LiveSerials

New Transfer email announcement list and blog

2009-10-02T08:57:00.001Z

The Transfer project, an initiative of UKSG, is pleased to announce a new email list and blog for announcements about journal transfers between publishers.

Interested parties can join the discussion list to receive and post information about transfers. List membership is not limited to those publishers who have publicly announced Transfer
endorsement, although we do still encourage all publishers to sign up to the code.

Announcements on the list will also be syndicated to our new Transfer blog. More information about post etiquette for both the discussion list and the blog can be found on the Transfer website.

More information about the Transfer project and Code of Practice can be found at www.uksg.org/transfer.

Twitter: waste of time or worth it?

2009-05-05T13:00:00.004Z

Back in March, at the start of UKSG's annual conference, Todd Carpenter of NISO wrote this interesting LiveSerials posting about Twitter and how it is used during conferences.

Today this subject is raised again by CrossRef's Kirsty Meddings, writing the editorial in the latest edition of Serials-eNews, UKSG's news bulletin. (Note that access to Serials-eNews is usually an exclusive benefit for UKSG members but all being well you should get access to this article by following this link - let us know if you have any problems!).

Both pieces are useful in helping to explain why Twitter is gaining such traction in our community, and both are generally in favour of Twitter as a channel for sharing resources and building relationships during conferences. Do you agree? what about using Twitter outside of the conference centre - are publishers, libraries and others in our sector putting it to good use, or wasting their time?

UKSG has set up its own Twitter channel, @uksg, and encouraged usage of the #uksg09 hashtag during the conference. Are we right to be exploring this medium? What more could or should we be doing? We're interested to know your thoughts so please do discuss via comments or trackbacks (or on Twitter! - #uksg).

Save the date: 33rd UKSG Annual Conference

2009-05-01T15:40:00.000Z

A quick note to remind you that next year's UKSG Annual Conference will be held at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre from 12-14 April 2010. Please stick the date in your diary and be sure to join us there!

A Wordle to represent UKSG 2009

2009-04-30T10:58:00.002Z

Here's a nice Wordle of LiveSerials postings from the 2009 UKSG annual conference. I think it sums up UKSG's focus quite nicely, although I'm surprised at how small "publishers" and "publishing" have ended up.

UKSG Research - please send us your views!

2009-04-28T10:13:00.000Z

We recently surveyed delegates at UKSG's 2009 conference in Torquay to find out more about them, what they thought and what they needed from the organisation. We would welcome your input into this discussion. The survey should not take longer than ten minutes and all feedback is valuable.

Tell us what you think

Presentations from the conference now on the website

2009-04-24T17:25:00.002Z

A quick note to let you know that presentations from the conference are now available on the UKSG website:

Keep an eye out for further retrospective reports of the conference coming soon to LiveSerials.

Evolving role of the institutional repository breakout

2009-04-03T11:19:00.005Z

I attended an interesting breakout session on the evolving role of the institutional repository in promoting library research support. Garret McMahon provided background about the Research Support System developed at Trinity College Dublin. The RSS is a web-based service allowing research staff to generate CVs and a researcher’s profile from information provided about their research activity. It is fully integrated with complementary systems in the university such as human resources and pushes information out to other services and systems including the institutional repository TARA. The research staff need only enter their publication and research activities once and the information is pushed out internally and externally.

Jessica Eustace, one of 4 Research Support Librarians outlined the kinds of strategies she employed to embed herself into the research process. For postgraduates she offers:

• Specialist training days on database tips and tricks
• Going into labs and assisting researchers on a one-to-one basis
• Drop-in sessions for Endnote queries

For principal investigators she provides:
• Researcher profiling
• Assisted deposit into the IR
• One-to-one training on using the RSS and IR

Both the RSS and institutional repository are promoted by newsletters and bulletins but it is advocacy at the level of individual researchers that has paid the most dividends in that the Research Support Librarian is seen to actively to engage with researchers and their needs. Embedding herself into the workflow for research profiling adds value to the RSS and provides a fuller picture of research activity while promoting output via the institutional repository. Not all institutions have the benefit of the kind of integrated system available at Trinity but getting into schools, faculties and departments and improving dialogue with researchers is a vital first step to understanding their needs and working towards a more holistic approach to improve library support for research. Institutional repositories have created additional work but have enabled librarians to assist in promoting research at our institutions. By adapting our role to meet evolving needs we can help to prevent librarians from becoming irrelevant which in Joseph Janes’ view is the greatest threat to the profession.

We-think: perking us up at the close

2009-04-01T13:19:00.001Z

Most people are fumbling around in the fog of social networking - thinking they're making progress without being able to measure this. Very few businesses can be sure of their business model in 5-10 years time (I'm pleased to say he thinks we can bet on Glastonbury's model being the same in 10 years' time. A nice opp for me to post my UKSGlastonbury picture - who'da thunk it).

Newspapers are haemorrhaging revenues and facing the disruption of the web - everyone is looking for new business models. But even what we might class as the key players in the social web (Facebook, Twitter) don't really have strategic business models.

Where should we look for answers? Consumer culture, organisation, business models and ethnic/social values - and the changes all are undergoing. Not so long ago, the web was classed as a passing fad - and some (Andrew Keen et al) still rail against it. A "growing clamour of voices" is starting to see the potential but also the downsides (of malware etc - the web ain't entirely a friendly place). Scary stories about mash-ups in Moscow designed to enable more successful harrassment (of .. ethnic groups?).

Consumer culture
Look at people, and what they want to do. Young scientists are a sign of what research needs to become - open access databases, electronic lab notebooks, open source software - "new collaborative models of interdisciplinary research". Then there's Charlie's 9-year-old son. During one hour of what we would have had to spend watching Songs of Praise, Charlie's son can learn animation on a Sunday night. He likes online social experiences and activities including drawing, photography and Garage Band. He weaves successfully (obliviously) between old and new media. Talk -- do -- sit -- listen -- enjoy: this new culture paradigm requires different offers and business models from our media.

Organisations
Time was, big boulders on the media beach were BBC, FT - bringing out new boulders such as Channel 4, News International was a major mission. Now, media is owned by the users and made up of thousands of "pebbles that threaten to swamp the boulders". "From now on, all new businesses will have to be in the pebble space ... creating and connecting pebbles." There will be "boulder businesses" but they'll be even bigger than before; "in between will be lots of people trying to connect pebbles and boulders". The British Library is a boulder trying to operate in the pebble world; Twitter is a pebble trying to work out its business model.

