Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to get insights on library users’ information retrieval behavior, as reflected in log files, reports, and publishers’ counts. From the data it appears that the library’s discovery tool is not the major source for accessing full text items and the patrons often prefer other sources such as Google Scholar. Google Scholar cannot replace the library, but it can link users to resources that the patrons can access, through library subscriptions.

Keywords

Academic libraries use discovery tool federated search Google Scholar information access behavior information retrieval behavior link resolver

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Asher

Duke

Wilson

(2013) Paths of discovery: Comparing the search effectiveness of EBSCO Discovery Service, Summon, Google Scholar, and conventional library resources. College and Research Libraries 74(5): 464–488.

Barner

Tal

(2012) SFX, information needs, the academic library, and its user. Library Philosophy and Practice: Paper 754. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/754/ (accessed 7 March 2016).

Biddix

Chung

Park

(2011) Convenience or credibility? A study of college student online research behaviors. The Internet and Higher Education 14(3): 175–182.

Callicott

Vaughn

(2005) Google Scholar vs. library scholar: Testing the performance of schoogle. Internet Reference Services Quarterly 10(3/4): 71–88.

Clark

Nicholas

Jamali

(2014) Evaluating information seeking and use in the changing virtual world: The emerging role of Google Analytics. Learned Publishing 27(3): 185–194.

Clifton

(2012) Advanced Web Metrics with Google Analytics. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley and Sons.

Colon-Aguirre

Freberg

Allard

(2011) Perceptions and uses of Google Scholar among undergraduate students. In: 33rd annual research symposium on science communication and information research, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA. Available at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=ccisymposium (accessed 7 March 2016).

Connaway

Dickey

Radford

(2011) If it is too inconvenient I’m not going after it: Convenience as a critical factor in information-seeking behaviors. Library and Information Science Research 33(3): 179–190.

Connaway

Lanclos

Hood

(2013) “I find Google a lot easier than going to the library website”: Imagine ways to innovate and inspire students to use the academic library. In: 2013 ACRL conference (ed. Mueller

), Indianapolis, IN, USA, 10–13 April 2013, pp. 289–300. Available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/Connaway_Google.pdf (accessed 7 March 2016).

10.

COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of NeTworked Electronic Resources) (2014) About COUNTER. Available at: www.projectcounter.org (accessed 26 February 2015).

11.

Currie

Devlin

Emde

et al . (2010) Undergraduate search strategies and evaluation criteria: Searching for credible sources. New Library World 111(3/4): 113–124.

12.

Curtis

Dorner

(2005) Why federated search? Knowledge Quest 33(3): 35–37.

13.

Dempsey

(2008) Always on: Libraries in a world of permanent connectivity. First Monday 14(1).

14.

De Rosa

Cantrell

Hawk

et al . (2006) College Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC. Available at: http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/oclc/reports/pdfs/studentperceptions.pdf (accessed 7 March 2016).

15.

Ellero

(2013) Integration or disintegration: Where is discovery headed? Journal of Library Metadata 13(4): 311–329.

16.

Ex Libris Primo (2012) Primo Central Index. Available at: www.exlibrisgroup.com/category/PrimoCentral (accessed 26 February 2015).

17.

Govindaraju

Ramanathan

(2012) Similar document search and recommendation. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence 4(1): 84–93.

18.

Greenberg

Bar-Ilan

(2014) Information needs of students in Israel: A case study of a multicultural society. Journal of Academic Librarianship 40(2): 185–191.

19.

Haglund

Olsson

(2008) The impact on university libraries of changes in information behavior among academic researchers: A multiple case study. Journal of Academic Librarianship 34(1): 52–59.

20.

Hider

(2005) Coding online information seeking. Australian Library Journal 54(3): 257–273.

21.

Howland

Wright

Boughan

et al . (2009) How scholarly is Google Scholar? A comparison to library databases. College and Research Libraries 70(3): 227–234.

22.

Imler

Eichelberger

(2011) Do they ‘Get it’? Student usage of SFX citation linking software. College and Research Libraries 72(5): 454–463.

23.

Jacsó

(2005) Google Scholar: The pros and the cons. Online Information Review 29(2): 208–214.

24.

