ILS642 - Management of Electronic Resources

Literature Review

          ____________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

Managing today’s electronic resources requires a librarian to possess a wide array of knowledge and skills unheard of a quarter of a century ago. In that short amount of time, the field of library and information science has seen a shift in the areas of acquisitions, technology, cataloging, and issues surrounding electronic resources and digital preservation.  A librarian today needs to be able to multitask and move effortlessly between traditional print format and into the digital realm to be able to meet the needs of their users. While the raison d’etre of libraries remains to collect, organize, preserve, and disseminate the world’s information, the format has shifted under us and we need to continually educate ourselves in order to keep our footing.  The following ten articles address a wide range of factors that directly influence our ability to offer a seamless integration of services we offer our users.

Jacso, Peter. "Google Scholar’s Ghost Authors, Lost Authors, and Other Problems
     ." Library Journal (Sept. 2009): n. pag. Web. 25 Sept. 2009.
     <http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/
     CA6698580.html?&rid=1105906703&source=title>.


Citing Geoffrey Nunbergs’s critique of Google Book Scholars overwhelming errors in cataloging, Jacso goes on to detail his own negative experiences with Google Scholar (GS). Today’s acquisitions librarian relies heavily on usage data to evaluate return on investment (ROI) to determine if an electronic resource is worth the subscription price tag. Jacso asserts that GS comes with its own “metadata disaster”. Millions of incorrect metadata records interfere with its ability to provide accurate publication and citation counts, one set of data librarians rely on to determine the usefulness of particular resources.

In an academic culture where getting published and cited can be a determining factor in the climate of ‘publish or perish’, GS’s citation problems are numerous. Inaccuracies such as phantom and ghost authors result from algorithms, which read search menu options incorrectly and strip real authors of publication and citation counts. Jacso cites one such error’s absurdity when “910,000 papers are attributed to an author named “Password”’.

GS’s algorithms also result in skewed data that counts different formats of the same paper thus inflating citation counts. Frequently high counts result when GS web crawlers do not go deep enough into proprietary databases or metadata is incomplete, or worse, wrong. Jacso cites examples of duplicate master records and his use of screenshots allows the reader to see what the erroneous results look like. He also believes that, “utilities such as the Google Scholar Citation Count gadget by Jan Feyereisl and the sophisticated and pretty Publish or Perish (POP) software”, regard these statistics as truth, which further compounds the credibility issue.

The parser used by GS generates fictitious names based on wording as varied as “P Options (for Payment Options),… from Table of Contents pages on publishers’ web pages, etc.” In fact, a screenshot demonstrates that the author: subscribe has 73,400 attributed articles. Jacso acknowledges that these could be interpreted as minor problems, but the issue of lack of attribution of actual authors relegates them to “lost authors” status and replaces them with “ghost authors”.

While Google has addressed and corrected some of the more notable inaccuracies, Jacso attributes the parser created by Google and wonders why they didn’t rely on the metadata information given to them by almost every scholarly publisher utilizing GS. But while Nunberg was 
optimistic that Google could be taught new tricks, Jacso is not so optimistic, instead believing that Google is applying “…Band-Aids, where brain surgery and extensive parser training is required.”

Jasek, Chris (2007). How to design library Web sites to maximize usability. Library
   Connect. Pamphlet #5.

Chris Jasek, Manager of the User Centered Design Group at Elsevier has over ten years of experience in website usability, from designing databases such as ScienceDirect and Scopus, as well as conducting usability studies of library websites. In this article, he brings this experience together to help busy librarians evaluate and improve the usability of their own library websites.
First and foremost, Jasek has found that library websites are designed in ‘librarian speak’, using complicated, technical language, and organized more for other librarians than for the typical pedestrian user. 