Business models
We are all trying to find new ways to make money out of information and media. "The language we have inherited from industrial era media disable us from working out what these might be." The notion of media and mediator is old-fashioned; the boundaries are blurred. Charlie hopes for "mutual media" - created by people contributing to media in shared ownership. It's not just publishing, broadcasting (enjoy); it's about enjoy -- talk -- do. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are commercial media businesses in the making; Mumsnet, Wikipedia and the Student Room are social media businesses; the BBC will become a public media business - the British Library faces this same challenge. At the core of all these mutual media businesses is the need to make money while allowing users to generate and share beyond your control. The media businesses of the future will have large communities and small companies, and will require a completely different set of skills.

Values
Alongside this will be "a huge contest about values". It's remarkable that we still refer to the internet as a single thing. It's a "ramshackle organisation" with roots in a "hippie culture" and not in corporations or governments - "which is why they find it so hard to deal with". The internet has a different way of thinking. This is starting to become apparent - challenges to Facebook's privacy policies or Google's dominance.

Roadmap for survival
Organisations used to be about doing for people and, in the process, to people - schools, banks, newspapers. The web is about 'with' - working with, learning with, talking with. "The logic of with" is the key to engaging with users to create a roadmap for navigating the social fog.

21st Century Library: a whole new ballgame

2009-04-01T11:56:00.000Z

Team presentation from Graham Stone & Helle Lauriesen. [full disclosure -showed up 10 minutes late]

Early adopters of e-resource managers bought multiple systems that often overlapped on e-resource management. Numerous A-Z provisions for example & now trying to move beyond the status quo.

Biggest problem is the mishmash of administration & finding it unattenable as staff cuts occur.

Trying to enhance the user experience as well as save administrative costs.

CIBER looking at extensive deep log analysis but this won't work if the library has too many knowledgebases in play.

Statistics gathering also harder across multiple systems. The end goal is to wed deep log analysis with statistics to show usage across disciplines.

Users so not have a clear & compelling place to start their research. The OPAC is limited by structure based on print concepts: books, journals, cds, etc.

Lists are an inefficient way to provide access into article level & data retrieval. Federated searching still too clunky for end-users to embrace.

Need a one-stop shop approach. Looked at ERMs solutions & discovery tools. Looked at ten possibilities. Some of these are still in beta. The question is to ask which system will get you where you want to go. Not an evolution of what's come before but a revolution of becoming truly e-resource centric.

Make all resources discoverable thru the building of a complete digital presence. Where possible make the library entry page easy & simple.

Look at what you want to achieve & cut out duplication that results in increase user satisfaction & better control of resources overall. Don't let the market dictate what you need but make the decisions determining your needs first. Then play with the interoperability of the systems that help reach these goals. In all of it keep affordability in mind & determine what you cannot afford to invest in.

Accessibility is not an option but a necessity. Duplication of efforts are not feasible & do we need to de-aggregate & re-create silos in order to provide better discovery?

Question: what about open-access, repository access, & ILL needs?

Can possibly add in local repositories but not necessary global ones-depends on the system.

Question#2: Can you add in all campus resources?

In some cases but then the tool becomes truly an IT solution not necessary a library tool.

Last question was about functionality of federated search?

Federated search is not a tool that panned out in a way that truly answers students needs.

Cocktails the Morning After

2009-04-01T11:17:00.005Z

Slawomir Gorniak's title of Security at the Cocktail Party will probably be a bad reminder for many of the delegates who were at the conference dinner last night :-) His focus on social networking as an identity management system is an interesting topic for a conference where engaging with the user has been raised as a key issue through all the presentations.

He highlights that Social Networks can create great business benefits through increasing interactivity. Those twittering throughout the conference would agree on this point I think, and I have been happy to make new contacts with several key publishers through tweets.

Social Networking also lets you know your user - there is lots of information about users available but issues of personal data protection need to be considered. Controls for protecting information are important.

At the moment, social networking is proving to be a bad identity management system in lots of ways - users aren't good at thinking about the consequences, such as answering a quiz saying that you have been arrested in the past and openly publish on Facebook - this will damage your career prospects. It happens in professional networks as well, such as inappropriate disclosure of information on LinkedIn profiles. In a trial, 41% of randomly selected profiles on Facebook were willing to make friends with a plastic frog (fake profile)

The value of social networking is not in the tools, it is in the personal data and the ability to profile people for advertising. The sector is currently estimated to be worth $15 billion. Making the tools more secure is not in the interest of the tool providers, but there is a need to break data monopolies to improve privacy and security. What is the business model? Some of the big players have started to embrace data portability - such as Google Friend which is based on identity and access management standards (however Facebook would not particpate in Google Friend).

We need to create clear corporate policies on social network usage and consider both your personal and professional needs when using the networking sites. This is something we have raised several times over on the JAM blog.

Social Networking is like the Hotel California, you can check out but you can never leave. Nipon Das, New York Times.

Talking to the students about user behaviour

2009-04-01T11:04:00.002Z

During questions following Clare Duddy's session, Clare notes that she:
* prefers not to set up "My accounts" on multiple resource platforms. "I prefer to take the information away from you [with social bookmarking or bibliographic reference manager]".
* doesn't use Facebook for information needs - "it's purely social - and so last year - I've moved away from doing any [social networking]". If there's a pre-existing community of users, it can work for a library to engage with them there but you won't create a community that's not there just by putting yourself on Facebook. "It's just one more thing to log in to".
* exchanges information with other students using email and Google Documents.
* likes facets for search but "it requires a lot of getting used to ... and sometimes they're a bit off".
* "doesn't really" use instant messenger - "my mum uses it". In fact, "I know a lot of people whose mums are on Facebook and it's another driver for the Facebook exodus".
* "cannot for the life of me see the point" of Twitter.
* is into RSS - "my whole life is ruled by my reader". Uses RSS over email alerts "just because it's easier".
* is writing her dissertation about next-generation catalogues and tagging ("the fact that hardly anyone wants to tag in the library catalogue .. but I love it"). People don't have the sense (in social tagging) that they're contributing to a pool of information for use by others - they think all tags are individual and will take care to distinguish their tags from others'.
* might want to receive information through mobile phones in future but dependent on how phones evolve - "if it was really cheap and really good".
* "I read on screen a lot more now than I used to when I was an undergraduate, maybe because I can't afford to print anything out. I don't mind it as much now I have a nicer computer with a nicer screen for reading on."

Google and Librarians: why it shouldn't be us and them

2009-04-01T11:03:00.003Z

In preparing to speak to us today .. Clare Duddy did some Googling. In Google's browser. She warns us upfront, in case we hadn't clocked, that she's pro-Google.

