The Early Response by ARL Libraries

Please do not remove this page

Google Scholar and the Library Web Site: The Early Response by ARL Libraries

Mullen, Laura Bowering; Hartman, Karen A. https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/discovery/delivery/01RUT_INST:ResearchRepository/12643445460004646?l#13643533640004646

Mullen, L. B., & Hartman, K. A. (2006). Google Scholar and the Library Web Site: The Early Response by ARL Libraries. College & Research Libraries, 67(2), 106–122. https://doi.org/10.7282/T3KH0KQ0

This work is protected by copyright. You are free to use this resource, with proper attribution, for research and educational purposes. Other uses, such as reproduction or publication, may require the permission of the copyright holder. Downloaded On 2021/09/25 16:29:30 -0400 Google Scholar and the Library Web Site: The Early Response by ARL Libraries

Laura Bowering Mullen and Karen A. Hartman

With the introduction of Google Scholar in November 2004, research libraries faced the decision of whether to integrate this “blended” resource into their collections and services via their library Web sites.The authors are members of a Web Advisory Committee and present a case study detailing Rutgers University Libraries’ experience with integrating Google Scholar onto the library’s Web site. A descriptive study of all ARL university members’ library Web sites also was undertaken to determine how other academic libraries were treating Google Scholar in July 2005. Did ARL libraries place Google Scholar on alphabetical lists of indexes and databases, subject guides, or in OPACs, for instance? Results from this study are presented and implications of putting Google Scholar on the Web site are discussed for all major user groups.

hen Google Scholar first ap- usage of their fee-based resources while peared in November 2004, promoting discovery of open-access ma- the library world was abuzz terials. Discussions began with regard to with questions, concerns, and adding it to library Web pages in some tempered enthusiasm.At Rutgers Univer- fashion to make patrons more aware of sity, librarians quickly began discussing it. Google Scholar appeared to offer the it in meetings, including it in instruction library scholarly value at no cost. sessions, trying it out with patrons at the University members of the Association reference desk in cases where a couple of Research Libraries (ARL) and their of scholarly full-text articles on a specific Web committees have recently had to subject would suffice, using it to quickly grapple with Google Scholar and make verify incomplete interlibrary loan cita- decisions regarding its integration into tions, and informally comparing its cita- services and collections. Google Scholar tion analysis capabilities to those of our is a different type of “blended” resource, other venerable subscribed-to resources. one that allows a patron to search for all The librarians soon became aware that, types of scholarly materials, many in full- in addition to being an easy way to text format. It is especially valuable for the search for a few scholarly articles, Google researcher who happens to be affiliated Scholar was another tool that could drive with a research institution and can link to

Laura Bowering Mullen is the Behavioral Sciences Librarian in the Library of Science and Medicine at Rutgers University Libraries; e-mail: [email protected]. Karen A. Hartman is Social Sciences Librarian in the Archibald S. Alexander Library at Rutgers University Libraries; e-mail: khartman@rci. rutgers.edu.

