DOCSLIB.ORG

9780789036148.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
9780789036148.Pdf Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:24 04 October 2016 Google Scholar and More In only a few years, Google has become an authoritative provider of multiple products which have changed the digital information landscape. This book discusses how libraries can go beyond Google’s basic search and Scholar functions to expand services for their patrons. Respected authorities reveal the expanding variety of new Google applications developed in the past few years, many of which have not received wide attention and are as yet not often used in libraries. Applications explored include Google Co-op, Google News, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Google Calendar, and Google Talk. This book also discusses different important aspects of the company’s expansion of functions, such as the failure of the Google Answers experiment, the broad variety of free Google applications that librarians can use to collaborate, and the success of Google’s Blogger, among others. A helpful chronology of Google’s growth is provided, as well as comparative analyses between various Google functions and other functions that are currently available. The book is extensively referenced. This book is an invaluable resource for academic librarians, public librarians, school librarians, library science faculty, and special librarians. This book was published as a special issue of the Journal of Library Administration. William Miller is Dean of Libraries at Florida Atlantic University. He is Past-President of the Association of College and Research Libraries, has served as Chair of the Choice Editorial Board, and is a Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:24 04 October 2016 frequent contributor to professional journals, as well as being a contributing editor of Library Issues. He was named Instruction Librarian of the Year in 2004 by the ACRL Instruction Section. Rita M. Pellen is the Associate Director of Libraries at Florida Atlantic University. She has served on committees in LAMA, ACRL, and ALCTS, as well as the Southeast Florida Library Information Network, SEFLIN, a multi-type library cooperative in South Florida. Honor society memberships include Beta Phi Mu and Phi Kappa Phi. This page intentionally left blank Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:24 04 October 2016 Google Scholar and More New Google Applications and Tools for Libraries and Library Users Edited by William Miller and Rita Pellen Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:24 04 October 2016 Routledge Taylor & Francis Croup LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2009 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business © 2009 Edited by William Miller and Rita Pellen Typeset in Times by Value Chain, India Printed and bound in the United States of America on acid-free paper by IBT Global. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN10: 0-7890-3614-2 (h/b) ISBN10: 0-7890-3615-0 (p/b) ISBN13: 978-0-7890-3614-8 (h/b) Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:24 04 October 2016 ISBN13: 978-0-7890-3615-5 (p/b) CONTENTS Introduction: Using Google Applications: Expanded Tools for Libraries 1 William Miller 1 Google: A Chronology of Innovations, Acquisitions, and Growth 5 Richard Robison, MLS 2 Thinking Inside the Box: Comparing Federated Search Results from Google Scholar, Live Search Academic, and Central Search 31 Rachel Cooke Rebecca Donlan 3 It’s All Academic: Google Scholar, Scirus, and Windows Live Academic Search 43 Lyle Ford Lisa Hanson O’Hara 4 Join the Conversation: Show Your Library’s Google Scholar and Book Search Expertise 53 Luke Vilelle Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:24 04 October 2016 5 The Triumph of Expediency: The Impact of Google Scholar on Library Instruction 65 David Ettinger v vi Contents 6 Worth the Price? Virtual Reference, Global Knowledge Forums, and the Demise of Google Answers 73 Kay Cahill 7 Google and Collaboration 87 Carrie Newsom Kathryn Kennedy 8 Scheduling Smorgasbord: Google Calendar and Key Contenders 99 Sara Davidson 9 Blogger: Your Thoughts Here 119 Tricia Juettemeyer 10 Blogger, WordPress.com, and Their Pseudoblog Alternatives: A Comparison of Focus, Features, and Feel 139 Robert J. Lackie John W. LeMasney 11 Libraries and Google Co-op 181 Dawn Bassett Maha Kumaran 12 A Squatter on the Fourth Estate: Google News 191 Jim Galbraith Index 207 Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:24 04 October 2016 Introduction: Using Google