Top Library News Stories of the Year – pt. 1 (PubMed)

In the category of the “biggest” medical library news story that didn’t get covered in my blog: the New PubMed

I didn’t cover this in my blog for several reasons: we don’t use PubMed as our primary Medline access – we use Ovid; this was covered very well by most other medical library blogs anything I would have added would have been redudant and unnecessary; and finally personally (and I emphasize personally) I didn’t find it that interesting (that’s not to say it wasn’t significant or important). Although it makes me sound cynical in general I find the cliche, “you get what you pay for” to me altogether too true. Although there were some obvious problems with the launch of the new PubMed, was anyone really surprised that there were issues?

I thought since this topic was so well covered by other blogs and since my thoughts on the topic might otherwise come across as overly cynical that I would instead pull from the top of my head a quick history of Medline into PubMed.

Once upon a time there was Medline and it was for all intents and purposes an index of the Medical literature (in this historical paraphrase I’ll start with the electronic world); there wasn’t so much a stand alone entity as a data set (tapes anyone). NLM would license Medline to vendors for them to make available through their interface or service or whatever. (so this is clearly not a rigorous academic tome). Leap ahead to 1996 (drum roll please) and Internet Grateful Med. The January 25, 2001 NLM Technical Bulletin which announced the retirement of Internet Grateful Med (Knecht L., Shooshan S. Internet Grateful Med to Be Retired; Reminder of NLM Gateway Availability. NLM Tech Bull. 2001 Jan-Feb;(318):e3) provided a lovely tribute to IGM saying

Since April 1996, IGM has provided a user-friendly, Web-based interface to many of NLM’s information resources. In September 1998, IGM switched its MEDLINE access from the ELHILL mainframe version to the PubMed version.

If you read the whole article you’ll notice things get pretty confusing between the different backends and front ends, but at that time the stage was set for the current situation when PubMed became the only NLM supported Medline interface. The NLM Technical Bulletin again provides insight into the history of PubMed in the October 5, 2006 article, “PubMed Celebrates its 10th Anniversary” (Canese K. PubMed Celebrates its 10th Anniversary! NLM Tech Bull. 2006 Sep-Oct;(352):e5.). Back when I was an NLM fellow there was sort of this oral history about the origins of PubMed being designed for “hard” scientists who were looking for a specific type of access to the resources that they most needed. The mission behind the origins of PubMed and the original target audience were a bit different from those of Internet Grateful Med (so goes the oral history or maybe mythology would be a better word). There were 2 sets of developers working on parallel projects. At the time there was even this sort of “story” about the benefits of having 2 teams “competing” against each other (although “competing” is way too strong of a word for this….) At any rate, it was quite a deal back then, the sort of debate over what to do about having 2 flavors of Medline.

I don’t have a nice summary for this history except to say that in order to understand the current state of development of PubMed it really helps to have been at NLM when Internet Grateful Med still lived and when there was a much clearer memory about the different target audiences for PubMed and Internet Grateful Med.

At the end of the day its best to remember the debt of gratitude that we owe the originators of the Index Medicus and should stand in awe at the magnitude of what had gone before.

The Library as Place

I had been meaning to post about this topic for a while and once again Marcus Banks “beat me to the punch.” Maybe it would be more accurate to say that his posting, If Publishers Must Evolve, So Too Must Libraries, spurred me on to revisit my thinking on this topic. In this posting he muses about what libraries would look like if the Internet came first. He also poses some interesting comments/questions about the imperative that many libraries have about holding on to “their space.”

I have an interesting perspective seeing as though I manage an entirely digital library that exists outside of any specific physical space. We have member libraries that are fairly traditional physical hospital libraries, some member libraries support nursing programs but lack a physical space for the hospital, and we even have one library that has intentionally sacrificed its physical being to save itself. I actually believe that the harder we hold onto the library as place that we risk losing the other (arguably more important) aspects of libraries namely the intellectual capital (or more simply our services). Clearly we don’t need libraries to serve as warehouses for our resources any more.