106 Google Scholar and the Library Web Site 107 subscribed full-text either on-site at the li- study was undertaken to determine how brary or through remote access. Scholarly other ARL libraries were handling this materials found in Google Scholar may new type of important resource. The include peer-reviewed articles as well as authors have studied the Web sites of full-text of dissertations, theses, preprints, ARL libraries to get a “snapshot” at this and technical reports from all subject ar- point in time of how academic libraries eas. According to the Google Scholar Web are integrating Google Scholar into their site, materials are included from scholarly collections and services via their Web publishers, universities, professional soci- sites. In addition to the descriptive study eties, and preprint repositories. The prin- of Google Scholar on ARL Web sites, the cipal engineer for Google Scholar, Anurag local experience at the Rutgers University Acharya, has focused development of the Libraries is presented. product on the concept of “versioning,” or gathering all the differing versions of Review of Relevant Literature a single scholarly work together in one With the introduction of Google Scholar, place.1 Librarians can see the value of libraries have struggled to find ways to displaying at once all possible versions make decisions about how to integrate of an author’s work, including preprints, such a product into their collections via postprints, self-archived journal articles, their Web sites. Few scholarly articles have conference presentations, and technical been published to this point analyzing reports. In some ways, the introduction Google Scholar’s role in academic librar- of Google Scholar has forced academic ies’ collections or services or, specifically, librarians to analyze the relationships how academic libraries are deciding to among publishers, vendors, free search integrate it into their Web sites. As Google engines, and research-level libraries. The Scholar was introduced only recently, this relationship between libraries and Google literature will surely develop with time. Scholar, unprecedented in that it does not In addition to the scholarly literature, depend on sales, has implications for the development of the product and reaction library Web site. It is an example of a new to it by librarians may be studied through type of collaboration between a commer- various articles, blogs, and news items as cial enterprise and academia. well as by visiting the Google Scholar Web Google Scholar provides discovery as site.3 As a free scholarly search engine well as access, and librarians can promote that bridges to academic fee-based library its use through the Web site. Scholarly content, Google Scholar was integrated journal publishers are participating in into some library Web sites early on in initiatives such as CrossRef while mak- its development. According to a review ing their content available to Google in The Charleston Advisor, Google Scholar Scholar.2 Librarians are working with “has gained widespread acceptance and their link resolver products, and librar- is linked from the websites of highly re- ies are participating in initiatives such spected libraries.”4 as OCLC WorldCat, which is making the book materials more discoverable. Early Google Scholar Literature With the ability to set “Preferences” and Many of the articles and editorials ap- personalize search in Google Scholar by pearing in the library literature detail the moving a chosen institution’s holdings pros and cons of adding Google Scholar to the top of the relevancy ranking, we to the offerings of academic libraries.5 are seeing the integration of institution- Advantages discussed informally in many specific identification to results. forums include the ability to retrieve Following Rutgers University Librar- only scholarly material when searching, ies’experience with integration of Google the usefulness of the “cited by” feature, Scholar into collections and services, a Google Scholar’s potential metasearch ca- 108 College & Research Libraries March 2006 pability, and the value of pushing usage of literature does contain some early aempts the library’s fee-based electronic resources. at comparison between Google Scholar Google Scholar, without charge, offers and the Thompson/ISI citation analysis personalization through the “Preferences” products. Richard K. Belew’s recent study search function, discovery of repository of 203 publications collectively cited by content, a one-stop shop for open-access more than 4,000 other publications showed publications, and a vehicle for discovery that Google Scholar’s data citation counts of the institutions’ book collections. As all “showed surprisingly good agreement” ARL libraries are OCLC WorldCat par- with the Thompson/ISI product.7 Belew ticipants, patrons using Google Scholar at adds the caveat that publications in books these libraries will find their institutions’ and conferenceproceedings are morelikely book materials highlighted. Affiliates of to be included in Google Scholar whereas ARL libraries will be able to link to their journal articles are beer indexed by the libraries’extensive holdings of subscribed- Thomson/ISI product.8 Marcus A. Banks to content from Google Scholar. cautions that some librarians feel that Conversely, Google Scholar raises Google Scholar’s “cited by” algorithms many questions and concerns for aca- are not fully reliable.9 Kathleen Bauer demic librarians. With Google Scholar still and Nisa Bakkalbasi, in a comparison of a beta product with a “plug-and-play” Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Sci- development scheme, and almost all ence, suggest that no one citation analysis revenue generated by advertisements on source may be considered comprehensive the regular Google product, libraries are anymore for collecting the citation counts opening their Web pages to a new type of of a particular author or article.10 commercial enterprise. Librarians are not Banks also suggests comparison of sure what their role is in the evolution of Google Scholar with Elsevier’s Scirus the product and are not an integral part search engine.11 Dean Giustini and Eu- of the development team. Concerns have gene Barsky point out that one of the been raised about the comprehensiveness differences between these two free schol- of the indexing and the lack of a defini- arly search engines is that Scirus clearly tion of “scholarly,” as well as the issue of lists the sources that make up its content whether students should be encouraged whereas Google Scholar does not.12 As for to look beyond what is offered by Google. comparison with Scirus, Laura M. Felter Early comments by Chuck Hamaker and advocates the integration of the free tools Brad Spry discuss librarians’ need to that benefit researchers, including Google know what is being indexed by Google Scholar and Scirus, with current offerings. Scholar, what level of currency can be ex- These tools should be embraced and pected, and what the differences in access not seen as threatening.13 Greg R. Not- to content from various publishers will ess cautions that although both Google be.6 Even though many questions remain Scholar and Scirus have potential value to be answered, some ARL libraries have for information professionals and end moved to integrate Google Scholar into users, plenty of problems remain: “Other their Web sites. search tools continue to serve scholarly It may be advantageous for academic li- researchers more effectively.”14 brary Web sites to include as many citation analysis sources as are currently available Library Web Site Literature so that researchers can maximize results To beer understand how academic li- for any given author or article. Google braries might make decisions regarding Scholar is providing valuable citation integration of free Web-based indexes and data for many of the materials it indexes, databases, especially Google Scholar, onto especially those publications outside the their Web pages, a survey of the Web site traditional journal literature. The scholarly management and design literature was Google Scholar and the Library Web Site 109 undertaken. Although there is a paucity ability tests reveal that the way material of literature that would give guidelines to is arranged, labeled, and presented on librarians making decisions about the im- the Web site has a major impact on us- plications of adding free electronic data- ers.17 Efficiency of the use of the Web site bases to their Web sites directly alongside comes from organizing information by the purchased subscription products, it is type of material, giving users the shortest possible to turn to the corpus of literature path clickwise to the materials they need. discussing integration of other types of According to Elsevier’s User-Centered free electronic resources into Web lists, Design Group, a Web site should be orga- research guides, instruction tools, and nized around certain user tasks. Elsevier’s OPACs. Most of the available literature studies show that users’ most frequent deals with the management and listing task is searching for journal articles, of free electronic resources such as Web indexes, and books while conducting sites, open-access journals, or electronic research. Chris Jasek has reported that book collections on library Web lists. Peter 85 percent of people come to the library Burne and Christina Seuring discussed Web site to find research materials such methods of prioritizing Internet materials, as journal articles.18 Library Web sites selection and access issues, the treatment incorporating Google Scholar will allow of fee-based versus free electronic resourc- users, especially the affiliated users of es, and the integration of these resources ARL libraries, to search for and discover into the OPACs of large university librar- “scholarly” journal articles. ies. They concluded that “the inclusion of internet resources is in the interest of the Free Web Indexes and the OPAC support of research and education.”15 To determine whether Google Scholar Lesley M. Moyo presented a com- and other free Web-based indexing/search prehensive look at the collaborative engine products should be integrated into environment necessary when integrat- the OPAC as well as included on Web lists, ing free Web content into collections and the cataloging literature was consulted discussed issues involved with access for best practice guidelines. Much of and public services for different types the available literature on integration of of electronic resources. Advantages of electronic resources into OPACs focuses using Web lists for enhanced access are on subscription-based products. Less is discussed. Moyo believes that when free available about whether the library should Internet materials have been evaluated include free “blended” resources such as by librarians and deemed to have schol- Google Scholar in the OPAC. Gail Herrera arly value, it would serve users beer to and LyndaAldana discussed the approach integrate these materials alongside the taken for purchased electronic resources subscription products for more seamless at the University of Mississippi Libraries access.16 whereby all electronic materials have been made available via the Web-based Usability of Library Web Sites catalog. The catalog becomes “the base for Usability studies of academic librar- all library resources regardless of format,” ies’ Web sites are fairly common in the and representing resources in the catalog literature. It is important to take into ac- enhances user awareness that the library count how users are approaching library is funding collections.19 Xiaotian Chen Web sites when planning how to present and colleagues have presented results of resources. Barbara J. Cockrell and Elaine a survey and a discussion about catalog- Anderson Jayne discussed the difficul- ing, access versus ownership, and display ties that all user groups experience when of electronic resources in academic and using library Web sites with their compli- research libraries. Their literature review cated lists of indexes and databases. Us- shows that there is general consensus that 110 College & Research Libraries March 2006 the OPAC should be the primary means of Web products into research library Web access to electronic journals and electronic sites in order to make sure these portals books. The disadvantage for the library to the library’s collections and services patron of having to search in multiple remain effective and consistent for a mul- places is noted as is the fact that policies tiplicity of user groups. for cataloging of electronic resources are oen made at the local institutional level. Case Study: Integration of Google Even when discussing subscription-based Scholar into the Rutgers University electronic resources, libraries use many Libraries’Web Site different ways of providing access. In As members of the Web Advisory Com- determining where electronic resources miee (WAC) of the Rutgers University should be placed, “there existed no com- Libraries, the authors were part of the mon agreement among libraries concern- process that surrounded the decision to ing which categories of resources should add Google Scholar to our library’s offer- be listed in the catalog, which in the Web ings via the Web site. list and which in both.”20 In February 2005, following a period of time when librarians informally tested Open-Access Materials and the Library use of Google Scholar in the libraries, a Web Site move was made to suggest a more for- Lastly, the literature of the open-access mal integration of the product into the movement was consulted to determine library’s suite of offerings. One of the sci- whether and where academic libraries are ence librarians approached the Associate placing resources that index such publica- University Librarian for Communications tions on their Web sites. Google Scholar and Public Services with the suggestion is an important vehicle for the discovery that Google Scholar be placed on our Web of open-access literature. Malcolm Getz pages. The AUL gave a charge to WAC speaks to the ability of Google Scholar to to make recommendations to the Public make essays published in open journals Services Council about the integration of more conveniently accessible. Also, the Google Scholar into appropriate places on “cited by’ counts found through Google our library Web site. A commiee under Scholar will be used as a measure of value the aegis of the Public Services Council, when judging the impact of publications WAC’s charge may be found on the Rut- in open-access journals.21 Recent articles gers University Libraries’Web site. Mem- have demonstrated that there is greater bers of WAC work with the Webmaster to research impact when articles are made “advise the webmaster on making new freely available online.22 Placing Google electronic resources available and solicit Scholar on library Web sites can be said and provide content for creation and ex- to further drive impact by enhancing the pansion of needed web pages.”23 discovery of open-access materials from Usually, the protocol followed when the library Web site. adding a new scholarly resource would The literature studied gave no conclu- come from the procedures listed by the sive guidelines that ARL libraries might Public Services Council. The step-by-step turn to when faced with the decision to guidelines for adding resources in vari- add a resource such as Google Scholar to ous categories are listed on our Web site. the library Web site, either as part of a Web Listed under the heading “Making Addi- list that may have heretofore been reserved tions to our Web Pages,” the procedures for subscribed-to indexes and databases or primarily include categories that refer to to OPACs. This type of important decision licensed databases or electronic journals, is oen le to Web commiees or Webmas- trials for electronic products, or even ters. More research is needed in the area nonlicensed products.24 WAC members of decision making about integrating free did not find any specific guidelines that Google Scholar and the Library Web Site 111 would help in determining how best to The fact that it was in beta, had not been integrate this new free “blended” Web- completely forthcoming about many based resource into our Web pages and aspects of its development, and was a Web lists, especially whether to place free resource did not seem to diminish Google Scholar on the alphabetical list of its potential usefulness to library patrons indexes and databases. The alphabetical as both a search tool and a mechanism and subject lists of indexes and databases to raise awareness of the libraries’ sub- on the Rutgers University Libraries Web scribed-to resources. site are composed almost entirely of fee- Therefore, WAC decided to place based subscription products. Google Scholar on the Libraries’venerable As background to its discussions, alphabetical list of indexes and databases. WAC turned to the Web sites of other ARL Moreover, Google Scholar would become libraries and began to look at how these an item in the Libraries’ news and be academic libraries were handling Google placed on lists of general science resources. Scholar. It was seen at that early date that It already had been incorporated into some academic libraries had already in- various subject-based research guides, es- corporated Google Scholar into their Web pecially in the sciences fields. The authors pages. As the Web sites including Google created a description page about Google Scholar were analyzed, there appeared to Scholar because Rutgers University Li- be no real consistency in the treatment of braries maintains such a page for every the resource by research libraries. index and database that resides on the WAC members discussed how best to alphabetical list. This description page represent Google Scholar on the Rutgers includes information about the content of University Libraries Web page. At first, the resource and also lists any access infor- WAC decided on an approach that would mation available for on-site as well as for not treat Google Scholar exclusively but, remote access by Rutgers affiliates.26 instead, place it in context among other The content of the description page and free “scholarly” search engines, indexes, recommendations for Google Scholar’s and databases. It was le to the WAC mem- placement on certain places on the Web bers to come up with a list of resources site went to the Public Services Council that were in a similar task grouping to for approval. The Public Services Council, Google Scholar. Aer much discussion, a under the aegis of our AUL for Public separate page was mocked up that was to Services and Communications, approved place Google Scholar among other open- the page and the recommendation to add access resources. WAC would simply title the resource to the Web site in the loca- this page “Open-Access Resources.” The tions suggested. The charge to proxy the short list of resources decided on included resource and to add it to our link resolver DOAJ (Directory of OpenAccess Journals), went to our systems department, and Scirus, OAIster, and Google Scholar. aer completion of the technical aspects Aer further discussion, WAC real- of the project, the resource was added to ized that Google Scholar was offering the libraries’alphabetical list of databases, something more than the other open-ac- front page news, and general sciences cess resources listed, namely, enhanced database lists. Selectors would have research capabilities, the addition of cited sponsibility for incorporating the resource references, and, most important, the into subject guides as they wished. Google ability of libraries to link the searcher to Scholar was added to every science “quick the institution’s subscribed-to resources guide,” a series of pathfinders produced through the local link resolver.25 WAC and distributed online and in paper by then decided to change course and create the science librarians. a situation where Google Scholar would Following this local process of inte- stand alone among comparable resources. grating a free scholarly index/database 112 College & Research Libraries March 2006 alongside Rutgers’ myriad fee-based reconciled, which resulted in one ad- offerings, the authors became interested ditional minor adjustment to the coding in more formally researching how other instructions. There was then sufficient ARL libraries had decided to treat Google confidence in the coding procedures for Scholar, whether these academic libraries one of the authors to be able to code all had decided to include Google Scholar in the remaining data. their offerings or had chosen a different Data were collected during the week course. Had some libraries decided that of July 10, 2005. Starting from the 113 it was inappropriate to place a free index ARL university library homepages, the that was being developed commercially final coding scheme necessitated answer- and still in beta on the library Web site? ing fourteen separate questions for each Since more than half a year had elapsed library: from the introduction of Google Scholar • Does Google Scholar appear any- to the library community, a research study where on the library homepage (outside was conducted using information found news, which is coded separately be- on the Web sites of ARL libraries. How low)? widely had Google Scholar been accepted • Is Google Scholar represented in the by other academic research libraries by online public access catalog (OPAC)? the summer of 2005? • Does Google Scholar appear on the alphabetical list of indexes/databases? Method (This question also was asked about Sci- The 113 ARL university members com- rus.) prised the sample studied.27 The library • Does Google Scholar appear on any homepages of these institutions were database list organized by subject (e.g., bi- examined for paths or links to Google ology databases, history databases). (This Scholar. As a check, links to Scirus, a question also was asked about Scirus.) similar science-oriented free resource, • Is Google Scholar listed on any also were investigated. An a priori cod- subject research guides? (This question ing scheme was developed of places also was asked about Scirus.) where the authors expected to find links • Is Google Scholar listed on a Web to Google Scholar or information about page of search engines/Internet search it (e.g., database lists, subject research tools? (This question also was asked about guides, the OPAC, class/instruction Scirus.) guides, library news and/or blogs, Web These first six questions refer to paths pages of science or engineering librar- to resources that have typically been ies, and so on). Five university libraries veed in a more formal or regularized were chosen at random from the ARL manner and therefore may be considered Web site and the two authors together to be more enduring. The following two tried to apply the coding scheme to them. questions refer to links that are likely to This allowed refinement of the coding be more time or date sensitive and, as a instructions so that they more accurately consequence, more ephemeral. and comprehensively covered the actual • Is Google Scholar listed or pre- examples that would become apparent in sented in any form of instruction such as the course of the study. As a check of the class guides or workshop information? reliability of the revised coding scheme, (These typically disappear at the end of the authors chose another ten libraries at the current semester. This question also random and independently aempted was asked about Scirus.) to apply the coding instructions to them. • Does Google Scholar appear in The authors agreed on 94 percent of all library news and/or library blogs? News data coded from these ten libraries. The items can change on a daily, weekly, few disagreements were discussed and monthly basis. Google Scholar and the Library Web Site 113