Applications: Expanded Tools for Libraries Our previous volume, Libraries and Google (Haworth Press, 2005) included an article by Michael J. Krasulski and Steven J. Bell entitled “Keeping Up with Google: Resources and Strategies for Staying Ahead of the Pack.” Anyone who has not, in fact, been keeping up with Google since 2005 has missed a lot, as this new volume illustrates, including a whole slew of new applications introduced since that time, as Google moves beyond simple search. The astounding evolution and fast pace of change and growth is chronicled in the first item in this collection, Richard Robison’s “Google: A Chronology of Innovations, Acquisitions, and Growth.” As Robison points out, Google has either purchased or developed in-house a whole slew of Web 2.0 applications, many of which are treated in detail elsewhere in this volume. Robison also chronicles the growth of the company from a graduate student research project to one of America’s largest corporations. Google’s Web applications, by and large, have all the strengths and weaknesses that one would expect from the creator of the one-size-fits-all search box, including concerns about spotty coverage, noise, false drops, redundancy, security, and privacy, but nevertheless all of the newer services have a potentially important place in library services, though some are so new that most librarians have yet to explore them. The first service explored in this volume, Google Scholar, is the most well-known, and is the focus of four articles here. Many have previously Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:24 04 October 2016 1 2 Introduction noted the unevenness of the coverage in this tool, and the lack of docu- mentation, but there are strengths also, and the tool is especially useful for those libraries which cannot afford the expensive megasearch science reference tools. In “Thinking Inside the Box: Comparing Federated Search Results from Google Scholar, Live Search Academic, and Central Search,” Rachel Cooke and Rebecca Donlan indicate that Google Scholar was, at the time they did their investigation, clearly superior to Microsoft’s Live Search Academic, and in a few cases even to the library’s own Central Search software offered by Serials Solutions. They conclude that although both Google Scholar and Live Search Academic produce partial and/or irrelevant results on occasion, they occasionally also produce something not found by the traditional search resources, and can be helpful in verifying citations or providing the full text of an item. Lyle Ford and Lisa Hanson O’Hara, in “It’s All Academic: Google Scholar, Scirus, and Windows Live Academic Search,” come to similar conclusions, pointing out that in certain subject areas, Google Scholar actually provides more relevant citations than the fee-based Scirus. Ford and O’Hara counsel libraries to “enable Open URL and other link resolv- ing systems” to better enable users to take advantage of the free tools. In “Join the Conversation: Show Your Library’s Google Scholar and Book Search Expertise,” Luke Vilelle counsels librarians to offer work- shops on these tools and embrace them, even though they have not been traditionally developed by librarians or traditional library vendors. Doing so, he says, will enhance our stature and increase use of our collections. Somewhat less positively, David Ettinger suggests accep- tance of the inevitable in “The Triumph of Expediency: The Impact of Google Scholar on Library Instruction.” He recognizes that Google Scholar is competing with the more traditional resources but knows that the population as a whole has a “predilection for easily navigable Web resources” which we must accept and work into our approach to instruction. Downloaded by [New York University] at 21:24 04 October 2016 Most of this volume looks beyond Google Scholar, to the many other applications developed in the past few years by Google. Especially interesting is Kay Cahill’s examination of a failed experiment, Google Answers, in her article “Worth the Price? Virtual Reference, Global Knowledge Forums, and the Demise of Google Answers.” Cahill compares this tool, in which independent contractors were paid a fee to an- swer questions, with the free global forums in which people voluntarily offer responses to questions, and concludes that even though the quality Introduction 3 of the Google Answers responses was superior, the economic model was ultimately unsustainable. In “Google and Collaboration,” Carrie Newsom and Kathryn Kennedy discuss a variety of free Google applications that librarians can use