The Duke University Medical Center library more so than most libraries is really grappling with library as place. They have been asked and have indeed given more and more space. As they have lost their space, they are also being confronted with subsequent loss of staff and I wonder if perhaps services that they can offer. I don’t believe that a loss of physical space needs to result in a loss of staff. A loss of space will result in changing staffing responsibilities. With no more circulation to manage and with fewer service points, the staffing needs clearly change. On the other hand, if additional library services are offered (that aren’t tied to a large physical space), then staffing needs to merely shift. The tale in the Duke story to me is that when we tie ourselves to closely to our space, when our space shrinks so do are service levels. Now things are a bit more complicated when the over all economic down turn are factored into the mix. If the loss of space are tied to needs to recoup monies, then the loss of space might merely be but one tool to support the ability to cut staff and do other money saving measures. (wow and do I ever feel like that doesn’t make any sense).

Here’s where my life gets somewhat interesting. Although I manage an entirely digital collection; my office is located in a physical library. Our physical space is constantly full and in use. Our study spaces, meeting, confernce and other rooms are in constant use. This past exam week was practically standing room only waiting to use some study room. Every chair on the first 2 floors was full. The debate, however, comes in when people question whether this is really a use of the LIBRARAY or just a use of any convenient space. That argument is not, thankfully mine. I merely make the observation that ours is one busy space.

I also think that librarians need to rethink what is an appropriate or library-like use of our space (our meaning libraries). I don’t know if I have all those answers, but I certainly do enjoy raising the questions.

Core Competencies of Librarianship … What Role Technology? pt. 2

Before I pick-up on the core competencies thread, I just want to ponder for a moment if the full moon was playing havoc on all things technical today. We were just filled with all sorts of gremlin types of oddities. Nothing horrible, more like a nuisance. I thought once I left work I could put my tech. woes behind me, but Word Press is even slow tonight. Gotta be the full moon….

So yesterday I was taking the position that the ALA Core Competencies are NOT merely supporting the traditional status quo, but are instead possibly flexible enough to ground the profession in our solid roots but allow for full and beautiful blooming (to keep up with my nature analogy). Overly romanticized notion; I know. Its also surprising because I often find myself taking a role in opposition to our professional association mandates and/or initiatves. My musings are mostly just a way of stimulating thought. Sort of like a debate where all sides need to be aired. I’m trying to just raise some questions about the 8 generic core competency topics.

Yesterday I covered my views on Foundations of the Profession and Information Resources.

– Organization of Recorded Knowledge & Information.
To tell you the truth I’m not sure what this means exactly. I’m assuming it means what we once referred to as organization of information. As we all know; I’m not a big fan of the whole information deal, but am a big fan of always moving towards knowledge so I can go with this. I find the use of the word “recorded” to be quite interesting. Given the growth in the areas of digitization and institutional respositories, I can’t help but think that this is one area that is quite forward thinking. As librarians we are nothing if not the experts in organization “information” so that it is easier to find and process. This organization could take the form ( I would imagine) of the metadata we add to improve search successes. It’s also the categories and labels we put on our web sites. (can I tell you how often we ponder whether the word databases is a good label for those things).

This category takes on even more important meanings in a world where we are trying to digitize our institutional paper trails. There are actually (from my casual observations of the jobs lists) jobs to be had in the arena of archives and digitization. Call it what you will, there is definatly a future in our organizational abilities. I probably spend the biggest chunk of my work life literally organization information.

– Technology Knowledge and Skills.
This certainly speaks for itself. I’m also quite pleased to see the word knowledge used. Adapting and becomine facile with technologies isn’t so much learning new programs as it is a mindset about the role of technology in our world. To me this is the epitome of Technology Knowledge.

– Reference and User Services
Ok, so this is a traditional category, but only if you lack vision. I can’t conceive of any circumstances under which librarians won’t be called upon to play a reference role. I also think the increasing important activity of user education could fall under this category. As the world moves at increasing rates of speed, the role of librarians in teaching about technology, evaluating resources, searching, etc…. This to me is the heart of being a library. This is the service component of what we do. Whether reference is provided in a traditional manner and/or provided through an emerging technology; its still a service that I think will be vital as we move forward as a profession.

– Research
Sigh… I’m just not up to pontificate about the whole research role. This category will get a whole posting devoted to it at a later time. Let me just say that this isn’t some left over relic from times gone by. There are so many areas ripe for good research.

–Continuing Education & Lifelong Learning
This pretty much speaks for itself as well. The important aspect of this isn’t the topics per se, but the mindset that this is something important for librarians to do. It seems like a no brainer to me — like so obvious I can’t believe they felt the need to declare this a core competency.