Clare is a Masters student at London Met university who won a UKSG competition to present her views on information discovery in the Google generation. I am torn between wishing that I'd had an opportunity like this when I was a student, and thinking how petrifying it must be to present to an audience of professionals eager to hear your views. Clare tells us she's nervous but proceeds to speak confidently and knowledgeably on a subject that while familiar to us all, still holds surprises.

Us and them
Clare already works part time at Oxford University libraries as an electronic journals assistant. Interestingly, she sees the "us and them" of the information world as librarians vs Google (not, as some of the other UKSG delegates might see it, as librarians vs publishers). Between her work and her thesis, Clare spends a lot of time looking for information. "I've been online for more than half of my life, and search engines were already prevalent by the time I started my academic career - I've never had to find information without them." She quotes a friend: "Google is an extension of my memory - I don't have to keep facts in my head."

Finding information
There is a new balance in education as we keep up with emerging technologies. Google has 63% share of the search engine market (13.5bn searches in the US in Jan 09); OCLC research shows that 89% of college students start searches on search engines and Clare confirms it's her first port of call for all her information needs from academic to social. It's a known known. Perhaps less known is that the same research shows only 1% of users starting their search in an online database.

The Google generation
The Google generation is not defined by an age group but by a demographic - "always connected"; multi-tasking; computer literate. Clare says we might also see this group as "impatient, gullible and lazy" - taking the first result they find in a search engine and giving librarians sleepless nights. As we know, the main problems with using search engines as our point of entry to research are:

Material not indexed
* deep web
* access controlled
* non-linked
* robot-excluded
* non-HTML
* no static URL)
Despite this, Google has value - it highlights "informal literature" - the non-traditional materials that other library resources don't surface so effectively, if at all. Through Google Scholar you can filter your search to authoritative content, and the Library Links program enables libraries to direct users to licensed content. And because of Google's power and influence, they drive exposure and sensible structuring of content (e.g. Harvard has redesigned its website to expose its digital collections more effectively; National Libraries of Australia have created stable URLs and metadata for individual items in their image collection). There is a sense that we overestimate what you can't find, and underestimate the value of what you can find.

Quality of material online
"Democratic" (user-generated) publishing - famously exemplified by Wikipedia - concerns librarians and publishers, the gatekeepers of authoritative content. But Wikipedia's advantage is its breadth - over 2.7 million entries in comparison to Oxford Reference Online's 1.3 million (yes, there could be an apples and oranges issue here). "We have to assume that we can't control the web or impose our authority on it any kind of comprehensive way", so how do we manage our response to what we find? With "a pinch of salt"; the widespread news coverage of Wikipedia's flaws, and our own knowledge of how simply we can publish what we want, helps us understand that not everything we find can be trusted. Librarians spend a lot of time already training users about the quirks of different online resources; why not include Google and Wikipedia (etc) in that training.

Deskilling search
Clare recalls a lecturer harking back to the glory days where "users were not allowed near the computers and had to use a librarian to find information", but "librarians are no longer required in that role" - they feel displaced; is their reticence about broad search resources based on frustration? There is a context in which "one-box" search engines are in fact the best way to find something. But still users have need of more complex search interfaces and despite their fondness for simplicity they do recognise the value of more sophisticated search.

Conclusion
"Young people today need to be educated to use these tools properly, just as we had to be taught to use a library and book properly in the past". We shouldn't assume there is one Google generation with one set of characteristics - users are still a complex group with varying needs. It can only be helpful for us to acknowledge the place of Google in our users' lives and to help grow their understanding of this tool in the context of the other tools we offer.

(see next post for question and answer session revealing more of Clare's online behaviour)

Coda: Clare's presentation was excellent - not only interesting and well-informed in terms of the material covered but ably and compellingly presented. The feedback about this session has already been overwhelmingly positive and we'll definitely be thinking about how to follow up with more user input at next year's conference.

Consortia: not flaky, but unique

2009-04-01T09:03:00.005Z

Kathy Perry reminds us that library consortia are not new; libraries have been cooperating for more than a hundred years (1876 - ALA committee on cooperation in indexing and cataloguing college libraries, and cooperative purchasing "expedition" started in 1913!) Since then, statewide consortia have sprung up - Ohio broke the mould by getting (new) state monies for this in 1987. ICOLC has been meeting twice annually since 1996 and now comprises 211 consortia representing over 5000 libraries, with particular growth outside the US in the last 10 years. Kathy quotes Merryll Penson (Galileo): "consortia are like snowflakes"; not flaky - "unique". Most have very low staffing and rely on volunteers.

Priorities are changing for consortia - tasks that wouldn't even have been on the radar some years ago are now among the top priorities - training, digital initiatives, next generation catalogues. Budgets are a problem here as everywhere - when asked how they are addressing this, one respondent to Kathy's recent survey said "Prayer". Tom Sanville, OhioLINK guru commented that "Flat is the new 'up'." Curiously, "negotiating contracts" is given as a 'new' priority - I don't understand how this wasn't already a priority for consortia! I was pleased to know that "advocacy / marketing" is a growing aspect of consortia's budget management - I think measurable end user engagement and traffic will be key to justifying and growing budgets ongoing (later, in the context of training, Kathy talked more about "justifying our value to our decision makers"). Very few consortia have research projects and very few are working together on issues related to archival storage of print collections.

During questions, Peter Burnhill suggested that a lot of information discovery, retrieval and usage is happening outside the library - between peers in both formal and informal contexts. How can libraries and consortia engage with this? Kathy's initial thoughts: this is why libraries and consortia are prioritising next-gen catalogues, to "more readily reflect the world as we know it". We're also working with products like Zotero to help researchers collaborate in a way that reflects not just scholarly publications but web-based materials and conversations. Libraries are trying to engage at this level. Jill Taylor-Roe adds comments from the OA perspective - we're managing a lot of the OA payments to publishers that we're also licensing big deals from, and there should be some synergies in managing the fiscal movements in a more cohesive and efficient way. Hugh Look notes the skills shortfall in this area and the lack of guidance. We need more investment in these skills that would be transferrable to many other areas.

Responding to change in scholarly communications: fight, face-off, fix and faff

2009-04-01T08:27:00.006Z

Hugh Looks tells a long and amusing story about a minor train crash he was in as a child to indicate that despite the serious global threats that circulate in the world, it's often smaller more mundane problems that really derail us. Publishers are under pressure at the moment to sustain their margins and other divisions within their parent companies are also suffering, and unable to provide any support at this crucial time. We don't fully know the shape of tomorrow's pressures, though continuing economic uncertainty will be a shared problem and changes in research and education will have a growing impact, particularly as students become more demanding. Current developments will continue to change the shape of scholarly communications (OA etc).