to collaborate. Google Docs & Spreadsheets is a “personalized document center,” stored online with Google, through which people can collaborate on documents and store the results. The spreadsheet component acts much like Excel, again enabling collaborative entries. The authors wrote their article using Docs & Spreadsheets. They also discuss two other applications that can be used collaboratively: Google Calendar and Google Talk (a VoIP chat service). Google Calendar is also the subject of Sara Davidson’s “Scheduling Smorgasbord: Google Calendar and Key Contenders.” Davidson compares Google Calendar with Yahoo! Calendar, Windows Live, and 30 Boxes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Google Scholar from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Google Scholar From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full Google Scholar text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. Released in beta in November 2004, the Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online academic journals and books, Web address scholar.google.com conference papers, theses and dissertations, preprints, abstracts, (http://scholar.google.com) technical reports, and other scholarly Type of site Bibliographic database literature, including court opinions and Registration Optional patents.[1] While Google does not publish the size of Google Scholar's Owner Google database, third-party researchers Launched November 20, 2004 estimated it to contain roughly 160 Current status Active million documents as of May 2014[2] and an earlier statistical estimate published in PLOS ONE using a Mark and recapture method estimated approximately 80-90% coverage of all articles published in English.[3] Google Scholar is similar in function to the freely available CiteSeerX and getCITED. It also resembles the subscription-based tools, Elsevier's Scopus and Thomson Reuters' Web of Science. Contents 1 History 2 Features and specifications 3 Ranking algorithm 4 Limitations and criticism 5 See also 6 References 7 External links History Google Scholar arose out of a discussion between Alex Verstak and Anurag Acharya,[4] both of whom were then working on building Google's main web index.[5][6] Their goal was to "make the world's problem solvers 10% more efficient" [7] by allowing easier and more accurate access to scientific knowledge. This goal is reflected in the Google Scholar's advertising slogan – "Stand on the shoulders of giants" – taken from a quote by Isaac Newton and is a nod to the scholars who have contributed to their fields over the centuries, providing the foundation for new intellectual achievements.
    [Show full text]
  • Emerging Technologies for Academic Libraries in the Digital Age CHANDOS INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL SERIES
    Emerging Technologies for Academic Libraries in the Digital Age CHANDOS INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL SERIES Series Editor: Ruth Rikowski (email: [email protected]) Chandos’ new series of books are aimed at the busy information professional. They have been specially commissioned to provide the reader with an authoritative view of current thinking. They are designed to provide easy-to-read and (most importantly) practical coverage of topics that are of interest to librarians and other information professionals. If you would like a full listing of current and forthcoming titles, please visit our web site www.chandospublishing.com or contact Hannah Grace-Williams on email [email protected] or telephone number +44 (0) 1993 848726. New authors: we are always pleased to receive ideas for new titles; if you would like to write a book for Chandos, please contact Dr Glyn Jones on email [email protected] or telephone number +44 (0) 1993 848726. Bulk orders: some organisations buy a number of copies of our books. If you are interested in doing this, we would be pleased to discuss a discount. Please contact Hannah Grace-Williams on email [email protected] or telephone number +44 (0) 1993 848726. Emerging Technologies for Academic Libraries in the Digital Age LILI LI Chandos Publishing Oxford · England Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Limited TBAC Business Centre Avenue 4 Station Lane Witney Oxford OX28 4BN UK Tel: +44 (0) 1993 848726 Fax: +44 (0) 1865 884448 E-mail: [email protected] www.chandospublishing.com First published in Great Britain in 2009 ISBN: 978 1 84334 320 2 (paperback) 978 1 84334 323 3 (hardback) 1 84334 320 7 (paperback) 1 84334 323 1 (hardback) © LiLi Li, 2009 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.