Research by Elsevier’s User Centered Design Group recommends organizing library websites based on the top five findings based on importance or frequency:

Jasek states that “The biggest mistake most library websites make is not giving enough space to the task 85% of people come to the sites for – finding research materials like journal articles” (3). In addition, make sure that it is clear to the user exactly what resources will be searched. Will your search box search the library site only? Does the search include your databases? Make sure that this is clear to your user. Jasek also recommends using real language the user can understand. Instead of 
‘online catalog’ use the term ‘books’ or ‘find a book’. He cites usability studies by Crowley et al in 2002 and Dickenstein & Mills in 2000 that show that “many users do not understand simple library terms and concepts like catalog, resources, online database, citation, reserves, reference or special collections”. He also cites Kupersmith who found that there is a 47% failure rate when the average user looks for journal articles or databases. Terminology seemed to be the greatest contributor to this failure. In addition to the frustration that results from failed searches, Jasek warns against placing too much information on pages that result in slow download speed, especially for remote users.

While it seems intuitive to organize information in one place, Jasek recommends having several points of entry for information. This gives users several opportunities to find the information they seek. Organizing information by subject helps users who often don’t know what resources are available. Organizing information by course name and number helps students who frequently think in terms of course work and not discipline. When organizing any type of information, keep the clicks required to reach your destination to a minimum, preferable three clicks at the most and make sure you include detailed explanations as to what each resource offers. Many students have no idea what EBSCO or ERIC offers when viewing them in a database list.

Jasek recommends making sure that your website is easy to find, preferably via a prominent link from the institutions homepage and makes use of breadcrumb trails to aid users in return navigation. And while many designers like to use bells and whistles, Jasek encourages website designers to use few colors and minimal graphics and to adhere to W3C’s recommendations for accessibility for users with disabilities. In conclusion, once you follow the checklists set forth, the author recommends that your institution conduct a usability study to determine if you have met your goal – a website whose ultimate goal is to meet the information needs of its users.

Nunberg, Geoffery. "Google's Book Search: A Disaster for Scholars." The
     Chronicle Review. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 31 Aug. 2009. Web. 21
     Sept. 2009. <http://chronicle.com/article/Googles-Book-Search-A/
     48245/>.


This opinion piece by Geoffrey Nunberg, linguist and adjunct full professor, School of Information, UC Berkeley, skewers Google’s book search and the multitude of inaccuracies found through numerous test searches. Nunberg believes that Google holds a monopoly as the world’s largest digital library due to the “five-year head start and its relationship with libraries and publishers…”. In the years since Google began their digitization initiative, many issues have been raised; privacy, access, price. But Nunberg raises an issue even more critical to the field of library and information science – that of properly cataloging books so that its search capabilities extend beyond a “string of keywords”.
It is a fascinating concept to contemplate, access to everything that was ever written and published. But good intentions do not always translate into quality results. Nunberg asserts what every librarian knows through searching items in their collection that in order “to pose those questions, you need reliable metadata about dates and categories, which is why it’s so disappointing that the book search’s metadata are a train wreck: a mishmash wrapped in a muddle wrapped in a mess.”

Nunberg backs up this inflammatory statement with fact upon fact upon fact of inaccuracies he has found. Here are but a few:

• Publication Dates
• Google lists 1899 as the publication date for Robert Shelton’s biography of Bob Dylan, Stephen King’s Christine, and Raymond Chandler’s Killer in the Rain.
• Famous Writers or persons+ works published before their birth year yields:
• Charles Dickens – 182 published before 181
• Rudyard Kipling – 81
• Greta Garbo – 115
  

Nunberg posits that there is at minimum a 5% error rate, which translates to hundreds of thousands of these books with publication date errors. While many are on older titles and many of the new titles where information came directly from the publisher don’t show these errors, it is disconcerting to the author that Google attributes these errors to the libraries and others who provided the books. Nunberg asserts that many of the inaccuracies stem from Google extracting publication from scanned texts. Anyone who has seen OCR transcripts knows the limitations of machine read transcripts. While Harvard supplied correct catalog records, Google relied on extracted data and ended up using dates on advertisements and frontispiece illustrations as publication dates.