Responding to threats

Fight - lobby - consult - become indignant.
Flight - sell (who to?) - close.
Face-off - pretend it's not happening; ignore the problems.
Fix - big deal, better terms, enhanced products
Follow - accept that alternatives are needed
Faff - make small changes without a real strategy.

So far we have witnessed a combination of fight, face-off, fix... and faff. The only real solutions are follow and fix. Fixing requires us to make it more attractive for people to stick with the existing model - super-consortia, increased big deal flexibility - creating efficiencies that allow reduced costs without lower margins. Follow (stay in the business, accept alternatives are needed) requires further changes to pricing models, with redistributed functions and costs (e.g. author pays).

There are 3 places where value is created and costs are managed in a networked business.

At the periphery (libraries operate here) - close to the user with specialist expertise.
At the core - where the shared infrastructure and expertise is (where the researchers are).
In the middle - the distribution part - which is always most vulnerable to commoditisation, and is a hard position to defend. Libraries are partly here, as are publishers.

Alternative models that could be considered at the periphery include advertising and sponsorship - not a good market for this just now. We could take a leaf out of the mobile phone pricing market where pricing is comparatively low but with caps on usage.

There are no simple answers
The issues are all about transition - many of these models could work, and the problem is the disruption involved in getting there. None of us really understand how that's going to work, and it can only be managed on a system-wide basis (it can't be managed by individual entities). It may not even be a solvable problem. Potentially we're part way through a long cycle and we don't yet understand the beginning and end of it. We have to live with high levels of uncertainty which will lead to a lot more short-term Face-off (a great shame - waste of time and energy) and more Fix (because we haven't yet worked out what the Follow strategy is). "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens" (Schiller - against stupidity, the Gods themselves struggle in vain) - deeply and painfully true, and at the root of most of our problems. We are only going to work this out with a lot of communication and some serious applied intelligence - there are no simple answers.

During questions, John Cox points out that it's very difficult for us to communicate well and to act as a system because of anti-trust laws. The only way out is for libraries to decide what they will demand of publishers and see what the response is. John also raised the idea of a telecoms style subscription model for scholarly publishing. I think it was Peter Burnhill who then noted the gap between funding for research and funding for libraries which have not risen commensurately.

Plenary presentation summary: Journal Spend, use and research outcomes: A UK perspective on Value for Money. Presented by: Ian Rowlands, CIBER

2009-04-01T00:57:00.006Z

During the second plenary session on Tuesday during UKSG, Mr. Rowlands presented some preliminary data from part of Research Information Network funded research project. He is halfway through project and will be continuing into next year. There are some very interesting visualization tools to explore the data online.

There has been an unprecedented growth in access to journal material over the past decade as content has moved from print to electronic. However, it is critical to assess the impact of the increase in access and availability of content has had in past decade. Has this increase in access led to higher productivity and more innovative research?

In exploring the research outcomes, Rowlands is looking at many quantifiable criteria, including: Number of Counter downloads, # of Phds, # of grants, institutional spending patterns, and deep log analysis in a variety of disciplines.

It should come as little surprise to the community that the transition from print to electronic publication is nearly complete. 96.1% of science journals are online and 88.5% of arts and humanities journals are online. In 2007, the academic community spent £80 million on e-journal licenses. Collectively those purchases have yielded more than102 million downloads or 0.80 £ per download.

There has been tremendous end-user take up of these resources. The number of downloads doubled from 2004 to 2007. This represents a 21.7% per annum growth in downloads over that period. The core proposition of providing online articles is “very popular” among researchers.

There has also been a rapid increase of number of journals available at an average institution. The average number of titles per researchers is up from just above 4 to just below 8. {TC – Given the present economic environment it is likely these figures will decrease in the coming year, but it certainly will remain at a higher average level.}

Citation analysis is showing that users are drawing more sources, and including more references per paper. The use of navigation and discovery tools, increased access, has created a situation where research is now more deeply founded in previous work.

University administrations are looking for clear and compelling justifications for the continued expense of information purchases and Mr. Rowlands thinks that compelling information is now available.

This change of availability has impacted the information seeking behavior of end-users. It is not surprising that Google is the “librarians friend”. Many Researchers are using gateways, such as Google, Pubmed, etc. to get access to content. Examples of the increase of traffic abound. One OUP Journals saw a two-fold increase in journal uses as an effect of opening up their content to Google.

The access provided by online content is also having a profound impact on resource use. The convenience of 24 X 7 access is tremendous. 17% of activity is taking place on weekends and the “Working day is growing” with 1/3 of activity taking place outside of “normal office hours” of 9:00am – 5:00pm. This access was more difficult in a print-based world.

However questions remain about whether efficient search is the same as or necessarily yields successful research? There is a strong negative correlation between research rating of the scientists in institutions and the average session length on Science Direct. The most “successful researchers” were the group spending the least amount of time online with content. Trends pointed to the fact that the most successful researchers use gateways. Much more search activity is taking place outside the library, typically on services like Pubmed, Google, and Google Scholar.

There were natural clustering of intensive use and the figures for the differences between moderate, high and super users correlated significantly with outputs such as the numbers of papers produced, the amount of grants funds received and the number of PhD’s the institution produces. In addition, while the average cost per download is consistent across institution, the more active the institution the less per article the institution paid.

Mr. Rowlands stressed that these data merely show associations not causation. Nor does the data show any directionality. Is it that a lot of research creates demand for lots of information, or is it that research institutions, put things together and in place for research, which therefore impacts results.

The next stage of this research will look at historical information. Among the topics to be explored is what are linkages between products, spending and outcomes? He is working to produce a computer model, that shows, for example, scenarios what the increase in the number of titles and/or downloads might have on research outcomes.

The initial information points to the fact that downloads and research outputs are like “gears on a bicycle” that move in tandem. As one gear gets bigger, the faster the other gear turns. Although one needs to understand the causality question, the understanding of the fact of the connection is a useful addition to knowledge about assessment and performance measurement.