In addition, because assumptions could be found at those universities that already not be made about the underlying orga- had granted Google access to their hold- nizational models at ARL libraries with ings. In addition, it was hypothesized respect to oversight of branch library Web that those libraries that had included pages, the following question was asked: Scirus as a research tool on their Web sites • Does Google Scholar appear any- would be more likely to provide links to where on the Web pages of the library’s another free scholarly search engine such branches? (Note that this was a simple as Google Scholar. yes/no question; it does not count appear- ances on Web pages of multiple branch Results libraries.) How widely had Google Scholar been Finally, it was noted whether each of accepted by 113 university members of the 113 university libraries had granted ARL in the summer of 2005? Several dif- Google Scholar institutional access to its ferent methods of measuring acceptance holdings. This last piece of information are represented in the data: was obtained by searching for each in- • Only six libraries (5%) placed a link stitution by name on the “Scholar Prefer- to Google Scholar directly on the library ences” page. homepage and only two of these included This study is largely exploratory, as its the Google Scholar search box. major research focus is simply on how • Six libraries (5%) cataloged Google widely Google Scholar has been accepted Scholar in the OPAC. and incorporated by academic research • Only 27 of the 113 ARL institutions libraries at one particular point in time (24%) included Google Scholar on their al- relatively early in its history, about eight phabetical list of indexes and databases. months aer its introduction in the sum- • Sixteen (14%) included Google mer of 2005. Nonetheless, two hypotheses Scholar in lists of databases organized by guided some of the analyses. In particular, subject. it was expected that more paths to and • Google Scholar appeared on subject information about Google Scholar would guides at only 14 institutions (12.5%).