In addition to publication date errors, Nunberg found numerous classification errors. Different editions of the same book were classified in four different and frequently ridiculous ways. One example is “various editions of Jane Eyre are classified as History, Governesses, Love Stories, architecture, and Antiques & Collectibles (as in, “Reader, I marketed him.”).  While Google tried to blame libraries and publishers, Nunberg notes that many of the erroneous classifications could not have come from libraries, who adhere to LCSH, because the “categories are drawn from the Book Industry Standards and Communications (BISAC) codes, which are used by the publishers to tell booksellers where to put books on the shelves…”

The author wonders why Google would refer to BISAC codes in the place of Library of Congress (LOC) authority headings. The answer seems to have more to do with helping with advertising placement on results pages than aiding the search itself. Numerous other errors, sometimes ironically humorous, are noted, but the author does state that Google is attempting to resolve the problems. Some of the metadata issues might be addressed by “organizations such as the Internet archive or HathiTrust, a consortium of participating libraries that is planning to make available several million of the public-domain books from their collections that Google scanned, along with their bibliographic records”. Nunberg recommends licensing the LOC and OCLC catalogs and merging their records with Google. Criticism notwithstanding, Nunberg poses the possibility that Google will respond to pressure from its partnering university libraries and resolve this massive metadata problem.

Ribaric, Tim J. "Testing the Off-Site Experience, or, How Well Do You Proxy?."
     Computers in Libraries 29.1 (01 Jan. 2009): 19-21. Eric. Retrieved through EBSCO.
     12 Sept. 2009. <http://0-search.ebscohost.com.www.consuls.org
     /login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ824915&site=ehost-live>.

In this article, Ribaric, digital services librarian at Brock University in Ontario, Canada walks the user through the steps required to establish a proxy server to ensure remote users have access to your library’s electronic resources. This is the crucial link that provides the correct Internet Protocol (IP) address to allow users access to subscription databases, a technical caller-ID, if you will. Without this intermediary technology, users will be denied access to full-text articles your library provides and will be asked to pay, often as much as $40 per article, for access.

Simply put, proxy software redirects remote traffic to the requested resource. So, instead of an IP address (your remote user’s personal IP) not recognized, the resource recognizes the address as coming from your library. Ribaric gives specific examples from Brock University, ranging from the specific software they use, EZproxy, to the string of text needed to redirect traffic. For his institution, http://originalurl.com becomes http://proxy.library.edu/login?url=http://originalurl.com. After the user is redirected, they are then prompted for a username and password, and once verified, gain access to full text articles. He explains that although the process should be seamless, things go wrong for the user when URLs of databases the proxy maintains are not kept up-to-date.

Although most vendors will provide libraries with a list of appropriate URLs to add to the proxy server, this is not always the case. As with any link, it is crucial for personnel to manually test the proxy server to verify it is working properly. But how is an on-site librarian to do this? Because of the load that would be placed on the proxy if all traffic, on-site as well as remote, were redirected via the proxy, most libraries only use the proxy for remote traffic. The problem remains how to check for accuracy when not accessing remotely. Some libraries have resolved this by displaying on and off-site links but the author discourages this two-pronged approach as it makes it necessary to maintain two sets of URLs for the same resource.

One option to test for remote access is through a web-based service that provides anonymous proxy service. This occurs right in your web-browser - just ask any middle-school student trying to circumvent a school filter, which blocks Facebook or YouTube. The request is sent to the website, such as The Cloak or Proxy Way and they will assign an off-site IP and redirect the traffic to your browser. Although this is one method that can be used to test if your proxy server is working, Ribaric recommends several more effective options.

• Remote Desktop – Recent versions of Windows have a Remote Desktop Connection installed by default. This enables you to connect to your personal PC at home from your institution if you have enabled the feature. In this manner, you could access your home PC from the library and place your request through the proxy server. In this manner, you could test to see if the proxy server at your institution is working properly.
• Squid – This open source software available from www.squid-cache.org allows you to install it to your home computer and then once you connect to Firefox through SwitchProxy, your home computer will be used as a proxy server. He even recommends installing SwitchProxy on other staff members’ computers so they may be able to utilize your home computer as a proxy server. Ribaric believes that this is the simplest approach although for this author it raises the appropriateness of being required to install and use open source software on a personal computer for the purpose of accomplishing work related tasks. 
• EZproxy – This final method Ribaric recommends seems to be the most appropriate. The EZproxy software has a built-in service that uses XML to identify if your electronic resources are on the proxy URL list. He also recommends creating a Proxy Link Checker widget, similar to the Link Checker option on LibGuides.