– Administration & Management
ok, I don’t get how anyone could possibly think this is an out of date idea. Even if we accept the premise that our future is equal to emerging technologies, there is still a need to manage people places and things. So I don’t see enough here to even discuss.

So where do I go from here? It seems to me there are sort of three main concepts at work as we look towards the future…

–Understanding our broad set of competencies;
and as I look over the ALA list; I think its as good as anything. Broad yet vague —

–Developing Underlying Skill Sets to carry forth our mission and that support our core competencies.
These skills would/could vary from job to job. These are the types of things that we learned in library school and most likely promptly forgot. To be honest I think I only took 2 classes where I learned anything that I didn’t already know from working in a library for 8 years. Skills are easy to pick-up and since they change the most rapidly they are the ones that we should probably put the least focus in library school.

Here is a list of “skills” that I use most frequently in my job. I’ll attempt to annotate to reflect those which I learned in school and those which I learned on the job or in a class outside the library school sphere.
– Negotiating Electronic Licenses (bearing in mind that I have been out of school for over 10 years)
This wasn’t even mentioned as something that existed. Now I spend a good portion of each year (although less now that I’ve conquered the indemnification clause) working on licensing our electronic resources.

–Usability Testing (web pages or other digital portals)
Again not even mentioned as something that exists.

– HTML coding
Voila something I did learn in school. Although I learned in the pre-style sheet era; the basic skill set did however easily allow me to pick up CSS or even XML.

–Statistical Analysis and Interpetation
We did learn some basic statistics and research skills in school, but nothing there prepared me for the scope of data that we have to draw upon.

–Organizing Information
Other than cataloging and learning how to search other products, I didn’t have a good skill foundation for how I organize information now. The cataloging foundation has, however, served me in good stead as it taught me a way of thinking about the world.

Do I regret or wish I had learned these skills in school? No it hasn’t negatively impeded my work (gosh that does sound arrogant yikes). I do wish we had spent more time discussing philosophical and ethical issues. You know big picture stuff rather than the time we did spend on specific skills.

Ok earlier I had said there were 3 main themes, so I’d best conclude with a 3rd…
– The third “concept” as we look towards the future is an ability to predict the future. David Ferreio used to quote Wayne Gretzky and there seem to be 2 variations on this.

“A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be. “

“I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been. “

Classic quotes that exemplify what I think should be our world view. Note that they emphasize a notion of thinking forwardly (ick grammar issues)…. There isn’t a mention here of HOW to skate or what tools should be used to skate.

Myself, my motto quote comes from Patton…
“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”

In other words (mine) put the future in perspective, its there looming but don’t get so lost in the details or what ifs about the looming future that you forget that no matter what we live and work in the today.

What Do Librarians and Politicians Have in Common?

I know, it sounds like the beginning line to a joke … I’m hoping to be eye catching. The headline is really just an entry into one of those miscellaneous postings where I just do a brain dump of perhaps unrelated thoughts.

Conventional Wisdom (and actual Statistics as well) say that its easier for an incumbant to get re-elected than a challenger. Its also easier for librarians to renew existing subscriptions than to subscribe to new resources. There are many reasons for this, I’m sure. This year has been tight money-wise (there’s a shocker I’m sure) so it was hard to just negotiate for our current resources. After our renewals were complete we discovered that there was a new resource (Psychiatry Online) that would be really good for us. Due to timing, we had already renewed another resource for Mental Health professionals that as it turns out probably wasn’t going to meet our needs as well as this resource. So one reason that we tend to renew resources is timing. The timelines are already established for existing resources and we tend to go through those processes and hope that there is money left. Given the changing economic realities I don’t think this is a viable option.

Ok at this point the politician analogy is going to break down, but goodness knows I’m going to milk it one moment longer. Often we have some sort of relationship with our existing vendors. Although these are always at the superficial sales level; the fact remains that for those people with whom we have worked (sometimes across several years) there are just easier communication mechanisms. Its harder for someone new to just develop any level of trust like those that are built across the years. Of course this can also work against some vendors if there aren’t such positive relationships.