{NB Disclaimer: Much of this summary is verbatim and/or paraphrased from the Mr. Rowlands talk – very little in this post is interpreted and should not be credited to me. Apologies to Mr. Rowlands for any errors.}

Survival of the fittest: big deals at risk of extinction

2009-03-31T15:41:00.004Z

Lucky Jill Taylor-Roe has a relatively healthy-sized audience for her graveyard slot at 9am the morning after the conference dinner. She wakes us up with a bit of the Byrds as she posits her theme: to every thing, there is a season. Jill is talking about change in the context of the Big Deal.

Background
In the early days of the Big Deal, the purchase model was based on maintained print spend plus an additional e-access fee that provided access to (almost) all of a publisher's collection. In the period since, Big Deals have been hugely advantageous, with a huge growth in full text downloads (Newcastle's Library is at around 1.5m downloads per year) and a huge drop in ILL and photocopying. NESLi Big Deals have become the major supply model for acquiring new journals.

Problems
But libraries are still not able to buy everything that is requested; in some subject areas (in Newcastle's case it's engineering and the humanities) new titles are not forthcoming because they are not available via any big deals - and the big deals are taking up the lion's share of the budget. This means the collection is compromised - and things will not improve as the credit crunch impacts the value of sterling against the currencies in which most journals are bought (the Euro and the dollar). Libraries are already having to ask for additional funds simply to maintain the current portfolio. In this context we need to reconsider the value of the big deal.

Research findings
Jill has been researching librarians' views of the big deal - early results show some obvious findings e.g. that the big deal simplifies administration and reduces ILL spend. But there is frustration with the limitations (cancellations) and the impact of titles moving publisher. There is a sense that the pricing model, based on retained print spend, is no longer satisfactory. Some are still happy with the big deal, but up to a third have cancelled big deals recently - due to budget pressures caused by currency weakness, in the newer cases - a challenge that will not go away.

Current solutions
In terms of managing the shortfall (median - £100k per annum), many librarians have been cutting the book budget. This is in direct contravention of stated student demand for more textbooks and leaves libraries open to poor ratings from students. Only one library noted that they were making up shortfall with a reserve fund set up for this purpose.

Future challenges
The VAT issue remains and while the recent cut to 15% has helped to moderate the effect of currency fluctuations, this is only a short term benefit - and there's a fee it will be raised to a higher rate than the original 17.5%.

The economic problems we face are not short term. In 2010 and beyond, libraries still plan to raid the book fund but will also tackle the serials fund. Jill's research shows an increase in plans to cut big deals, which will "no longer be sacrosanct". This is driven by other factors beyond currency fluctuations - budgets not keeping up with inflation, growing dissatisfaction with pricing models, an awareness that the books budget cannot be raided indefinitely.

Next steps
Jill's survey is ongoing and further results will become available but it is clear that inflexible deals that don't offer value for money will be vulnerable. Publishers must not bury their heads in the sand but acknowledge the warning signs and "think seriously about this - don't be complacent - there are hard times ahead for all of us and survival of the fittest is not just an empty phrase".

Library marketing: a strategic approach to an interactive library experience

2009-03-31T15:03:00.004Z

Olin College of Engineering is a young college (last ten years) set up to bring more hands-on training, entrepreneurial spirit, cross-disciplinary learning and design concepts into engineering education. Students are a diverse group with a range of talents beyond their academic excellence. Dee Magnoni is its Library Directory with some background in advertising.

The interactive library: escaping temporal exhaustion
Olin's library is not huge but Dee believes that you learn by more than just reading and writing; the interactive collections reflect this. The library is a 24/7 space to escape "temporal exhaustion" (when we're too busy to pause and contemplate, our creativity suffers). The small staff at Olin doesn't sit behind a desk. The virtual collection is much larger and deeper than the physical collection. The library is full of games (chess), modelling kits and other interactive "realia" to encourage creativity and thought. It sounds like an inspiring and fun place to learn.

Encouraging e-resource usage
Olin puts most of its budget into e-resources, and makes sure they're used by holding a vendor fair. Olin advocates four steps: goal, timeline, budget, communicate. Dee allows herself 6 months to plan a fair! and works with other departments (IT, facilities) and external partners (caterers, balloons, photographer). In attracting vendors Dee communicated her own excitement along with the benefits for vendors. Vendors have been "fabulous" in partnering with costs and prizes. In the run-up to the event she put together and distributed publicity posters and flyers, and re-confirmed all the vendors and suppliers.

Dee's event coincided with "Talk like a pirate" day and so they used this theme and the seasonal treats (caramel apples and cider) to theme the decor and catering. In order to enter the raffle, users had to answer the question "What did you learn?" - a great way to elicit feedback such as "I learnt where and how to do my research". She also gathered feedback from vendors as to the value of the event to them. "One event is not going to solve all my PR challenges," she notes, and tells us the lessons she learned:

always communicate more, more, more
be ready for something to go wrong, because something will
don't do it alone - get all the support you can from vendors, suppliers, internal depts
make sure you, as well as everyone else, have fun!

A multichannel approach
Olin does other forms of marketing and Dee cites Springshare's LibGuides as a useful tool for helping students to find resources in specific areas. The library has a Facebook page, uses Wikis, blogs, instant messaging and news feeds to reach its users (I applaud this multi-channel approach). Dee has also carried out considerable research among faculty and students to inform her strategic planning, and has created an external library advisory board (including vendors, researchers, a copyright expert, a consortia director and faculty from other colleges) to visit regularly and provide strategic advice as well as occasional tactical input. Isn't this a great idea - I wonder how many other libraries are capturing the skills of those around them in this way? Dee rates conferences as an opportunity to pick up on the zeitgeist and share experiences with others.

Exemplum, exemplum, an example from your own life ... One library realised its students weren't taking in the guidance they had received from the library as freshers, and were calling their parents for the kind of help the library should provide. So the library scrapped its freshers event and invited the parents to tea, so they would later tell their offspring to use the library.

The library as part of the bigger study picture
At Olin they talk about information fluency, not information literacy. Dee gathered together relevant standards and worked with students to come up with their own curriculum (which they called Lifehacks) with modules on sleep, nutrition, relaxation, and "everything else you need to be successful to study". She paints a compelling picture of a library that has been able to grow itself into being precisely what its students need it to be - I guess the challenge for others is to be able to evolve from a more traditional library into an interactive and welcoming environment such as Olin has managed to create.

Moving to e-only from a library perspective

2009-03-31T14:50:00.007Z

I attended this breakout session yesterday and was reminded how useful it is to come to UKSG each year. I was drawn to the title of this session and in particular the '...from a library perspective' bit. That, it seems to me, is the best thing about coming to UKSG. You get to hear the view from librarians and, working in publishing as I do, find this insight invaluable.