FIGURE 1 Number of “Enduring” Links to Google Scholar from Library Homepages of ARL Institutions

40 Institutions

of 30

Number 10

0 0 1 2 3 4 Number of Links 114 College & Research Libraries March 2006

FIGURE 2 Revised Index of Links to Google Scholar from Library Homepages of ARL Institutions 40 35 30 25

20 15 10 Numberof Institutions 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Number of Links

• Google Scholar was listed as a At the time of the data collection, 43 of search engine or Internet search tool at the 113 libraries had granted institutional 22 institutions (19.5%). access to Google Scholar. The authors hy- • Google Scholar appeared on in- pothesized that these 43 partners would structional guides or workshop informa- provide more links or paths to Google tion at 23 institutions (20%). Scholar than nonpartnering institutions. • Items about Google Scholar ap- However, the results did not bear this peared in the library news or blogs of 31 out. The 43 partnering institutions pro- (27%) of the libraries. vided an average of .86 paths (SD = 1.06) • Interestingly, Google Scholar did to Google Scholar compared to .77 paths appear somewhere on the Web pages (SD = 1.12) provided by nonpartnering of branch libraries at 43 of the 113 ARL institutions (t(111) = .42, p < .68), a clearly institutions (38%). nonsignificant difference. An index was created that simply The index was recomputed with the counted the first six, more permanent addition of three paths that represent paths to Google Scholar listed above. A more ephemeral or less central routes rationale for focusing on these six was to Google Scholar: its coverage in news; the expectation that if the Web pages of instruction that included Google Scholar; these libraries were surveyed again a and the appearance of Google Scholar on year from now, these same links would the Web pages of branch libraries. The exist. In theory, the index could range reconstituted index’s overall average from 0 to 6, but in practice the highest more than doubles to 1.66. Clearly these score obtained was 4, with a mean of three links were utilized relatively more .81. Sixty ARL libraries did not have any than the six permanent links. Moreover, of these paths (53%), and 31 (27%) had it is apparent that the jump in the overall only one. That is, 80 percent of the ARL mean of the revised summary index is due libraries had none or only one path, as disproportionately to the 43 partnering measured. These data are illustrated in institutions. The partnering institutions figure 1. provided an average of 2.07 links (SD = Google Scholar and the Library Web Site 115

1.71) compared to 1.41 links (SD = 1.54) for Google Scholar in forums devoted to de- nonpartnering institutions. This is now a velopments in the academic library world, significant difference: t(111) = 2.11, p < .04. it is somewhat surprising that many These data are illustrated in figure 2.28 libraries have largely not incorporated The authors also expected to find this resource into their Web sites. Indeed, an association between those libraries even allowing Google institutional access that included Scirus as a research tool to holdings as a partner did not translate and those that provided links to Google to greater integration of Google Scholar Scholar. The appearance of Scirus on the in the library Webs sites at this point in alphabetical list of databases, lists of da- time. Partners were more likely to pro- tabases organized by subject, on subject vide coverage of Google Scholar in news guides, on instruction, class or workshop or blogs and include it in class guides guides, and on search engine guides/Web or special training workshops, but they pages was noted. As shown in figure 3, by were no more likely than nonpartners to these five criteria, Scirus is even less vis- place it in more permanent locations such ible than Google Scholar on library Web as the OPAC or subject guides. Google sites. As hypothesized, however, in every Scholar did appear on the Web pages of case there was a statistically significant branch libraries, most oen on those with relationship between those institutions a science focus, a not surprising result that provide links to Google Scholar and given the product’s current emphasis on those that provide links to Scirus. (tau b science and technology. This situation ranges from .23 to .40). will undoubtedly evolve with time and with the development of Google Scholar. Discussion As a caveat, it should be noted that the Given the amount of discussion about authors did not seek information about