I’m needing to develop a model, process, and/or plan for how to get new resources into our pipeline in times of detracting budgets. This plan will need to include identifying target resources for possible cuts, creating a timeline for when decisions need to be made, and writing evaluation plans for all resources (existing and new). Ideally we should get all resources on the same renewal schedule. There are good reasons we have for having different renewal cycles, but it does have problems of their own. In addition to evaluation criteria; we’d need to have a trigger switch for when we’d initiate an evaluation of an existing resource and what would trip the decision from renew to cancel.

I’m trying to figure out how to wrap this up and cycle back around to my politician analogy but its a rainy Wednesday evening and I think my brain is soggy. (pretty nifty excuse, yesterday I was blaming the full moon)…

Core Competencies of Librarianship … What Role Technology?

In the November/December MLA News, Ellen Detlfesen writes, “Are Library Schools Teaching What the Next Generation of Librarians Needs to Know?” This Medical Library Education brief discusses the ALA’s Core Competencies of Librarianship. She cites the critics of these competencies highlighting (although not necessarily advocating this view herself) the threads of criticism that, “the competences overly emphasize the status quo and promote a ‘traditional’ view of libraries.”

A criticism around which I particularly resonate revolves around the question about whether the competences are still, “oriented to the physical library of the twentieth century and not to the ‘library of the 21st century’ “

I am a particular advocate of the notion that a library is not a physical space, but rather a collection of services (and possibly resources that may or may not reside in the same location where they are utilized) provided by knowledge professionals. Note I intentionally do NOT use the term information professionals as I dislike being referred to as an information professional. If you follow my blog over time, you will note that I find the notion of being equated to the term “information” is not at all an adequate description of the work of being a librarian. I don’t look down upon information workers, but to me, that is more what computer programmers do. To me the heart and soul of being a librarian is helping our users turn information into knowledge.

This links (in my mind at least) to the next idea about which I feel rather passionately (which might seem counter intuitive to some given my last assertion about the library not being a physical place). Too often (far far far too often) we seem to equate the skills and the 21st century library as being analogous to “emerging technologies.” I’ll return to this idea in a moment.

Back to, “Are Library Schools Teaching What the Next Generation of Librarians Needs to Know?” (Detlefsen, Ellen G. MLA News, November/December 2009). Some of the pros of the ALA Competencies document include an emphasis on, “the necessity for practitioners to adopt a proactive approach to continuing education beyond that which is acquired in ‘library school.’ ” This is described as being driven by, “the perception that the world, especially in the arena of technology is changing more rapidly than programs of professional education can handle.” I applaud the idea about the critical importance of nurturing the, “habit of lifelong learning.”

I agree that it is important to identify emerging future trends. What I disagree with is the definition or limitation of emerging future trends with emerging technologies. The article does highlight some good sources for noting future trends and some excellent sources do include trends that dig deeper than the mere technologies that drive the trends. An example is pulled from Inside Higher Education that highlights outsourcing of many library services (I have also commented on this trend in this blog). Note that this trend is independent of any technology that might enable that outsourcing to happen.

I disagree, however, with MJ Tooey’s emphasis on identifying, “emerging technologies that will reach mainstream use in education organizations within the next 5 years.” First of all, look back 5 years and see how accurately any of those predicted the technologies that are so hot today. The specifics of the technologies might vary rapidly, and aren’t so very important. I’m also disconcerted that this column highlights the MLA’s Medical Informatics Section’s annual program on emerging technologies as an important educational component. Sure its an interesting session, but I personally have never felt it to have much impact on my work one way or another. And bear in mind that I work in an entirely digital world. My whole professional world revolves around all manner of technology. Maybe that’s why I don’t romanticize emerging technologies. To me they are tools nothing more nothing less. In order to make a provocative point, I am possibly overly highlighting the technological focus of the Library School Curriculum debate.

I wish I could better articulate why I think this is the wrong thing to emphasize. The technology itself isn’t so very important. Emerging technologies are just tools and often ephermeral. What is important is being able to look beyond the specific of any technological change and understand how that technology (or any technology) may radically change how we operate as librarians. We also need to look beyond the specifics of technologies to ask ourselves about what are our underlying fundamentals as a profession. One of the ALA Competencies as a matter of fact is, “Foundations of the Profession” — odd I don’t find that notion to overly tie us to the 20th century physical library. Wouldn’t we have some sort of “Foundations” no matter what vision of the future in which we live. The key question becomes what are our Professional Foundations (and that might become a topic for a future posting.