Sarah Pearson from the University of Birmingham gave a great overview of the many challenges facing her library (and many others too I'm sure) as they move further towards an e-only model. I hope she doesn't mind me giving the ending away but as Sarah herself admited this e-only model is not likely to arrive at her University library any day soon. Instead a hybrid of print and electronic content exisits.

She outlined the collection development principles currently in place saying that web-based resources are the preferred medium and how important it is to have a flexible budget that responds to changes in course content and research directions. She also said it was key to negotiate great value for money.

The UofB has 24,000 free and subscribed e-journals plus 1000 e-resources (340 subscribed) and 4000 e-books. Sarah highlighted the many benefits of opening up greater access to their collection and offering e-access to library users including distance learners. E-delivery adds value such as alerting services; citation links and discussion forums, which are not available in print of course.

Sarah outlined the benefits, such as opening up a much bigger collection to users for a lower fee, and the drawbacks of big deals, such as taking some journals that may not be used extensively and having less control over collection development. She summed up with some useful learning points to take away:

don't expect to go completely e-only
usage is an important tool but don't forget about feedback
big deals have benefits but there are trade offs
negotiate, negotiate, negotiate.

All in all I found the session useful and it certainly gave me a library perspective on the potential for moving to an e-only model and the pitfalls that entails.

Data Analysis Will Drive Decision-Making in Research – Jay Katzen, Elsevier

2009-03-31T14:43:00.009Z

Katzen starts off by reviewing the reactions to the recent economic crisis. World leaders are making grand statements about continuing to invest in R&D e.g. Gordon Brown said that innovation is the way out of the economic crisis. But we know that lean times are here: there is a hiring freeze at most universities in the States such as Harvard; there is a drop in funding levels so that e.g. Stanford is basing their budget on a 5% decrease; and private institutions such as the Wellcome Trust plan to decrease their endowments.

Aside from the economic crisis, other factors to take into account are that governments are playing a bigger role in research assessment; there is an increased competition for funding; as well as a clear drive for multidisciplinary research. And these pre-existing issues with performance measurement are now exacerbated by the economy.

The UK’s Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) released their analysis in 2008 and as a result there are fourteen universities in the UK getting less investment than the previous year, and forty institutions receiving funding that is below inflation. So there are more than fifty UK universities that have to make cutbacks somewhere. These include University College London, Kings College, Imperial College, and University of Cambridge.

The Australian Research Council also aims to use metrics to monitor and measure research to base funding decisions on.

So Lean times = Lean research. But no one can do less research. We have to do more, with less, and the key tools to help us deal with this will be around data and analytics. More data will be needed for evaluation and decision-making at every level of the academic institution.

The scholarly landscape will change, and technology will be key

The United States is ranked number 1 with 310k published articles in 1997 and 340k in 2007. In that decade China has moved from the number 10 spot to the second, and it is predicted that China will surpass the US in research output quantity within the next few years. We need to be aware of this, particularly as research continues to cross national boundaries, making measurement even harder.

So one question is whether research is optimized and efficient?

The average researcher spends 6.5 hours a week searching for information, and 5 hours a week analysing it. They spend more time looking for the information than they do actually using it and this has to be reversed.

We also know that forty-two is the average age when a biomed researcher gets his/her first research grant from the NIH but the approval rate is only 15%. So researchers spend a significant amount of time identifying ideas and proposals, but there is a lot of time wasted when not much is then approved for funding.

Katzen describes the investigation they have done into the researchers’ workflow; an exercise that aimed to spot gaps and see where tools can be developed to improve efficiencies, leading to increased published output and ultimately institutional ranking.

Katzen therefore disagrees with Derk Haank’s view that there is no information overload and that technology will not play a significant role in the publishing industry during the next decade. He argues that we can now make revolutionary changes to the whole research environment by using technology to connect the mass of information through new tools and methodologies to really analyse and evaluate performance through data. This will change the landscape for how people practice research, and technology will facilitate that. Katzen argues that “we are moving from traditional publishers to information solution providers”.

New Mapping Methodology For Reputation and Performance Measurement

The tools linking reputation ranking tools don’t yet exist; we cannot look solely at journal-based classification anymore, especially with multidisciplinary research increasing and non-English language research increasing. The number and scope of journals is too limiting and the level of aggregation is ineffective when we cannot see how different disciplines interconnect.

There is a new mapping methodology, presented at the National Science Foundation (NSF), which used co-citation analysis to look at the quality of output. There are thirteen categories but more than 40,000 subcategories so if institutions want to understand where their competencies really lie, they should look much deeper into the data and use this mapping methodology.

You can also look at this mapping technique to see which authors are driving certain areas. It’s also possible to look at a national level too: the NSF created these maps and looked at UK – previously they had thought that the UK had two areas of strength: in social sciences and in health services. But this doesn’t make any sense – where is the map that shows physics and maths are actually key drivers? It’s also useful in order to see where you are vulnerable internationally and where you should be careful. The NSF says that this new mapping methodology “gives us vivid insight into rapidly evolving research areas and the relationships among them”.

The people thinking about these things are generally Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Deans etc, but Librarians can and should play key and critical role in supporting their universities to become leaner organisations. One Library Director Katzen spoke with said that people view her as a procurement centre – she just buys it and switches it on and the job is done. But Katzen argues that the library role is significantly undervalued; they can and should be looking into the performance of their institution in order to adapt their services to be more involved in the research process.

Audience question 1: That analysis is all great but who will actually be the first to move to make the paradigm shift? Katzen answers that it will be the research councils and university deans who drive the need for this methodology (they already are) and publishers will support it with data and tools.

Audience question 2: Peter Shepherd asks that since there is a lot of historical citation data, whether this could be applied retrospectively to trace what triggered critical and sudden changes in the past. Katzen replies yes, there’s no reason why you can’t look not only at today’s performance but indeed this method would allow you to trace that. Shepherd states that this would be something scientists would really get excited about.

Publishing and catalguing datasets: it's time everyone got involved

2009-03-31T14:19:00.001Z

Presented by Toby Green from OECD.

Haver overview of OECD & definition of data sets & data access.

From PDF provide links to raw data.

OECD provides raw data via DOI in xls file for researchers to get at raw data. The next steps are to provide access to data cubes/sets of underlying data.

OECD working on building this access on their platform: OECD ilibrary. It is cross-searchable.

The Economist utilizes these data sets regularly but citation is very poor. Other authors also have trouble citing data sets. OPACs also not good at providing data set access.

