Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Resource Discovery

By Graham Stone


Today’s researchers use a wide variety of tools to discover the information resources they require. These resources may be located within a physical library or available on the Web and if so, are available in a proliferation of formats and interfaces, which has often meant that users were directed to a number of different in-house or external systems to find the information they required. Over the past ten years libraries have, to a varying degree, sought to manage and expose this data, while attempting to dissuade users from flocking to the simplicity of Google (Scholar), Amazon, YouTube, etc. However, the provision of these different resource-discovery systems uses an increasing amount of the resources in today’s academic library. \ud \ud \ud A review of the recent literature suggests that users prefer simple search interfaces such as Google. The implication here is that libraries often fail to make their resources discoverable and that this may in turn affect the perceived value of the library. \ud \ud \ud In a recent report for vice-chancellors and senior institutional managers the Research Information Network (RIN) stated that: \ud “The usefulness of the content and collections provided by libraries and from other sources depends on how easily researchers can discover, locate and gain access to them. Institutions need to ensure that their researchers can readily make use, through the library and other providers, of services that enable them to discover, locate and gain access to information sources that may be relevant to their research. \ud \ud \ud \ud However, do libraries have a sufficient understanding of their users to provide this level of support in the way the libraries users expect and demand? Is there a very real danger of information overload from the plethora of different systems or lack of intuitive interfaces driving users towards Google? Is this actually a problem? In a time of severe fiscal hardship how can the libraries restore their importance and reclaim their position?\ud \ud \ud This chapter looks at both traditional methods of resource discovery and the next-generation systems entering the marketplace in 2009 and asks if these will be appropriate in the next five to ten years

Topics: ZA4050
Publisher: Facet
Year: 2009
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2009). A personal perspective on accessing academic information in the Google era, or ‘How I learned to stop worrying and love Google’, Serials, doi
  2. (2009). A student perspective on accessing academic information doi
  3. (2009). A universal citation database as a catalyst for reform in scholarly communication.
  4. (2009). Bases And Related Tools working group: (accessed 28 doi
  5. (2007). Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future (“Google Generation” Project),
  6. (2009). Beyond federated search? (accessed 28
  7. (2009). Beyond federated search?: comments (accessed 28
  8. (2007). Building custom Metasearch interfaces and services using the MetaLib X-server, Internet Reference Services Quarterly, doi
  9. (2009). bX recommender service: overview: (accessed 28
  10. (2009). Catalogue: (accessed 28
  11. (1998). Cool URIs don't change,
  12. (2009). Data Audit Framework:
  13. (2009). Did someone say “Free Beer”?! Open Source: “Free Speech, Free Beer and Free Kittens!”,
  14. (2009). Education in a Web 2.0 World, Report of an independent Committee of Inquiry into the impact on higher education of students’ widespread use of Web 2.0 technologies,
  15. (2009). Federated search roadmap: Part II - Identifying benefits.
  16. (2007). Federated search: the good, the bad and the ugly,
  17. (2009). FRBRization in the Open Library: (accessed 28
  18. (2009). Free book usage data from the University of Huddersfield:
  19. (2009). Huddersfield, Applied economics letters, table of contents & recent articles: (accessed 28
  20. (2009). Huddersfield: 1960s fashion print : a sourcebook: (accessed 28
  21. (2009). Huddersfield: British journal of midwifery, people who looked at this journal, also looked at these journals: (accessed 28
  22. (2008). If we do not understand our users, we will certainly fail. E-Resources Management Handbook, doi
  23. (2009). Juice up your OPAC, Panlibus,
  24. (2009). Key issue: Mining information-seeking behaviour data to enhance library services, Serials, doi
  25. (2009). LexisNexis Signs on to the Summon Service: (accessed 28
  26. (2007). Librarian perspectives on teaching Metasearch and federated search technologies. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, doi
  27. (2009). LibraryThing APIs: (accessed 28
  28. (2007). Link resolvers and the serials supply chain: final project report for UKSG, Oxford, Scholarly Information Strategies, doi
  29. (2001). Linking to the appropriate copy, D-Lib Magazine, doi
  30. (2008). Many libraries have gone to federated searching to win users back from Google. Is it working? doi
  31. (2009). One box to search them all: implementing federated search at an academic library, Library Hi Tech, doi
  32. (2007). Online databases: Can Johnny search? Library Journal,
  33. (2009). Online: (accessed 28
  34. (2009). OPAC 2.0 and beyond,
  35. (2009). OPAC 2.0 and beyond.
  36. (2006). OpenURL? D-Lib Magazine, doi
  37. (2009). Overview: Introduction: (accessed 28
  38. (2008). Persistent identifiers: considering the options, Ariadne,
  39. (2009). Programme: Digi posters: At-a-glance guide to all the digitisation projects: (accessed 28
  40. (2009). Programme: (accessed 28
  41. (2008). Reference accuracy: best practices for making the links, doi
  42. (2009). Research Assessment Exercise: (accessed 28
  43. (2006). Researchers and discovery services: behaviour, perceptions and needs. A study commissioned by the Research Information Network,
  44. (2009). Somewhere I have never travelled, doi
  45. (2006). Students experience of Metalib and Google Scholar, doi
  46. (2009). The 21st-century library: a whole new ball game? Serials, doi
  47. (2004). The OpenURL Framework for Context-Sensitive Services, National Information Standards Organization (NISO),
  48. (2008). The UK Research Data Service Feasibility Study. Report and recommendations to HEFCE,
  49. (2009). The Work of Edward Tufte and Graphics Press: doi
  50. (2009). TicTocs: journal tables of contents service: doi
  51. (2009). Tutorial: 2D Journal Search:
  52. (2009). Typographic News Explorer:
  53. (2009). University Librarian at the University of Sydney, comment at the Sydney Online conference
  54. (2009). Web services librarian: (accessed 28
  55. (2009). WebFeat: a brief history: (accessed 28
  56. (1995). What price customer loyalty? Supermarket shoppers will get discounts under glitzy new schemes. But Big Brother may come to rule the till,
  57. (2009). What's Wrong with Citation Counts? D-Lib Magazine, doi
  58. (2009). Why Private Browsing Isn’t…
  59. (2009). Worldcat Local: (accessed 28

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.