Other ALA Competencies….
– Information Resources
Hmmm ok, that might be an area that we need to at least question. What information resources are important in our current environment? Are information resources are still important in today’s environment? I would argue that information resources are vitally important in today’s environment. Our relationship as librarians to the vast ocean of information resources that our users encounter is vitally important. We may not be “purchasing” information resources and we may not be the sole gatekeepers of information resources, but look at Google — information resources still very much exist and our users still turn to them. The question then becomes, What role should the librarian play in relationship to information resources?

To be continued…. Tomorrow we pick up with Organization of Recorded Knowledge and Information….

Sometimes I worry that I perceive that I’m overly negative about the profession… to the contrary I’m personally optimistic about the future of librarianship. I just try to keep pushing my personal beliefs about how the future will become brighter.

Tidbits from the Chronicle of Higher Education — Questions of Ethics??

I was planning on writing about the article in the November 16, 2009 Chronicle of Higher Education, “Ethicists Prod NIH to Spend Money Investigating Conflicts of Interest,” (Paul Basken, Chronicle of Higher Education, 11/16/2009, accessed 11/17/2009). This article reports on a letter sent to Francis Collins, new director of NIH. This letter states, “”The recent disclosure of ghostwritten articles, physician payoffs, and the use of academic opinion leaders to increase markets for FDA-regulated products,… indicate that ethical lapses may permeate biomedical research.” I have touched upon some of the ghostwriting issues in previous blog postings.

Why does this matter to librarians? I think we often look to NIH funded research as a sort of gold standard that seems to be above the fray of pharmaceutical issues. As we teach evaluation, we might also need to focus on looking at all funding aspects and other sources of influence on the biomedical research and reporting process.

Then I became intrigued by an article in the Advice column, “Sorry I’m Late” (Michael Munger, Chronicle of Higher Education, 11/16/2009, accessed 11/17/2009). Now I have a confession to make, I’m chronically punctual. Once upon a time I was never ever late for anything and I had little if no tolerance for people who were late. Then my mother moved in with me. I’m learning in the world of being a caregiver that all things are not completely controllable and I’m letting go of time a bit. Just a bit. When I’m at work, however, for the most part I really really strive to be on time for meetings and other professional obligations.

This article is a cute characterization of types of people and reasons why people are late for meetings.

The Platonic traveler.
…Chronically late people live in the imperfect world, but believe they can travel inside their own minds. If their house is 11 minutes away from the campus, without traffic or stoplights, then they assume that they can actually travel from their home to the meeting room in 11 minutes. Of course, there are school buses, problems with parking, garbage trucks blocking the alley, and so on…

…You have to allow for the average length of the trip, not the trip in the world of Platonic forms.

The paradox of the busy.
The busier you are, the more likely you will be on time. Busy people manage their time well because it is valuable…

Incompetent people believe they are busy, but they are just inefficient…

Closeness hurts.
For this group of latecomers, the closer their office is to the room, the later they arrive at the meeting.

The first will be last.
Mr. First shows up, parks his folders, sees the room is empty, and heads for the coffeepot…

This article concludes with the thought that, “We tend toward lateness because each of us hates waiting more than we feel bad about making others wait. But manners and conventions are precisely about solving that sort of problem. So let’s work together.”

In these times when issues of rudeness are in the news (a lot it seems to me), this was an interesting perspective on another aspect of rudeness. This may not be the largest ethical question of the day, but just think what a nicer world it would be if we could manage to start and hence end our meetings on time.

Harvard Task Force – Future of Libraries

Thursday’s Library Journal posted a news brief about Harvard’s Libraries futures, “Harvard Task Force Urges Centralization, Collaboration, and Access (vs. Acquisition)” (Norman Oder Library Journal, November 12, 2009 accessed November 16, 2009). A Harvard University task force on the future of libraries describes their vision of a 21st century library that includes, “knitting together the university’s robust and disparate library units, collaborating with peer libraries, and emphasizing access to materials rather than acquisition.”

Library Journal has summarized an except of their recommendations as follows:

1. Establish and implement a shared administrative infrastructure…
includ[ing] many information technology functions; most preservation functions; and certain significant technical services such as acquisitions and cataloging.