Jasek

(2004) How to design library web sites to maximize usability. Library Connect Pamphlet No. 5. Available at: http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/2926/1/howtodesign%5B1%5D.pdf (accessed 7 march 2016).

25.

Jones

Johnson-Yale

Millermaier

et al . (2008) Academic work, the Internet and US college students. The Internet and Higher Education 11(3): 165–177.

26.

Jubb

Look

Sparks

(2007) Researchers’ use and perceptions of discovery services. Learned Publishing 20(2): 147–153.

27.

Kaushik

(2007) Web Analytics: An Hour A Day. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.

28.

Lai

Zeng

(2013) A cross-language personalized recommendation model in digital libraries. Electronic Library 31(3): 264–277.

29.

Lee

Paik

Joo

(2012) Information resource selection of undergraduate students in academic search tasks. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal 17(1): n1.

30.

Lewandowski

(2010) Google Scholar as a tool for discovering journal articles in library and information science. Online Information Review 34(2): 250–262.

31.

Lin

DiCuccio

Grigoryan

et al . (2008) Navigating information spaces: A case study of related article search in PubMed. Information Processing and Management 44(5): 1771–1783.

32.

Little

(2012) Where are you going, where have you been? The evolution of the academic library web site. Journal of Academic Librarianship 38(2): 123–125.

33.

Liu

Zheng

(2011) Access to serials: Integrating SFX with Evergreen opensource ILS. Library Hi Tech 29(1): 137–148.

34.

Lown

Sierra

Boyer

(2013) How users search the library from a single search box. College & Research Libraries 74(3): 227–241.

35.

Metzger

Flanagin

Zwarun

(2003) College student web use, perceptions of information credibility and verification behavior. Computers and Education 41(3): 271–290.

36.

Neuhaus

Asher

(2008) Google Scholar goes to school: The presence of Google Scholar on college and university web sites. Journal of Academic Librarianship 34(1): 39–51.

37.

Niu

Hemminger

Lown

et al . (2010) National study of information seeking behavior of academic researchers in the United States. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(5): 869–890.

38.

Noe

(2012) Replicating top users’ searches in Summon and Google Scholar. In: Popp

Dallis

(eds) Planning and Implementing Resource Discovery Tools in Academic Libraries. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 225–239.

39.

Pomerantz

(2013) Google Scholar and 100 percent availability of information. Information Technology and Libraries 25(2): 52–56.

40.

Ponsford

Stephens

Sewell

(2011) Improving open URL menus: User testing of revisions to SFX® menus. Serials Review 37(3): 162–170.

41.

Rochkind

(2007) (Meta) Search like Google. Library Journal 132(3): 28–30.

42.

Tennant

(2003) The right solution: Federated search tools. Library Journal 128(11): 28–30.

43.

Tenopir

(2003) Use and Users of Electronic Library Resources: An Overview and Analysis of Recent Research Studies. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Available at: www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub120/pub120.pdf (accessed 7 March 2016).

44.

Turner

(2010) Website statistics 2.0: Using Google Analytics to measure library website effectiveness. Technical Services Quarterly 27(3): 261–278.

45.

Thompson

(2003) Information illiterate or lazy: How college students use the web for research. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 3(2): 259–268.

46.

Vaughan

(2011a) Chapter 1: Web scale discovery what and why? Library Technology Reports 47(1): 5–11.

47.

Vaughan

(2011b) Chapter 5: Ex Libris Primo Central. Library Technology Reports 47(1): 37–49.

48.

Way

(2010) The impact of web-scale discovery on the use of a library collection. Serials Review 36(4): 214–220.

49.

Wenzler

(2008) Keeping the enemy close: Integrating Google Scholar into the online academic library. Against the Grain 20(3):1.

50.

Yang

Perrin

(2014) Tutorials on Google Analytics: How to craft a web analytics report for a library web site. Journal of Web Librarianship 8(4): 404–417.

51.

Yang

Lin

(2013) A task-focused literature recommender system for digital libraries. Online Information Review 37(4): 581–601.

52.

Herlihy

(2007) Assessment of the impact of an open-URL link resolver. New Library World 108(7/8): 317–331.

Library metrics – studying academic users’ information retrieval behavior: A case study of an Israeli university library

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References