In conclusion, any resource is useful only if the user is aware of the subtleties of its functionality. Ribaric recommends that bibliographic instruction offered by your institution should include a course in proxy servers. He recommends creating a tutorial using screen-shots to ensure your staff is knowledgeable about the ins and out of proxy servers and that your remote users have a seamless experience when accessing your electronic resources.

Rios, Gabe. "Top 10 technology trends librarians should be conversant with."
     Medical Library Tech Trends 2007. Bart Ragon, 1 Mar. 2007. Web. Accessed 15 Sept.
     2009. <http://medlibtechtrends.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/
     top-10-technology-trends-librarians-should-be-conversant-on-gabe-rios/>.

In a post on Medical Library Tech Trends 2007 blog, Gabe Rios creates a top ten list of technologies librarians should incorporate into their professional lives.

1. Social Software – As more and more users access our services remotely or at all, social networking sites such as Facebook, blogs, and wikis can help us meet our Gen Y users where they are. Many libraries now use all these and more – the key being to evaluate their effectiveness by soliciting feedback from the intended user.
2. Open Source Software – Rios briefly touches on this complex tool, and mentions ILS s such as Koha and Evergreen as well as Moodle and Sakai for learning/content management. What he doesn’t address though, is risk management factors and support issues.
3. Mobile Information Devices – This is an area that librarians will need to grapple with as functionality issues arise when users access library resources on mobile devices.
4. Collaboration Tools – Tools such as Zotero, Connotea, and Microsoft SharePoint are three programs that Rios mentions as examples of collaborative tools to aid librarians in their communication with users and colleagues.
5. Second Life – Librarians have already created Info Island and a virtual reference desk, allowing avatar-to-avatar interactions.
6. Cloud Architecture – Tag clouds are becoming an increasingly popular way for users to interact with information. These types of folksonomies generated by users to tag photos and create bookmarks that circumvent ‘librarian speak’ and apply language that people understand.
7. Wireless – Rios states the need for wireless ubiquity so we can access information where and when we need it
8. Mashups – Users are able to take two or more existing services and remix them to meet the need of the user. This allows users to manipulate the content within a specific application.
9. Streaming Media – YouTube and podcasting are two of the most well-know services. Visit many library websites and you will find an array of instruction videos on topic ranging from use of the library to plagiarism and bibliographic instruction.
10. Catalog Overlays – Rios mentions the use Endeca and AquaBrowser to increase the functionality of the traditional library catalog and integrate holdings and electronic resources.

Rochkind, Jonathan. "A Primer in Risk: Taking a critical look at common support
     scenarios for open source software." Library Journal (Nov. 2008): n. pag.
     Web. 17 Sept. 2009. <http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/
     CA6611591.html?&rid=&q=electronic+resources+>.

Due to the rising cost of proprietary software for integrated library systems (ILS), open source software may be a viable alternative for many libraries. As with any acquisition, contemplating a transition to an open source product requires you to take into consideration the associated risks. Jonathan Rochkind, Digital Services Software Engineer at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore identifies the major points when such a decision is under consideration especially given that for most libraries and librarians this is new terrain.

Rochkind believes that there are many similarities to the proprietary software decision making process such as:

• Do the features meet the needs of your users and do they work as they should?
• Are existing customers satisfied with the software?
• What is required to run the program i.e. hardware and other technological needs?

According to Rochkind, the most overriding issue to consider when contemplating a switch to open source software will be what type of support is available. The risk management considerations for open source software he identifies fall into three categories:

1. Homegrown – this software is generally developed by one or several libraries and is managed in-house.  The main risk associated with this type of program is the gap left if and when the software creator leaves your organization.
2. Community Support – many open source software programs have an active and passionate support community to whom you can turn if problems arise.
3. Vendor Support – some vendors offer fee-based commercial contracts supporting open source software. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is one successful example of this type of support.

Of all the types of open source software, the homegrown variety carries the most risk. Many of these were designed in-house in the 1980s, some of which have gone on to become proprietary software such as NOTIS ILS at Northwestern University, which became NOTIS Systems. The OCLC currently holds the rights to ILLiad software for managing interlibrary loans, which was originally a homegrown product of Virginia Tech.  The most successful homegrown products eventually migrate to the Community Support category in order to remain viable. Many academic libraries underestimate the staff time required to implement and maintain these programs and fail to take this into consideration when weighed against the cost of proprietary software.