FIGURE 3 Scirus – Google Scholar Comparison

15 Percent 10

0 Alphabetical Databases Subject Class Guides Search List Organized by Guides Engine Page Subject

Scirus Google Scholar 116 College & Research Libraries March 2006 the decision-making process of individual bypass the library when starting a search. ARL libraries and it is only speculation at Deborah Fallows mentions that there this point as to reasons why an institution are types of information, such as journal would decide to include Google Scholar articles, that searchers may not expect to or not.29 Future research is needed to de- find online, but Google’s “new scholar termine how librarians and Webmasters search” might change minds.34 make decisions about adding resources Users expect to be able to enter simple to their alphabetical lists of indexes and search terms into a single interface and databases, subject guides, and OPACs. retrieve the full range of materials available.35 Vendors are aware that “librarians Integration of Google Scholar into want Boolean search capabilities and ARL Web Sites: Implications for students want the ease of using Google.”36 Different User Groups Our sites can be known as the comprehen- What does it mean when an academic sive and appropriate place for students to library presents a resource on its Web look for research materials. Users are not site? Are librarians recommending that physically coming to the library and have resource, bestowing an imprimatur on it come to depend on successful Web pages or otherwise leing their users know that to get started.37 At least if they start with the library considers it valuable? Jasek Google Scholar from our Web sites rather suggests that it may be beneficial to put than from the open Web, they will likely links to frequently used databases directly notice our veed subject-oriented indexes on the homepage, offering the shortest and databases and be more tempted to path to users.30 Some librarians have felt browse. that prominent placement on the Web Other studies have indicated that stu- site is justified for indexes and databases dents oen try to find scholarly articles that represent a large budgetary outlay in the OPAC.38 How many ARL libraries for the library; others feel that a link to that have represented Google Scholar on subscription databases should be promi- their Web pages have actually catalogued nently displayed on the library homepage it to the OPAC? This study finds that for reasons other than for money spent.31 only six ARL institutions have included There have been good reasons for keeping Google Scholar in their OPACs whereas free Web-based indexes and databases off 27 have included it on their alphabetical lists made up of subscription products. list of indexes and databases. Clearly, One reason that free Web content has been ARL libraries that have included Google kept separate is due to a lack of quality Scholar on Web lists have not rushed to control.32 catalog it in the OPAC. There appears lile consistency in how resources are Implications for Students added to OPACs, another place where How will a decision to include Google students may be starting their research. Scholar in prominent places on the library The library’s extensive lists of resources Web site affect the information-seeking presented on a Web site can be overwhelm- behavior or the perceptions of users ing. Oen hundreds of indexes and data- when starting the research process? Us- bases are presented in alphabetical and ability tests have shown that users do not subject lists. Besides longer and longer understand library terms and may have lists of indexes and databases and confu- difficulty with concepts. Despite effective sion on the best ways to instruct students library instruction and online and print to choose which databases to start with, guides to using the library, many students publishers and vendors sometimes name still have no idea how or where to begin their products with titles such as ASFA their search.33 We do know that users 1, Compendex, or SCOPUS. It is not recognize Google and that they will oen surprising that students would not be Google Scholar and the Library Web Site 117 able to link these types of names with the on Web sites alongside subscribed-to subject content they contain. How is a user resources, librarians may be seen as pro- to choose from a list of databases when moting its use for subject searching of starting a subject search? Google Scholar, scholarly material as well as suggesting on the other hand, is aptly named to at- that it is “on par” with the other veed tract students and researchers to the more indexes and databases listed. scholarly aspects of the familiar Google search engine. Less contact with reference Implications for Scholars/Researchers librarians as shown by declining reference As for another of libraries’ user groups, desk statistics means more users will start the researchers, Harnad states that the with the Web site and will have the difficult optimal situation is “online availability task of choosing an appropriate subject re- of the entire refereed research corpus; source based on its title. Will the placement availability on every researcher’s desktop, of any Google product on our Web pages everywhere, 24 hours a day; interlink- alongside our subscribed-to resources offer ing of all papers and citations; and fully a familiar name that students will gravitate searchable, navigable, retrievable, im- toward when they are not sure what else to pact-rankable research papers.”39 Google choose? This study shows that only 27 of Scholar appears to be a tool that has all the 113ARLlibraries have decided to place these capabilities. Google Scholar on their alphabetical list of Our faculty and students are potential indexes and databases. It is possible that authors of scholarly journal articles and some librarians would rather that students will want to see their publications, in and researchers use only the more tradi- all possible versions, become as widely tional subscribed-to indexes and databases available to researchers as possible. High- when searching for scholarly literature. It lighting Google Scholar on our Web sites also may be that the alphabetical list of will push access to our own authors’pub - indexes and databases at some research lications as well as increase the research libraries has been reserved for subscribed- impact of these materials. Aconsideration to resources. for publishers that do not participate with Do teaching faculty expect librarians Google Scholar might be that authors will to present a different kind of material go elsewhere to publish their research re- to students than what is produced by sults because there is the danger that their Google, even if they tell us it is “schol- articles will not be discovered by as many arly?” Librarians may need to educate searchers. Authors will want to be aware faculty and students about this Google of any product such as Google Scholar that product and justify its inclusion in their can heighten the research impact of their Web sites. With faculty trying to steer un- work. In time, impact also may be mea- dergraduates away from Google and onto sured in terms of the number of down- the libraries’ Web sites and into library loads a particular article gets, and authors buildings, will seeing Google Scholar on will want to maximize Web visibility of all the Web site alongside accepted subject versions of their publications. databases be met with incredulity? Will Another feature of Google Scholar students stick with the recognizable old that has pushed it to the forefront is the favorite to the dismay of their instructors? inclusion of “cited references.” If this In some cases, faculty members have feature is expanded, and if studies show defined “scholarly” to their students as ar- it to be a comprehensive means of citation ticles that are peer-reviewed, a refinement analysis, there may be great implications in search that Google Scholar currently for the ISI/Thompson products as well as does not allow. Librarians will still need to others such as SCOPUS and some of the assist users in finding the most appropri- subject-specific indexes that have recently ate source. By including Google Scholar incorporated cited references. If Google 118 College & Research Libraries March 2006