2. Rationalize and enhance our information technology systems.

3. Revamp the financial model for the Harvard libraries.

The current system of financing library materials and services impedes efforts to collaborate across the different parts of Harvard University, and often establishes incentives for actions that aid one part of the library at the expense of the whole…

4. Rationalize our system for acquiring, accessing, and developing materials for a “single university” collection.

The Harvard University Library system needs to rationalize the manner in which all parts of the University collect and provide access to materials, and orient its focus more clearly toward ensuring access, as opposed to the current default model of building collections by acquisition….

5. Collaborate more ambitiously with peer libraries and other institutions….

Although this report dealt with Harvard specifically, there are many elements of this that can be applied to variety of library institutions.

I think one of the most critical steps that all libraries need to take is figuring out how to break down traditional barriers to centralizing “administrative” infrastructure and/or tasks. It just doesn’t make sense within one system, consortium, or even geographic region to have many institutions conducting the same tasks at an individual site by site level. There are so many obvious efficiencies of scale to be gained. It seems like the only obstacles in the way of this (not just at Harvard but in any institution and/or institutions) are traditional and/or political.

For now I’ll skip over most of the other comments. The last point: collaborate more is another one that can’t be stressed enough. This report is discussing not only collaborating within one institution but also between institutions (like among peer institutions). This is another area where there could be great economies of scale and also synergistic innovations.

Oops I forgot another important part. This is quite the trendy concept these days, but it doesn’t make it any less valid. And drum roll please, this concept is the one of access vs. acquisition. This touches upon the age old question of just in time vs. just in case. Another variation of that theme would be access vs. ownership.

Everyone seems to be having task forces, committees… There is a lot of TALK about building and developing the library of the future… Now of course we’re ready for action. What I want to see is some major institution taking some really radical steps that truly break out of the old mold.

To be a bit trite (or is it cliche…) the future is now!!

JAAPA Ask-a-Librarian Revisited: Of Google Scholar and Access to Literature

Back in June I had posted about a collaborative column in JAAPA. (seeLibrarian Clinician Collaborations). The column written by Jim Anderson and Susan Klawansky addresses questions posed by Physician Assistants. The November 2009 column highlighted 2 items of current relevant interest to me.

The first question is , “Do you recommend Google Scholar? When I use it, I am not sure what databases it is pulling information from or whether it omits certain databases. Is there any advantage to this resource over Medline?“

The answer focuses on the benefits of Medline and in my opinion provides an excellent and balanced answer. The highlights of the answer begin saying, “Medline, for many purposes, will probably be the best database to search for answers to clinical questions.” This is followed by brief reasons why this is the case. The answer to this question ends with a description of a good role for Google Scholar saying, “Google Scholar searches some portion of full text, which Medline does not, and Google Scholar searches content beyond journal literature. So, Google Scholar, for all its limitations, can be a valuable adjunct when trying to locate articles on obscure or extremely specific topics” The entire content of this answer is a quick but worthwhile read.

Since our Health Sciences Library has recently been discussing adding Google Scholar to our Quick Links on the newly updated library’s website, I found this answer both topic and edifying.

The second question in the month’s column is, “I see patients in a private practice setting without academic access. Can you advise me on how PAs and other providers in my situation can access medical literature?“

This question gets to the heart of my world. I can’t tell you how often I deal with this question. Here in NC we are fortunate to have an option of for individual clinicians to subscribe to a package of resources which have been selected to be of interest (we hope) to practicing clinicians. This answer highlights some options in Washington State such as HEAL-WA. Loansome Doc option is also explored.

An aspect of this question which we are now focusing on in NC — very recently — is the notion of whether clinicians working in private practice need different resources than those working in hospitals. We are also examining the role and access to point of care resources in private practice and the integration of these resources into Health Records. This questions become even more timely in the world of ARRA monies and the potential for monetary implications for places that don’t bring electronic medical records online.

We have recently been having an online discussion about the merits of adding Google Scholar to our Quick Links resources list on the Health Sciences Library web page.

I love the way reading articles sparks ideas in my mind that send it off in directions that the author might not have even imagined.

Again — I’m so impressed with this project and wish other professional journals would incorporate similar columns. Good job!!

