow,wherever that may be. AsJennifer Duver-

nay at Arizona State University (ASU),an early installation of Summon, notes,"We can't wait for the students to cometo us; we have to go to them, embeddingthe search where they are working."

FitThe desire to customize a system willvary by library. Librarians are inquir-ing about local control of system ele-ments, from appearance (including la-bels for facets) to the ability to modifyrelevance ranking. Library staff with thetechnical capability to manage applica-tion programming interfaces (APIs) maywant to add links to databases that arenot included and establish profiles fordisciplines. To incorporate local contentseamlessly may involve including addi-tional format types (such as governmentdocuments) or influencing metadatafields that the vendor indexes.

Holdings display and real-time dataon availability of items will be impor-tant for those involved with consortiallending. While link resolvers appear tobe compatible, data management maybe required to address holdings or otherfactors that receive new visibility.

Motivation and benefitsDiscovery tools are evolving rapidlywith input from partner libraries and

through usability studies with end us-ers. Early adopters were eager to ad-dress the growing number of databasesand worked with their vendor partnersto influence development. For librariesnow looking at these tools, the sequenceof planned enhancements may influencepurchase decisions as a common featureset emerges to meet market expectations.

Discovery tools can leverage the insti-tution's library investment through in-creased use of library resources, whichcan demonstrate value to provosts. Bet-ter access for undergraduates results ingreater productivity for its users. Librar-ians at George Washington University,which chose EBSCO Discovery Service,have studied the options and see discov-ery services as "a tool that would revealour content so that it's not hidden."

Many librarians who believe thatdiscovery tools are a good first step inmeeting the needs of the undergradu-ate student who is unfamiliar with thelibrary's resources, discover it also meetsthe needs of researchers. Bryan Skib, as-

sociate university librarian for collectionsat the University of Michigan Library,which chose Summon, notes, "Whilevery good for known-item searching, it'sideal for interdisciplinary research andfor those who don't know what they'relooking for or what databases to use."

Thanks to consortial agreements,small libraries can have access to as manydatabases as much larger libraries. As aresult, the need for a single search acrossmultiple databases is even more wide-spread than when federated search toolslaunched ten years ago. Schools withstrong distance education programs ac-knowledge that today's learners valuetools that support their operating in a24/7 self-service environment.

Decisions and fundingWhile the decision to acquire a deliverytool is often led by a champion at the in-stitution, the selection process tends tobe shaped by environmental factors, suchas synergy with existing systems or cur-rent sources of content and, of course,the available budget. A number of hbrar-ies that found federated search unsatis-factory have been eager to switch to or

acquire a unified index to offer users abetter experience. The new discoverytools that incorporate federated searchtechniques use them as a complement tocover additional databases not includedin the unified index and to provide amore comprehensive view of the librar-ies' resources.

Since buying a discovery tool is a newexpense for libraries, funding has comefrom the systems or collections bud-gets, special allocations or possibly staffsavings. At James Madison University(JMU), Harrisonburg, VA, which se-lected EBSCO Discovery Service, JodyFagan says, "I can explain to library pa-trons why we don't have a particular da-tabase, but I can't explain why they haveto use different search boxes for booksand joumals."

Some libraries form a team to conducta thorough evaluation; it is likely to in-clude staff from collection development,electronic resources, and bibliographicinstruction, with input from cataloging.The team may also conduct side-by-sidetests and consider factors such as ease ofimplementation, website changes, use ofa link resolver, and customer support.

0 WWW,LIBRARYJOURNAL.COM REVIEWS, NEWS, AND MORE HMARCH15, 2011 I LIBRAPY JOURNAL 1 69

LJS RI S HEBI TOOL

User opinionsLibraries are pleased with these tools andgetting positive feedback from users.Early results show increased usage of li-brary databases.

For experienced users and librariansat some schools, the reaction is mixed."Some librarians love it and some hateit," observes Joseph Hafner at Mc-Gill University, Montreal, which usesOCLC's WorldCat Local.

According to library director Jona-than Miller at Rollins College, WinterPark, FL, which uses Summon, "We'vehad a business faculty who loves it anda philosophy faculty who hates it." De-pending on the subject area, experiencedusers may prefer a familiar discipline-specific database that produces fewersearch results, while those whose top-

ics cross disciplines are delighted to findnew material.

Librarians have observed how theyhave gone from explaining the me-chanics of search to focusing on evalu-ating search results. "Students are com-ing in with their problems rather thannot knowing where to start," says ASU'sDuvernay. "It's less about using the li-brary and more about what they havefound and how to effectively use it," ob-serves Millersville's Anderson.

"We can start to move away from themechanics of the database, and we canfocus on the educational componentsand help students understand the differ-ence in information objects," Andersonsuggests. "Students need to think criti-cally about what they have found ratherthan how to find it."

Future opportunitiesAs discovery tools become well estab-lished, there is the potential for them tohelp introduce users to new subject areas.For example, search results can be dis-played visually, allowing users to navigatethe literature and discover topics within it.

Vendors can incorporate new con-tent types, such as e-textbooks and datasets, into the indexes and integrate themwith learning systems. Video and im-age search will become smarter as morepublished content includes multimedia.Rapid adoption of mobile readers andtablet computers, such as the iPad, willhelp drive these developments.

Discovery tools are implementingmobile access, but resources that havenot yet been "mobilized" can be un-wieldy or unusable on a small screen.

Al ne te h olge craeb t niiaeSn upiigrp l fet. ihtego igVlm n iest feeto ireore, it mih be sai tha dicvr olSr en nrdcdntam m nttoso.B tw a r h oeta ogtr

V. I E*WS

ABVETH FOD KEINUPLOS CNTNT

FORMATCONVEGENCE

SEANI ADATG?BLN IE

DEMISE~.5 OFTE P

CRAOS NO US INES

WHAT COUNTS

70 1 LIBRARY JOURNAL I MARCH 15,2011

I

As more publishers adapt content topersonalized readers, the user experi-ence will improve and could signifi-cantly change the way we work. Con-tent providers will also increasingly usesocial networks to enable discoverythrough affiliation.

Going forwardWhile still fairly new, discovery toolsare rapidly gaining content, adding en-

hancements, and growing their customerbase. Libraries have adopted technologiesthat transform their services, and discov-ery tools are the next innovation. Theunified index enables libraries to provideeasier access to their resources at a timewhen mobile devices are beginning tochange how we work. These discoverytools open the door for digital natives toencounter library-friendly services witha low barrier to entry.

When we look at the new discoverytools, we should remember what drivesinformation decisions in our everydaylives. The new discovery tool providerswould do well to note a recent obser-vation by InfoWorld's Robert X. Crin-gely on why the iPhone and iPad haveenjoyed such success: "The reason?Jobs' insistence on giving people whatthey really want: simple, intuitive prod-ucts that are fun to use." U

'* WWW.LIBRARYJOURNAL.COM REVIEWS, NEWS. AND MORE MMARCH 15, 2011 1LIBRARY JOURNAL 1 7-1

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

Author:

Title:

Source:

ISSN:

Publisher:

Luther, Judy; Kelly, Maureen C.

The next generation of discovery

Libr J 136 no5 Mr 15 2011 p. 66-71

0363-0277

Media Source, Inc.

160 Varick Street, New York, NY 10013

Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. Noredistribution permitted. To contact the publisher: http://www.libraryjournal.com/

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub- licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.