The data sets become like black sheep that cannot be found. There is some scholarly publishing networks for journals & books that provide hard links to data sets. Not at all perfect & misses lots of sets.

OECD will create a dataset with authorized title; ISSB; DOI & MARC record attached.

Challenges:

Dynamic data sets (they change)
Versioning (recalculations all the time)
Preservation (not happening)

OECD issuing a white paper on Publishing Standards for DataSets

Speaking with CrossRef about citation standards for dynamic objects

Mid2009 will have

MARC records, ONIX records, Citation records

Question about licensing data?

Problem is where/how cited.

Question on how it would be discoverable?

Through these metadata channels would allow for discoverable

Statement: it will be interesting to see if data set discovery will increase fulltext usage. Currently, fulltext only way to get to data so it will be interesting to see.

Being cool with data: starting in 2007--two companies: Swivel & Many Eyes (flickr for data) can tag data, send to blogs, etc.

OECD loaded up Factbook data sets to see what would happen. Traffic has been slow but does allow for visualization tools that are pretty nifty. Thought it could make a good teaching tool. Free tools & encouraged to use.

Creating factbook for iPhone which will be offered for free. Also creating NCVA regional data eXplored. Hunt data using maps & graphs instead of access being just textual. Can then develop stories based on data retrieval. Example showed aging population.

Noted that this product is similiar to gap minder. Direct feed can be set up.

Question does OECD see themselves creating/selling data management platforms? With eXplorer--it will be open-source but other services may be for-fee.

IMF datamapper presented-based on OECD data in part.

www.gapminder.org: can provide trends & gaps occurring-podcasts of data

Newspaper websites gone crazy with data/charts/graphs

Loads of visualization resources being developed.

Where's My Jetpack

2009-03-31T14:15:00.009Z

The UK federation was launched in November 2006 and has reached 690 members and membership is still growing. It is a deliberately inclusive federation - it includes all of the education sector and anyone providing services to that sector. Federations are essentially enablers of communication between this vast membership.

Ian demonstrates that current implementations by institution shows an even division between use of in-house identity management and outsourced identity management. Service Provider implementations came much later in the day for the UK federation but are now outstripping institutional implementations.

The Jetpack refers to Ian's assertion that the future is already here, it is just not widely distributed yet.

The UK is the first adopter of concepts such as outsourced identity managers and adoption in the schools sector. A similar type of uptake is expected in other countries. Scale is important for adoption. The UK federation is now seen as a 'must have', this position has not been reached in the US.

Software diversity based on standards is important in the UK federation. This provides choice, business models and sustainability. It is also noted that people get support for their software choices from a variety of other places than the UK federation itself.

There is a problem with helping users find the right place to log-in - it is known as the 'discovery problem'. Although the UK federation provides a WAYF (Where are You From) process to help guide users, it is better if this is integrated in to the Service Provider interface - Service Providers know how to best present information about their customers.

Authentication processes are in the process of changing - usernames and passwords will not be the process used in the future. People are starting to use cards, tokens or USB devices for access, and this will get more common. This will quickly be followed by interfederation - federations talking to federations, thus making the experience more seamless for Service Providers and Identity Providers.

The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay.

From Timbuktu to Here

2009-03-31T10:35:00.007Z

How many electronic journals will have the shelf-life of the famous texts of Timbuktu, which are still readable and preserved today? This question set the theme for the session on Access and Preservation for Electronic Journals, led by Terry Morrow.

Continued access to journals is a shared problem, Morrow argues - everyone who gains a benefit from the availability of e-journals should take a part in solving the problem. The specific problems for e-journals are:

Continued access after a subscription has been cancelled, but does subscription = ownership?
What do you save? Articles are often built on the fly from various components, including complex metadata files.
Technology: don't assume that PDF will be around for ever.

Preservation is never a free option, but can be viewed as insurance cover for the future. These costs will be ongoing, not one off so a full risk analysis against costs should be done before preservation decisions are made.

The current economic climate is making the loss of journals very real with concerns about loss of vulnerable publishers and the ability to maintain subscriptions: the impact of the euro exchange rate on UK subscriptions is causing problems now for institutions.

Chris Rusbridge via the power of twitter and blogging poses the fact that this is a very real problem. There are a variety of different scenarios outlined by Chris with regard to the loss of journals, but the crux of the question is - who is responsible for taking the action to preserve journals. This ties in with questions from the room about how do we assess the value of the journals. A serious question for attendees at UKSG.

A range of preservation systems were described: LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, Portico, e-Depot, OCLC ECO, and British Library developments. Managing the trigger events for all of these systems and the roles and the responsibilities for all the stakeholders are different in each system.

There is a challenge for all of the attendees at UKSG to answer the question, am I responsible?

Library marketing: running an event to promote usage

2009-03-31T08:05:00.002Z

"Marketing isn't taught in library school, and I think we're at the point where it should be," says Ruth Wolfish from the IEEE. I have just followed coloured footprints along the hallway to Ruth's session so it was clear before I even arrived that it would be a break from the norm. I think the guys next door in the API session were jealous.

Ruth's starts with her tips for a successful event: make it meaningful, time it right for your audience, promote it well to the right people, get the endorsement of influencers in your target audience, make the benefits clear - and make it fun.

She then proceeds to set us a task list, starting with checking for conflicts and scheduling your project tasks. She suggests involving students in creating promotional materials, and seeking assistance from vendors and support staff around the university. She emphasises the importance of food in attracting attendees, and suggests a quiz or a raffle to keep people there until the end. Ruth's guidance even extends to design tips for your promotional posters - "uniform and easy to read" fonts, making primary messaging more prominent, avoiding too much text, being careful with colour combinations.

A really good event makes library staff more accessible - Ruth cites one library's Halloween event where librarians dress up; students see it as a "don't miss" event and remember the librarians personally afterwards. Ultimately the objective is encouraging more usage of the library and its resources (I was a tiny bit late for this session and I hope that objectives were brought up at the beginning as well as pitching up half way through - all marketing has to start with clear objectives against which success can later be measured).

Communicating your event
Library blogs are taking off - particularly in the US? I think - and Ruth shows us lots of examples, commenting on the layout of the text (make sure your offers are clear). She also shows examples of how universities are using Twitter "to communicate with our users more effectively" - library hours, catalogue updates, "whatever you want to say". It doesn't take the place of existing communication channels (website, newsletters) but adds to the library's means of publicising the e-resources on which it spends such a considerable amount. We look at one library's Facebook page which highlights all their events ("pizza in the library") and incorporates applications added by the library e.g. catalogue search, find articles, news feeds etc. Use the photo galleries to help build your library's presence and character.