Scholar is complementary to other cita- Web site. As most of Google’s revenue tion analysis sources, listing it on our Web comes from advertisements, librarians sites will benefit researchers by allowing may expect Google Scholar to include for a more comprehensive listing of cited them in the foreseeable future. Google references for a given article. says that “ads are possible down the line.”43 Google Scholar’s Acharya also Implications for Librarians states that “we’re focusing on trying to When deciding where a resource such as get the functionality to be what we want it Google Scholar is best placed on the Web to be before focusing on monetization.”44 site, whether on database lists, in subject Will librarians feel differently about research guides, or in news for faculty displaying Google Scholar from the Web and students, librarians must decide what site if advertisements became part of the type of resource it is. Google Scholar de- package? fies description in this sense. Is it an index/ This study reveals that only two ARL database or commercial search engine? libraries have chosen to place the Google Will its placement affect other resources Scholar free search box directly on their in unknown ways? In the paper world, it library homepages. For those libraries was easier to categorize resources, and we using the Google Scholar free search box, were talking about ownership, not access. have the “terms of use” proved to be in Some have argued that librarians should line with the principles of the library Web not make a distinction between “free” and site? According to section 1.5 of Google “paid for” when making materials avail- Scholar’s terms, by using the Google able to users.40 For example, it is possible Scholar search box, the user is agreeing, to adapt and expand Katz’s criteria for in part, that Google will be the “exclusive the evaluation of print reference sources provider of Internet search services on the for use with the free electronic indexes.41 Site.”45 Is it possible that the library hav- There must be criteria on which librarians ing to agree to these terms from Google responsible for Web site content make explains, in part, why only two libraries decisions regarding whether to include have put the Google Scholar free search new types of free Web-based resources box on their front pages? on the site and where. Arelated issue for librarians surrounds There are many ways that the devel- the use of library Web sites as a market- opment of Google Scholar might affect ing vehicle for publishers. Google Scholar libraries’ subscribed-to abstracting and on our Web sites will push referrals to indexing services. These fee-based subject Google’s journal publisher partners. For index providers will become more cogni- instance, according to Elsevier’s de Heer, zant of customer service and development library Web sites are becoming one of the of value-added features as Google Scholar leading sources of referrals to Elsevier’s becomes an easy and convenient product Science Direct, an abstracting and index- with which to reach scholarly material ing tool subscribed to by manyARLlibrar - at no cost. As for increasing downloads ies. Looking at referrals to Science Direct of subscribed-to journal content, usage from all sources, it is seen that 24 percent statistics may help libraries see the effect come from library Web sites.46 In this case, that placing Google Scholar on our Web it may turn out that library Web sites are pages is having on usage of our collec- helping to market the publishers’product. tions. Acharya admits that libraries could For ARL libraries with their rich corpus of set up systems to track usage of Google subscribed-to material, the relationship Scholar for reaching collections.42 can be a mutually beneficial one. Publish- Librarians may have philosophical, ers sell more products and libraries will ideological, or ethical reasons for not in- see a concomitant rise in usage statistics cluding Google Scholar on their library’s of subscribed-to products, making it Google Scholar and the Library Web Site 119 easier to justify spending money on these are still relatively unknown.51 Also, the resources. For other types of libraries that open-access literature is more developed do not subscribe to much of the content in the sciences and, indeed, scientific that Google Scholar bridges to, library open-access publishers have responded Web sites could be a marketing vehicle for with early press releases. For instance, Google’s publisher partners without any BioMed Central’s headlines in November real benefit to the libraries’ mission. This 2004 read: “Google Scholar Good News for may be one reason why 96 percent of the Open Access.”52 Google Scholar can be an large, urban libraries making up the Ur- important portal to the corpus of open-ac- ban Libraries Council have not included cess material, especially in the sciences. Google Scholar on their websites.47 Google Scholar has been discussed Conclusion as an alternative to federated search The results of this descriptive study are an products because of its one-stop-shop aempt to illustrate the way that Google approach to searching what it defines as Scholar has been represented on ARL scholarly materials. As library Web sites libraries’ Web sites eight months aer its are the portals to an institution’s schol- release. Some libraries are placing Google arly resources, librarians have discussed Scholar alongside vetted scholarly in- Google Scholar’s potential for metasearch dexes and databases with which we have across a wide array of publication types, a long history. Google representatives are including those from their own reposito- sharing the stage at our conferences with ries.48 Other initiatives, for example ARL’s many of the most prominent librarians of Scholar’s Portal Project and the Ontario our time. On the other hand, some ARL Scholars Portal, have aempted to help libraries appear to be making informed link the user to veed scholarly Internet decisions not to share the venerable li- materials.49 Google Scholar may someday brary database lists with Google Scholar. function in a similar way for the wide ManyARLlibraries do not include Google variety of scholarly materials it contains, Scholar on their Web sites at all. even though, unlike with the other por- Librarians are heavy users of Google tals, its development does not necessarily themselves and may be more apt to add involve academic librarians directly. the resource because they “trust” a fa- Librarians should have a vested inter- miliar Google product. ARL head Duane est in the expansion of the open-access Webster said of Google Scholar that “the movement. Search engines such as Google arrival of this new service was welcome Scholar are indispensable in making this but noted the need for open dialog as it material available to researchers. Should develops.”53 Publishers, vendors, and the library Web sites include links to other abstracting and indexing services are cau- open-access search tools such as Elsevier’s tiously proceeding into the new realm of Scirus?50 This study shows that Scirus is Google Scholar even as librarians wonder less represented on library Web sites in whether its capabilities will eclipse some comparison with Google Scholar. Espe- of the traditional players in the academic cially for those users not affiliated with library world. Carol Tenopir says of a library rich in subscribed-to content, Google Scholar, “it does not replace the Google Scholar can aid in the discovery of library collection. It expands access. The alternate peer-reviewed open-access ma- impact on abstracting and indexing ser- terials. With the name Google becoming vices remains to be seen.”54 so ubiquitous, publishers of open-access Academic libraries need to continue to materials will find association with Google develop guidelines for decision making Scholar to be their best shot at maximum about Web site issues. While dealing with visibility whereas other indexes, such new types of resources in effective ways as OAIster, can crawl the deep Web but on their Web sites, libraries must always 120 College & Research Libraries March 2006 keep the user at the forefront. Librarians user groups they serve. The introduction of also must keep up with transformative or Google Scholar presents a challenge as well “disruptive” technologies that are on the as an opportunity for academic libraries. horizon.55 Moreover, librarians responsible In a changing information landscape, Ste- for content on Web sites have to be able to phenAbram reminds librarians that one of react quickly to technological change and, the key things we can do is to “get on the by doing so, remain relevant to the many bandwagon early” and evolve.56