    [Show full text]
  • (NLP) Approaches to Determine Semantic Similarity Between Texts in Domain-Specific Context
    Analysis of Natural Language Processing (NLP) approaches to determine semantic similarity between texts in domain-specific context Author: Surabhi Som (6248160) [email protected] Supervisors: Denis Paperno [email protected] Rick Nouwen [email protected] A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Artificial Intelligence in Faculty of Science Utrecht University 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1 ............................................................................................ 3 Introduction ........................................................................................ 3 1.1 Problem Description ................................................................. 4 Chapter 2 ............................................................................................ 5 Literature Review .............................................................................. 5 2.1 Natural Language Processing .................................................. 5 2.2 Ontologies and its importance ................................................. 5 2.3 Semantics ................................................................................. 6 2.4 Semantic Similarity .................................................................. 7 2.5 Sentence Semantic Similarity ................................................ 15 2.6 Text Semantics ....................................................................... 23 2.7 Stemming and Lemmatization ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • BING.COM - PÄÄTÖKSENTEKOKONE Ja Hakukoneiden Historia
    wa Joni Hänninen BING.COM - PÄÄTÖKSENTEKOKONE ja hakukoneiden historia Opinnäytetyö Tietotekniikka Toukokuu 2010 KUVAILULEHTI Opinnäytetyön päivämäärä Tekijä(t) Koulutusohjelma ja suuntautuminen Joni Hänninen Tietotekniikan koulutusohjelma Nimeke BING.com- päätöksentekokone ja hakukoneiden historia. Tiivistelmä Opinnäytetyöni käsittelee hakukoneiden historiaa, sekä lähemmin Microsoftin viime kesänä julkaisemaa Bing nimistä hakukonetta, joka yrittää saada osan Googlen dominoimasta hakumarkkinoista itselleen. Microsoft tarjoaa hakukoneellaan erilaisia ominaisuuksia, jotka auttavat ihmisiä päätöksenteossa oli ky- seessä sitten lomamatkan tai häiden suunnittelu. Teoriaosassa esittelen Internetin ja World Wide Webin syntyä, ja miten hakukoneet alkoivat yleistyä 1990 luvulta lähtien. Teoriaosuuden päättää Bing- hakukoneen esittely. Asiasanat (avainsanat) Hakukone, hakuohjelmat, haku, Internet Sivumäärä Kieli URN 43 s. Suomi URN:NBN:fi:amk- 2010053111044 Huomautus (huomautukset liitteistä) 5 s. Ohjaavan opettajan nimi Opinnäytetyön toimeksiantaja Timo Mynttinen DESCRIPTION Date of the bachelor’s thesis Author(s) Degree programme and option Joni Hänninen Information Technology Name of the bachelor’s thesis BING.COM – The decision making engine and the history of search engines. Abstract My thesis deals with the history of search engines, and more specific about a search engine called Bing that Microsoft launched last summer to gain some market share of searches from the dominant Google. Microsoft offers variety of features with its search engine that will guide people in decision making whether they are planning a vacation or weddings. In the theory part of the thesis I talk about the birth of the Internet and World Wide Web, and how search engines became popular since the 90’s. An introduction to the Bing search engine will end the theory part. Subject headings, (keywords) search engine, search applications, searching, Internet Pages Language URN 43 p.