Ruth moves on to "Little Ideas with Big Impact" - with examples from librarians all over the US, including "flyers in places people can't avoid (back of toilet doors)" and tear-off slips to remind people of the dates and times of your next library events.

I'm pleased that Ruth closes with measurement. I couldn't agree more with her assertion that you need to "make sure that you measure your success - that you have metrics when you're asked for them." She suggests thinking along the following lines:

What does the library do for the school?
Has usage gone up since you started running events?
Have you had more research requests?
Did you make new contacts?
Have you been invited to speak at classes?

Ref. Bhatt, J., Wolfson, R. "A successful collaborative partnership among the Faculty and Librarians at Drexel University and IEEE" - a study Ruth co-authored that may provide further insight into the value of library marketing.

No Revolutions For Scholarly Publishing – Derk Haank, Springer

2009-03-30T17:03:00.006Z

In contrast to Hindawi's predictions for a ‘Journal Commoditization’ revolution in the next decade, Haank’s view is that the major advancements in scholarly publishing have already taken place. For a revolution to occur people have to be very dissatisfied with the current situation and that is no longer the case since the shared publishing goals of 1998 have already been achieved. These were:

1) improving access;

2) seamless linking; and

3) improving value for money.

The CrossRef initiative has solved one of the biggest problems by providing pure linking to enable seamless access to everything, for everyone. The fear and excitement of the late nineties meant that publishers “invested heavily - too much in my view - in technology” and this resulted in having to charge much higher fees for publishers’ platforms, rendering content inaccessible to some users.

The technology will not be important in the next decade as people are no longer concerned with how systems work, only with the end product/use. “The techies are back in the cellar where they belong”. So Haank doesn’t care about the next Web (2.0/3.0 or 99.9) as we’ve already achieved a lot and it will not be possible to invest much further anyway.

We’ve talked about Open Access for ten years but only 3% of articles are published in the OA model – hardly a revolution. But of course OA will not disappear (noting his recent investment in BioMed Central!) but will build slowly alongside and in parallel to traditional publishing business models as an evolution, not a revolution.

More content is produced each year than the previous year but library budgets do not increase so we just need to get much more efficient every year instead of looking for the next big development.

Haank’s conclusion for 2014-1019 is that “we’re in for a boring decade” but pointed out that while he and Hindawi may disagree, they could both be right!

PS – Haank was asked about the "elephant in the room" and said that Springer is not up for sale but looking for a third additional partner not replacing current shareholders.

OPAC 2.0... and beyond!

2009-03-30T16:16:00.005Z

Presentation from Dave Pattern of Huddersfield University.

Started with a brief overview of the history of the library catalogue - from the card catalogue, to "OPAC 1.0" in the 1980s and web-based OPACs in the 1990s, which were arguably just displaying the card catalogue in a web browser.

Dave talked about MARC21 being a format optimised for printing catalogue cards, and introduced his first "conspiracy theory" - that cataloguers are gearing up for sabotage of web-based OPACs and the return of the card catalogue!

Looked at how OPACs are currently designed, and what librarians think users want. Showed some examples of ludicrously complex advanced search forms, requiring pages of instructions. Also mentioned the problems with expecting users to use Boolean logic in their searching - example of searching for "Oranges are not the only fruit" via the BL catalogue - title only came up if you searched "Oranges are the only fruit"! Catalogue search interfaces that require expert searchers, and over-complicated notification systems, led Dave to his second conspiracy theory - that we are trying to turn our users into mini librarians!

Went on to a reminder of Ranganathan's 4th law - saving the time of the user. Quoted Roy Tennant - "create a system that doesn't need to be taught". If the OPAC is too complex for our users, that is our fault [sidenote - thoroughly agree with that, it irritates me to hear colleagues criticizing the students for not knowing how to use the catalogue. Why should it be their responsibility to find ways around our clunky and antiquated OPAC?].

Talked about the results of a 2007 survey on OPACs - on a scale of 1-10 (ten being best), the average rating for "how happy are you with your OPAC" was 5.1; the average for "how well does your OPAC meet your users needs" was 4.5.

Moving on to OPAC 2.0, began by mentioning the Ann Arbor District Library catalogue, which has features like tagging, rating and reviews, and the option to bring up an image of the catalogue card for the item - which users can add "graffiti" to. Then went on to talk about the work done on the OPAC at Huddersfield university. In deciding what features to add, they looked at user suggestions, web 2.0 inspired features, and successful ideas from elsewhere. Dave described the OPAC as being in "perpetual beta" - new features are added as and when they come up, and are removed if unsuccessful.

Keyword searching was monitored, to find out how the system was being used. This showed that 23% of searches gave no results, and that users frequently gave up if they didn't get any results from their first search - probably because there was nowhere else to go from that point. Users expect suggestions and prompts for unsuccessful searches, not dead ends. Introduced features such as a spell checker, keyword suggestions for terms not in the catalogue (cross-referenced with answers.com) and suggestions of popular combined search terms for general searches with too many results. Also added a keyword cloud of recent searches on the first page, and a "virtual shelf browser" - originally as "eye candy" but both tools turned out to be very popular and useful. Several other features mentioned such as recommendations, RSS feeds for new titles, and the ability to add ratings and comments.

Looking at usage statistics - borrowing peaks in October, but usage of keyword suggestions and borrowing recommendations peaks in November - maybe when all the reading list books are checked out so users appreciate the recommendations. Also showed increase in the range of unique titles borrowed - suggests users are checking out books they may not have looked at before.

Dave concluded this section by pointing out that what is required is more than just cosmetic changes, otherwise it's just "putting lipstick on a pig". He also pointed out that the changes need to come from vendors, as many libraries do not have the resources to do the kind of work he has by themselves.

He went on with some suggestions for libraries who did want to try 2.0-ing their OPACs themselves, including encouraging ideas from staff, listening to user feedback, not being afraid to make mistakes, and monitoring usage - if a feature isn't being used, get rid of it!

Dave talked about what is needed for OPAC 2.0 - relevancy ranking by default, faceted browsing, spellcheck, RSS feeds - and what is still missing - more serendipity, in the form of tailored borrowing suggestions and "just in time" recommendations, and social features to allow users to build a community.

Session finished with some suggestions of some commercial products, open source and web services available for OPAC 2.0, and a reminder of the benefits for students (better recommendations), librarians (collection development) and academics (improved reading lists) of OPAC 2.0.

Slides available: www.slideshare.net/daveyp