Notes 1. Barbara Quint, “Library Collections Linked on Google Scholar for Free,” Information Today (May 16, 2005). Available online at hp://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb050516-1.shtml. [Accessed 26 May 2005]. 2. The CrossRef Web site is available online at hp://www.crossref.org. [Accessed 15 October 2005]. From the site: “CrossRef is an independent membership association, founded and directed by publishers and is the oﬃcial DOI registration agency for scholarly and professional publications. CrossRef operates a citation-linking network that covers millions of articles.” Information from Google for scholarly publishers can be found at hp://scholar.google.com/scholar/publishers. html. [Accessed 20 October 2005]. 3. The Google Scholar Web site is available online at hp://www.scholar.google.com. [Ac- cessed 15 October 2005]. Because Google Scholar is a new product and has caused a great deal of informal discussion in many library circles, it has been possible to follow both development of the product and reaction to it by librarians and other interested users through various library blogs. The following blogs have been accessed and read from November 2004 to October 2005: Making Links at hp://makinglinks.uwindsor.ca:8087/mitas/sfxblog/; Digital Librarian at hp:// digitallibrarian.org/; UBC Google Scholar Blog at hp://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/googlescholar/; Lorcan Dempsey’s Weblog at hp://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/000615.html; LibraryCog at hp://webvoy.uwindsor.ca:8087/artblog/librarycog/1100880268; ResourceShelf at hp://www. resourceshelf.com/; On Google Scholar at hp://schoogle.blogspot.com/; The Distant Librarian at hp://distlib.blogs.com/distlib/; Library Web Chic at hp://librarywebchic.net/wordpress/; Google Blog at hp://googleblog.blogspot.com/. 4. Martin Myhill, “The Advisor Reviews…Google Scholar,” Charleston Advisor 6, no.4 (Apr. 2005). Available online at hp://www.charlestonco.com/review.cfm?id=225. [Accessed 29 June 2005]. 5. Examples of articles discussing the advantages and disadvantages to libraries of Google and Google Scholar are: Brian Kenney, “Googleizers vs. Resistors,” Library Journal (Dec. 2004): 44–46; Peter Jasco, “Google Scholar: The Pros and the Cons,” Online Information Review 29, no.2 (2005): 208–14. 6. Chuck Hamaker and Brad Spry, “Google Scholar,” Serials 18, no.1 (Mar. 2005): 70–72. Available online at http://serials.uksg.org/(k1cfb255t1223u45mpyq4hyy)/app/home/main. asp?referrer=default. [Accessed 18 October 2005]. 7. Richard K. Belew, “Scientiﬁc Impact Quantity and Quality: Analysis of Two Sources of Bibliographic Data,” arXiv#: CoRR/0504036, 1 (Apr.11, 2005): 1–12. Available online at hp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cs/pdf/0504/0504036.pdf. [Accessed 11 April 2005]. 8. Ibid., 10. 9. Marcus A. Banks, “The Excitement of Google Scholar, the Worry of Google Print,” Biomedical Digital Libraries 2, no. 2 (Mar. 22, 2005). Available online at hp://www.bio-diglib.com/content/2/1/2. [Accessed 17 June 2005]. 10. Kathleen Bauer and Nisa Bakkalbasi, “An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment,” D-Lib Magazine 11, no.9 (Sept., 2005): 1–10. Available at hp://www.dlib.org/dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html. [Accessed 11 October 2005]. 11. Banks, “The Excitement of Google Scholar, the Worry of Google Print.” 12. Dean Giustini and Eugene Barsky, “A Look at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scirus: Com- parisons and Recommendations,” JCHLA/JABSC 26(2005): 85–89. 13. Laura M. Felter, “Google Scholar, Scirus, and the Scholarly Search Revolution,” Searcher 13, no. 2 (2005): 43–48. Available online at hp://www.scirus.com/press/pdf/searcher_reprint.pdf. [Accessed 18 October 2005]. 14. Greg R. Notess, “Scholarly Web Searching: Google Scholar and Scirus,” ONLINE 29, no.4 Google Scholar and the Library Web Site 121

(July/Aug. 2005): 39–41. Available online at hp://www.infotoday.com/online/jul05/OnTheNet. shtml. [Accessed 15 October 2005]. 15. Peter Burne and Christina Seuring, “Organising Access to Free Internet Resources: An Overview of Selection and Management Issues in Large Academic and National Libraries with a View to Defining a Policy at Oxford University,” Program: Electronic Library & Information Systems 35, no. 1 (Jan. 2001): 15–31. 16. Lesley M. Moyo, “Collections on the Web: Some Access and Navigation Issues,” Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 26 (2002): 47–59. 17. Barbara J. Cockrell and Elaine Anderson Jayne, “How Do I Find an Article? Insights from a Web Usability Study,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 28, no.3 (May 2002): 122–32. Cockrell and Jayne cite Louis B. Rosenfeld and Peter Morville, Information Architecture for the World Wide Web (Sebastopol, Calif.: O’Reilly, 1998). 18. Chris Jasek, “How to Design Library Web Sites to Maximize Usability,” Library Connect (2004): 1–15. Available online at hp://www.elsevier.com/framework_products/promis_misc/ 672915lcpamphlets.pdf. [Accessed 18 October 2005]. 19. Gail Herrera and Lynda Aldana, “Integrating Electronic Resources into the Library Catalog: A Collaborative Approach,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 1, no.3 (2001): 241–56. 20. Xiaotian Chen, Larry Colgon, Courtney Greene, Elizabeth Lowe, and Conrad Winke, “E- Resource Cataloging Practices: A Survey of Academic Libraries and Consortia,” Serials Librarian 47, no.1/2 (2004): 153–79. 21. Malcolm Getz, “Three Frontiers in Open Access Scholarship,” Frontiers in Open Access Scholarship Workshop from Cornell University Open Access Repository (Jan.13, 2005). Available online at hp://dspace.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/307. [Accessed 18 September 2005]. 22. Kristin Antelman, “Do Open Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact?” College and Research Libraries 65, no.5 (Sept. 2004): 372–82; Steve Lawrence, “Free Online Availability Substantially Increases a Paper’s Impact,” Nature Web Debates (2001). Available at hp://www. nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/lawrence.html. [Accessed 17 August 2005]. 23. WAC’s charge is available online at hp://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/staff.html. [Accessed 18 October 2005]. 24. Protocol for adding a new scholarly resource to the Rutgers University Libraries’ Web site is titled “Making Additions to our Web Pages” and is available at hp://www.libraries.rutgers. edu/rul/staff/staff.html. [Accessed 18 October 2005]. 25. LinkSource is the link resolver product used by the Rutgers University Libraries. For information, see hp://www.ebsco.com/atoz/LinkSource.asp. [Accessed 18 October 2005]. 26. The description page for Google Scholar is found by clicking on “Google Scholar” from the alphabetical list of indexes and databases available at hp://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/ indexes/indexes.shtml. [Accessed 18 October 2005]. The actual description page for Google Scholar is available at hp://www.libraries.rutgers.edu.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/indexes/ search_guides/google_scholar.shtml. [Accessed 18 October 2005]. 27. The ARL libraries’ Web sites were accessed from the ARL homepage at hp://www.arl. org/members.html. [Accessed 18 October 2005]. From the site: “ARL is a not-for-profit membership organization comprising the libraries of North American research institutions and operates as a forum for the exchange of ideas and as an agent for collective action. Membership in ARL is institutional. There are currently 123 members.” This study removed the nonuniversity members to create the sample. 28. All three new items exhibited the same paern of results; individually, news and instruction were significantly different. 29. Another academic library’s experience with decision making and integrating Google Scholar into collections and services at UCLA is described in E. Meltzer, “UC Libraries Use of Google Scholar,” (Aug. 15, 2005): 1–12. Available online at hp://www.cdlib.org/inside/assess/evalua- tion_activities/docs/2005/googleScholar_summary)0805.pdf. [Accessed 18 October 2005]. 30. Jasek, “How to Design Library Web Sites to Maximize Usability,” 10. Jasek credits this idea to G. H. Crowley, R. Leffel, D. Ramirez, J. L. Hart, and T. S. Armstrong II, “User Perceptions of the Library’s Web Pages: A Focus Group Study at Texas A&M University,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 28, no.4 (2002): 205–10. 31. A. Paula Wilson, Library Web Sites: Creating Online Collections and Services (Chicago: ALA, 2004), 77. 32. Moyo, “Collections on the Web,” 51. 33. Cockrell and Jayne, “How Do I Find an Article?” 122. 34. Deborah Fallows, Search Engine Users (Washington, D.C.: Pew/Internet & American Life Project, Jan.23, 2005), i–v, 1–29. Available online at hp://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Search- engine_users.pdf. [Accessed 10 July 2005]. 35. Cockrell and Jayne, “How Do I Find an Article?” 129. 122 College & Research Libraries March 2006