    [Show full text]
  • Auswertung Einer Umfrage Zur Wissenschaftlichen Recherche an Der TU Dresden
    Großer Beleg Auswertung einer Umfrage zur wissenschaftlichen Recherche an der TU Dresden bearbeitet von Carl Sch¨onbach geboren am 16.10.1988 in Dresden Technische Universit¨at Dresden Fakult¨at Informatik Institut fur¨ Software- und Multimediatechnik Lehrstuhl Softwaretechnologie Betreuer: Jan Polowinski Hochschullehrer: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. habil. Uwe Aßmann Eingereicht am 16. Februar 2014 II Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Einleitung 1 2 Aktuelle Forschung im Bereich der Recherchevisualisierung 3 2.1CircleView........................................ 4 2.2ActionScienceExplorer................................ 5 2.3CiteWiz......................................... 5 2.4WebofScience-CitationMaps............................ 6 2.5 Science of Science (Sci2)Tool............................. 7 2.6CiteSpace........................................ 8 2.7MicrosoftAcademicSearch.............................. 8 3 Auswertung der Umfragen 11 3.1Hintergrund....................................... 11 3.2 Grundgesamtheit und Repr¨asentativit¨at....................... 11 3.3MethodenzurAuswertung............................... 12 4 Auswertung der Mitarbeiterumfrage 15 4.1Rahmendaten...................................... 15 4.2BeantwortungderFragestellungen.......................... 19 4.2.1 Unmittelbare Fragestellungen zur Wahl einer gunstigen¨ Visualisierungs- form(KernfragenzurVisualisierung)..................... 19 4.2.2 MittelbareFragen(Kontextfragen)...................... 24 5 Auswertung der Studentenumfrage 35 5.1Rahmendaten.....................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Evidence-Based Review of Academic Web Search Engines, 2014-2016: Implications for Librarians’ Practice and Research Agenda Jody Condit Fagan
    An Evidence-Based Review of Academic Web Search Engines, 2014-2016: Implications for Librarians’ Practice and Research Agenda Jody Condit Fagan ABSTRACT Academic web search engines have become central to scholarly research. While the fitness of Google Scholar for research purposes has been examined repeatedly, Microsoft Academic and Google Books have not received much attention. Recent studies have much to tell us about Google Scholar’s coverage of the sciences and its utility for evaluating researcher impact. But other aspects have been understudied, such as coverage of the arts and humanities, books, and non-Western, non-English publications. User research has also tapered off. A small number of articles hint at the opportunity for librarians to become expert advisors concerning scholarly communication made possible or enhanced by these platforms. This article seeks to summarize research concerning Google Scholar, Google Books, and Microsoft Academic from the past three years with a mind to informing practice and setting a research agenda. Selected literature from earlier time periods is included to illuminate key findings and to help shape the proposed research agenda, especially in understudied areas. INTRODUCTION Recent Pew Internet surveys indicate an overwhelming majority of American adults see themselves as lifelong learners who like to “gather as much information as [they] can” when they encounter something unfamiliar (Horrigan 2016). Although significant barriers to access remain, the open access movement and search engine giants have made full text more available than ever.1 The general public may not begin with an academic search engine, but Google may direct them to Google Scholar or Google Books.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Scholar - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Google Scholar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Scholar Google Scholar From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature Google Scholar across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. Released in beta in November 2004, the Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals. While Google does not publish the size of Google Scholar's database, third-party researchers estimated it to contain Web address scholar.google.com [1] roughly 160 million documents as of May 2014 and an (http://scholar.google.com) earlier statistical estimate published in PLOS ONE using a Type of site Bibliographic database Mark and recapture method estimated approximately 80-90% coverage of all articles published in English.[2] Registration Optional Owner Google Google Scholar is similar in function to the freely available CiteSeerX and getCITED. It also resembles the Current status Active subscription-based tools, Elsevier's Scopus and Thomson ISI's Web of Science. Contents 1 History 2 Features and specifications 3 Ranking algorithm 4 Limitations and criticism 5 See also 6 References 7 External links History Google Scholar arose out of a discussion between Alex Verstak and Anurag Acharya,[3] both of whom were then working on building Google's main web index.[4][5] Their goal was to "make the world's problem solvers 10% more efficient" [6] by allowing easier and more accurate access to scientific knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Search Engines
    Search Engines PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:30:12 UTC Contents Articles Bing (search engine) 1 Google search 13 Yahoo! Search 23 Ask. com 27 References Article Sources and Contributors 31 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 33 Article Licenses License 34 Bing (search engine) 1 Bing (search engine) The Bing homepage features an image that changes daily. [1] URL www.bing.com Slogan Bing & decide Commercial? Yes Type of site Search Engine Registration Optional Available language(s) Multilingual (40) Owner Microsoft Created by Microsoft Launched June 1, 2009 [2] Alexa rank 23 Current status Active Bing (formerly Live Search, Windows Live Search, and MSN Search) is the current web search engine (advertised as a "decision engine")[3] from Microsoft. Bing was unveiled by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer on May 28, 2009 at the All Things Digital conference in San Diego. It went fully online on June 3, 2009,[4] with a preview version released on June 1, 2009. Notable changes include the listing of search suggestions as queries are entered and a list of related searches (called "Explorer pane") based on[5] semantic technology from Powerset that Microsoft purchased in 2008.[6] As of January 2010, Bing is the third largest search engine on the web by query volume, at 3.16%, after its competitor Google at 85.35% and Yahoo at 6.15%, according to Net Applications.[7] On July 29, 2009, Microsoft and Yahoo! announced a deal in which Bing would power Yahoo! Search.[8] Bing (search engine) 2 History MSN Search MSN Search was a search engine by Microsoft that comprised a search engine, index, and web crawler.