2CUL Project & File Sharing Piracy… Tidbits from the Wired Campus

A couple of items from the Wired Campus in the Chronicle of Higher Education caught my eye this week (and its only Tuesday)…

“Columbia and Cornell Libraries Announce ‘Radical’ Partnership” (Howard, J. Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/28/2009)

This radical partnership relates to plans by the libraries of these two institutions to, “jointly transform their operations.” The project called 2CUL (pronounced too cool) will focus on 3 areas: “managing electronic resources and other nuts-and-bolts library work, building global-collecting capabilities, and creating a digital-preservation infrastructure.” They are planning on creating a shared library information management system to accomplish their goals.

What I find interesting isn’t that there is a collaboration like this happening, but that it has taken this long for this type of collaboration to emerge. I also find it interesting that this type of collaboration is being characterized as “radical”. To me it seems more logical. Then again this is the type of thing our AHEC libraries have been working on for the past several years. We have been moving to managing electronic resources centrally. This model just seems to make sense especially for smaller (compared to academics at any rate) hospital libraries. It will be interesting to see how the details of working with licensing and access and all the other publisher based specifics will play out. There is, of course, the difference between management and ownership. Even if publishers won’t work out joint purchases it could still be possible to centrally manage the collections.

“The Latest File-Sharing Piracy: Academic Journals” (Terris, B. Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/30/2009).

A recent study published in the Journal of Medical Informatics examines a file sharing site used by medical students and professionals to obtain non-open access journals for free. According to the Chronicle there was an 83% success rate in finding articles. The ethical implications of this aren’t covered in the article but the article does hint at the ethical questions saying, ““In the field of medicine, ethics plays a pivotal role, and yet the site displays activities by medical students, teachers, and practicing professionals that are ethically dubious.”

I wish I could say I’m surprised by this, but given what I know about medical residents sharing subscriptions to some licensed resources, I’ve had inklings of these types of behaviors for quite a while. What will be interesting to watch is to see how publishers uncover the original source of the articles from personal subscriptions or from institutional subscriptions. Since most medical students have a good network of access to articles, I’m wondering why they would feel the need to resort to free sharing. Is it the time (they can’t wait for access from an article not owned by their institution) or is it the money (they can’t afford the what 8$ ILL fee??). As we seem to be noting of late there have been some ethical oddities in the relationship between medicine and publishing, so again this shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. I guess the next logical question should be, what role can librarians play in shaping responsible behavior in our consitutents in regards to resource access?

Usability Testing

I’ve been out of the office for 3 days conducting usability testing for our new/updated site. We went to 3 locations and worked with 9 users/testers. I’m not attempting to write our findings here … that would be a bit premature (to say the least).

Although I had been checking email while I was out of the office and although I was working on our site, our project with our typical user groups; its amazing how out of touch I feel with the library world. This is odd since I was spending all my time testing in libraries. I was reading tonight trying to find something to write about and it felt like it had been weeks since I had thought about macro issues.

Since I’m feeling a bit out of touch with the types of macro issues about which I usually post and since my mind is still caught up in all things usability, I think I’ll do a brief de-brief (ha ha) (or not…)

We tested a range of users running the spectrum of occupations and familiarity with our existing site. We were sort of following one Jacob Nielsen’s rule of thumbs about the number of users. He has stated that, “It takes only five users to uncover 80 percent of high-level usability problems” — Our testing uncovered overwhelming consistency across the spectrum of our users. Which was good news for us moving forward.

Here are my interesting observations about the testing… From my highly unscientific observations on this topic, the biggest variable that seemed to result in differing comments or concerns with our testing was one occupational factor: being a librarian. The librarians we showed the site to, seemed to have issues, concerns, or ideas that fell out of the spectrum of things that were being experienced by the other users we tested. This wasn’t hugely surprising, but it was interesting.

This next observation about which much has been written is that there did also seem to be some usage issues based on age. Since so much has been written in other places about this; I’ll just leave it to say that we (or rather I) did note it to a small extent.

I found a usability testing “tutorial” hosted at the University of Texas at Austin. (accessed 11/2/2009), this was the basic outline of how we conducted our tests. (although I found this tutorial after we had already planned and completed most of our testing).

Tomorrow… back to the salt mine. Maybe I’ll be feeling a bit more inspired tomorrow night…