36. Judy Luther, “User Centered Design = Successful Products,” Charleston Advisor 5, no. 3 (Jan. 2004). Available online at hp://www.charlestonco.com/features.cfm?id=143&type=np. [Accessed 18 October 2005]. 37. Cockrell and Jayne, “How Do I Find an Article?” 122. 38. Ibid., 127. 39. S. Harnad, “Open Access to Peer-Reviewed Research through Author/Institution Self- archiving: Maximizing Research Impact by Maximizing Online Access,” Journal of Postgradu- ate Medicine 49, no.4 (2003): 337–42. Available online at hp://www.jpgmonline.com/article. asp?issn=0022-3859;year=2003;volume=49;issue=4;spage=337;epage=342;aulast=Harnad. [Accessed 17 June 2005]. 40. Burne and Seuring, “Organising Access to Free Internet Resources,” 15–16. 41. Hungyune Chao, “Assessing the Quality of Academic Libraries on the Web: The Develop- ment and Testing of Criteria,” Library & Information Science Research 24 (2002): 169–94. 42. Quint, “Library Collections Linked on Google Scholar for Free.” 43. Norman Oder, “Google Scholar Links with Libraries” Library Journal (Apr. 15, 2005): 17–18. 44. Jeffrey R. Young, “More Than 100 Colleges Work with Google to Speed Campus Users to Library Resources,” Chronicle of Higher Education (May 11, 2005).Available online at hp://chronicle. com/free/2005/05/2005051101t.htm. [Accessed 7 July 2005]. 45. Google Scholar “Free Search Box Terms of Use,” section 1.5. Available online at hp:// scholar.google.com/scholar/scholarsearch_terms.html. [Accessed 24 July 2005]. This issue was brought forward by an entry in the blog, Digital Librarian, available at hp://digitallibrarian. org/?p=88. [Accessed 24 July 2005]. 46. Marthyn Borghus, Guest Editor, “What Counts and What Doesn’t: An Insider’s Guide to Usage Reports,” Library Connect (2005): 1–15. Available online at hp://www.elsevier.com/frame- work_librarians/LibraryConnect/lcpamphlet7.pdf. [Accessed 12 October 2005]. 47. Urban Libraries Council, “Google Scholar Survey Results 2005,” (July 2005).Available online at hp://www.urbanlibraries.org/july2005-googlescholar.html. [Accessed 20 October 2005]. 48. Research Libraries Group, “Mad About Metasearching,” RLG TopShelf (Mar. 2005). Avail- able online at hp://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=7721. [Accessed 18 October 2005]; Roy Tennant, “Is Metasearching Dead?” Library Journal (July 15, 2005). Available online at hp://www. libraryjournal.com/article/CA622685.html. [Accessed 30 October 2005]. 49. Jerry D. Campbell, “The Case for Creating a Scholars Portal to the Web: A White Paper,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 1, no.1 (2001): 15–21; Leah Graham and Panagiotis Takis Metaxas, “Of Course It’s True; I Saw It on the Internet,” Communications of the ACM 46, no. 5 (May 2003): 71–75; ARL Scholar’s Portal. Available online at hp://www.arl.org/access/scholarsportal/. [Ac- cessed 20 October 2005]. From the site: “The Scholars Portal Project was launched in May 2002 as a multiyear collaboration between seven ARL member libraries and Fretwell-Downing. The project seeks to provide soware tools for an academic community to have a single point of access on the Web to find high-quality information resources and, to the greatest extent possible, to deliver the information and related services directly to the user’s desktop.” Information on the Ontario Scholars Portal may be found at hp://scholarsportal.info/cgi-bin/sciserv.pl?collection=journals. [Accessed 30 October 2005]. From the site: “The Ontario Scholars Portal is an initiative of the Ontario Council of University Libraries, a consortium of academic libraries across the province of Ontario, to give researchers a single point of electronic access to high-quality published journals from a broad range of disciplines. This site contains 8.5M articles from close to 7,000 full-text journals published by Academic Press, American Psychological Association, American Chemical Society, Berkeley Electronic Press, Cambridge University Press, Elsevier Science (Elsevier Science, Harcourt Health Sciences), Kluwer (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Kluwer Law International and Kluwer/Plenum), Oxford University Press, Project MUSE, Springer-Verlag, and John Wiley & Sons.” 50. Information about Elsevier’s Scirus, a science-specific free search engine, is available online at hp://www.scirus.com/srsapp/. [Accessed 5 July 2005]. 51. Jeffrey R. Young, “Libraries Try to Widen Google’s Eyes,” Chronicle of Higher Education 50, no.37 (May 21, 2004): A1. 52. “Google Scholar Good News for Open Access,” (Nov. 19, 2004). Available online at hp:// www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/pr-releases?pr=20041119. [Accessed 20 October 2005]. 53. Doug Payne, “Google Scholar Welcomed,” Scientist (Nov. 23, 2004). Available online at hp://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20041123/01. [Accessed 27 February 2005]. 54. Carol Tenopir, “Google in the Academic Library,” Library Journal (Feb. 1, 2005): 32. 55. “Google: Friend or Foe,” Inside Higher Ed (April 11, 2005). Available online at hp://www. insidehighered.com/news/2005/04/11/google. [Accessed 26 May 2005]. 56. Stephen Abram, “The Google Opportunity,” Library Journal (Feb. 1, 2005): 34.