    [Show full text]
  • Web Search Engine
    Web search engine A web search engine is designed to search for information on the World Wide Web and FTP servers. The search results are generally presented in a list of results and are often called hits. The information may consist of web pages, images, information and other types of files. Some search engines also mine data available in databases or open directories. Unlike Web directories, which are maintained by human editors, search engines operate algorithmically or are a mixture of algorithmic and human input. How web search engines work:- A search engine operates, in the following order 1. Web crawling 2. Indexing 3. Searching Web search engines work by storing information about many web pages, which they retrieve from the html itself. These pages are retrieved by a Web crawler (sometimes also known as a spider) — an automated Web browser which follows every link on the site. Exclusions can be made by the use ofrobots.txt. The contents of each page are then analyzed to determine how it should be indexed (for example, words are extracted from the titles, headings, or special fields called meta tags). Data about web pages are stored in an index database for use in later queries. A query can be a single word. The purpose of an index is to allow information to be found as quickly as possible. Some search engines, such as Google, store all or part of the source page (referred to as a cache) as well as information about the web pages, whereas others, such as AltaVista, store every word of every page they find.
    [Show full text]
  • Pop! Public-Private Partnerships and the Digitization of the Textual and Cultural Record
    Pop! Public-Private Partnerships and the Digitization of the Textual and Cultural Record Pop! Issue Nº1 Issue Nº2 About Pop! ■ Issue Nº2 ■ Public-Private Partnerships and the Digitization of the Textual and Cultural Record Public-Private Partnerships and the Digitization of the Textual and Cultural Record TULLY BARNETT october 31, Flinders University 2020 [email protected] Introduction DOI: 10.48404/pop.2020.09 On 19 March 2020, just over a week after the World Health Organization categorized COVID-19 a pandemic and as the first set of nations beyond Citation: China were instituting restrictive lockdowns on public and commercial Tully Barnett, 2020. "Public-Private activities, the Internet Archive launched its National Emergency Library. Partnerships and the Digitization of Describing the project as a “temporary collection of books that supports the Textual and Cultural Record." emergency remote teaching, research activities, independent scholarship, Pop! Public. Open. Participatory. and intellectual stimulation while universities, schools, training centers, no. 2 (2020-10-31). and libraries are closed,” the National Emergency Library sought to make a https://popjournal.ca/issue02/barnett positive, material, and public intervention in the lives of people experiencing the difficulties of lockdown or “shelter-in-place” orders and Abstract: cut off from many of their usual sources of books (Internet Archive 2020). A range of private-public Unlike other cultural organizations such as art galleries, museums, and partnerships, volunteer and theatre companies, many of which put new collections online for the public crowdsourced labour, local, to access during the lockdown (Wilson-Barnao 2020), the Internet Archive national, international and did not add any new material to its publicly available holdings, nor make commercial agendas, and competing any new works available for the first time.
