Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
NFAIS Webinar: March 12, 2014
Citation preview
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Collaborating to Improve Discoverability
NFAIS Webinar: March 12, 2014
Mary M. Somerville, MA, MLS, PhDUniversity Librarian and Library Director, University of Colorado Denver
Lettie Conrad, MAExecutive Manager, Online Products, SAGE
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Agenda
● Introduction ● Metadata ● Standards ● Transparency ● Partnerships ● Conclusion
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Scholarly Communication Supply Chain
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Shared Cross-Sector Goals
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
SAGE White Paper: Collaborative Improvements in the Discoverability of Scholarly Content
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Expert aspirations for discovery
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Recommendations
● Metadata – quality & compliance● Standards – advocacy & adoption● Transparency – cross-sector cooperation● Partnerships – co-development
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
1. Metadata the building blocks of online publishing
Citation: Berners-Lee, Tim, “Metadata Architecture, “ Jan. 6, 1997, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Metadata.html
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
1. Metadatadiscovery signposts
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
1. Use case – Metadata done well
SUNY student @ Buffalo State following citation to educational research article: “High School Socioeconomic Segregation and Student Attainment”
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
1. Use case – Metadata gone wrong
● SUNY student @ Buffalo State looking for book chapter recommended by instructor on human trafficking policy in other countries.
● No publication title, just keywords: “human trafficking foreign policy”
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
1. Collaborative Efforts in Metadata
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
2. Standards
● Common expectations● Streamlining operations● Collaborative foundation
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
2. Existing Standards for Metadata
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
2. Standards Development
● Code of practice in library discovery
● Project Transfer
● NISO Bibliographic Roadmap
● Pie-J, IOTA, and more!
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
2. Use Cases standards in action
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
2. Collaborations in Standards
● NISO Work Groups• Journal Article Version (JAV)• Open Access Metadata and Indicators
● UKSG/JISC• Project Transfer• KBART
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
3. Transparencynew ways of doing business
● Cross-sector studies
● Understanding researcher workflows
● New business models
● “Promiscuous metadata”
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
3. Use Cases in Transparency
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
3. Transparency works!
● Research question: What does the average research pathway look like beyond the borders of our websites?
● Participants: 3 MA & 8 PhD students, during literature review phase
● Methods: data analysis, observation, interview
● Transparency: sharing proprietary data, sharing research findings, trust!
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
3. Collaborations in Transparency
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Recommendations
● Metadata – quality & compliance● Standards – advocacy & adoption● Transparency – cross-sector cooperation● Partnerships – co-development/co-design
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Ideal discoverability
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Co-Development Partners
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Library Best Practices
● Nontraditional partnerships● Iterative communications● Re-invented workflows● Environmental scans
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Vendor Best Practices
● Project overviews● Clear deliverables● Customized trainings● Reference materials
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Publisher-Vendor Best Practices
● Compliant metadata (publisher)● Metadata mapping (vendor)● Search results● User experiences
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
Conclusions
SAGE White Paper urges cross-sector progress through a three-fold purpose:● Propose actionable recommendations for
discoverability improvement,● Advance heightened collaboration among
librarians, publishers, and service providers, and
● Encourage ‘new ways of thinking and doing’ that improve researcher experience.
Los Angeles | London | New DelhiSingapore | Washington DC
References
Collins, M., Somerville, M., Pelsinsky, N., & Wood, A. (2013). Working better together: Library, publisher, and vendor perspectives. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Charleston Conference, Charleston, South Carolina, in press.
Conrad, L. (2011). ‘Discovering authoritative reference material: It’s all about ‘location, location, location,’ in E-reference Context and Discoverability in Libraries: Issues and Concepts, ed. Sue Polanka. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 137–147.
Somerville, M. M., & Conrad, L. Y. (2014). Collaborative improvements in the discoverability of scholarly content: Accomplishments, aspirations, and opportunities. A SAGE White Paper. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. DOI: 10.4135/wp140116. Available: http://www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/pdf/improvementsindiscoverability.pdf