    [Show full text]
  • Josiah M. Drewry. Google Scholar, Windows Live Academic Search, and Beyond: a Study of New Tools and Changing Habits in ARL Libraries
    Josiah M. Drewry. Google Scholar, Windows Live Academic Search, and Beyond: A Study of New Tools and Changing Habits in ARL Libraries. A Master’s Paper for the M.S. in L.S degree. July, 2007. 63 pages. Advisor: Lisa Norberg Google Scholar and Windows Live Academic Search (WLAS) are examples of “blended” databases, a controversial new class of tools which provide free, speedy access to academic content as well as citation analysis capabilities, linkage to individual library holdings and other services. Though researchers have published dozens of theoretical and empirical studies involving these tools, none have yet described how they are actually being used in a variety of academic settings. The author sent questionnaires to 540 librarians at 108 ARL libraries to learn how they deployed Google Scholar and WLAS in reference transactions and instruction sessions. Participants were also asked speak about the ways that non-traditional databases are affecting research in academic libraries. The author finds that, while these tools provoked mixed reactions among librarians, their popularity and usefulness—especially that of Google Scholar—are forcing librarians to acknowledge the possible arrival of a new paradigm in academic research. Headings: Electronic information resources Databases Academic libraries – Reference services Academic libraries – Use studies Information literacy – Study and teaching GOOGLE SCHOLAR, WINDOWS LIVE ACADEMIC SEARCH AND BEYOND: A STUDY OF NEW TOOLS AND CHANGING HABITS IN ARL LIBRARIES by Josiah M. Drewry A Master’s paper submitted to the faculty of the School of Information and Library Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Library Science.
    [Show full text]
  • 開放取用引文資源庫系統功能比較研究 a Study of the Search Function in Open Access Systems
    BIBLID 1026-5279 (2016) 105:2 p. 39-70 國家圖書館館刊 一〇五年第二期（ ） 2016.12 39 開放取用引文資源庫系統功能比較研究 A Study of the Search Function in Open Access Systems 蔡明月 Ming-Yueh Tsay 國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所教授 Professor, Graduate Institute of Library, Information and Archival Studies, National Cheng-Chi University Email: [email protected] 吳岱欒 Tai-Luan Wu 國立政治大學圖書資訊與檔案學研究所碩士生 Master Student, Graduate Institute of Library, Information and Archival Studies National Cheng-Chi University Email: [email protected] 【摘要 Abstract】 本研究以諾貝爾物理學獎得主及其著作為研究樣本，藉由分析各開放取用系統 檢索介面，比較各系統之特性，包括搜尋引擎Google Scholar、Microsoft Academic、 匯集式機構典藏系統OpenDOAR、OAIster、物理學學科性開放取用系統arXiv.org 和Astrophysics Data System，評析各系統之檢索功能、檢索結果排序與呈現以及資 料輸出與匯出等面向，並根據分析結果提出建議。研究結果顯示物理學學科型開放 取用系統檢索功能較強，其次為搜尋引擎，最弱是機構典藏系統。就檢索結果呈現 的資料內容而言，搜尋引擎Google Scholar、 Microsoft Academic與Astrophysics Data System 三者相當，其次是arXiv.org，再次為OAIster，最差是OpenDOAR。 就檢索結果排序、匯出格式與筆數而言，OAIster與Astrophysics Data System最強。 本研究結果可作為開放取用系統與圖書館服務改善之依據。此外亦可提供網路計量 學研究者與物理學者及研究機構進行學術研究與研究成果評鑑之參考。 This study will examine scholarly communication systems of open access through the user interface and the search function of the search engines Google 40 國家圖書館館刊 一〇五年第二期（2016.12） Scholar and Microsoft Academic, comparing them with the institutional repositories OAIster and OpenDOAR and the open access system arXiv.org for physics, and the Astrophysics Data System. Retrievals will be conducted in these six open source systems to analyze and compare their retrieval interfaces, evaluating the presentation and output of retrieval results of each. The physics research of several Nobel laureates from 2001 to 2013 are selected as samples in this study. The results of the study reveal that in the field of physics open access systems provide the strongest retrieval functionality, followed by search engines, and finally, institutional repositories. Regarding the interface display of the data, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, and the Astrophysics Data System are very user-friendly, followed by arXiv.org and OAIster.
    [Show full text]