Fortunately, the advent of the Internet has allowed community supported open source software to thrive. The Mozilla Firefox web browser and Apache web server are two successful examples with an extensive support community driven by a sense of altruism. Rochkind recommends vendor support for open source software when it is used for services such as ILS that are critical to the functioning of the library as a whole. Mentioned in the article are Koha and Evergreen, both of which have contractual vendor support. And although access to the collection is a critical function, LibX is becoming a popular open source choice for searching library catalogs.

Even if you decide to go with a vendor-supported option, pay close attention to the services offered, as with any program you purchase.  If at any time your library isn’t pleased with the functionality of the support program, the beauty of open source is the ability of your library to legally continue using the software even if you decide to discontinue the support contract.  Ultimately, the successful functioning of your software is dependent on a thorough review of the combination of product and support and whether your library is in a position to assume the associated risks.

Van Orsdel, Lee C., and Kathleen Born.. "Choosing Sides: There Is a Global Struggle   
    Over Open Access and No Immediate Answer to the Dilemma. Where Are Librarians
    in This Debate?."Library Journal 130.7 (15 Apr. 2005): 43. ERIC. EBSCO. [Buley
    Library], [New Haven], [CT]. 25 Sep. 2009 <http://0-
    search.ebscohost.com.www.consuls.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&
    AN=EJ712214&site=ehost-live>.

The serials crisis has had an unprecedented impact on library budgets for the past two decades with no end in sight.  Van Orsdel and Born examine the results of the Periodical Price Survey (hereafter referred to as Survey) and address the changing nature of the crisis as  “Fleets of salespeople continue to push bundles of journal content from the big STM (scientific, technical, and medical) publishers, and budget-starved libraries continue to cut journals they can’t afford” (43). The situation resulting from the bundling of, specifically, scientific journals has reached an untenable point. The authors propose that the serials crisis is more of a moral crisis than a monetary one. At the crux of the situation is “scientific information for the good of society as a whole”(43) while a disparate group “pulling patient advocates, taxpayers, researchers, grant agencies, legislators, and antitrust lawyers into unlikely alliances with academic librarians” (43) is clear that change is necessary, they just aren’t sure what that change should look like.

The Survey looked at 4,893 titles in three different databases typically used by large research libraries (Arts and Humanities Citations Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Science Citation Index) in addition to 2,759 journals typically used by smaller academic libraries (EBSCO’s Academic Search Premier). Currently, the absence of standardized pricing is a significant roadblock librarians face when trying to budget for serials. Pricing schemes range from tiered pricing based on type of library and FTE to estimated cost that are adjusted for usage.  Van Orsdel and Born describe  ‘quoted pricing’ as the most “maddeningly obscure” (44), based on a system of bundled journals. “…these complex pricing schemes can turn seemingly simple orders for e-journals into full negotiations, drawing out the renewal process for weeks or months in many cases and stretching the renewal season into the winter months” (44-45). With these circumstances becoming increasing convoluted, the crisis appears far from resolution.

A recent study by Oxford University Press showed “great disparity among the pricing behaviors of 12 prominent scholarly publishers” (45). Five years of data reveal the highest median prices are charged by Elsevier and the lowest by Cambridge University Press. While Sage and Kluwer approach Elsevier’s price, Sage had a shocking 94% increase between 2000 and 2004. Van Orsdel and Born found that statistics did not support a link between impact factor and price. In fact, they found a number of pages and price to be a stronger link. Today, acquisitions librarians use impact and usage data as tools to guide their serials purchases.

While print journals are still favored in European libraries (online subscriptions are taxed, not print), 84% of American libraries reported cancelling them when electronic versions come onto the market.  The authors also address the ethical and legal issues that arose when it was discovered that Emerald Publishing “has for nearly 30 years been republishing articles without notification that they were duplications…” (47).

Van Orsdel and Born address the fact that Europe, Great Britain, and the United States are all currently grappling with legislation regulating the OA movement. In November of 2004, the British government voted against “recommendations that would have put Britain into a leadership role in the OA movement”.  Likewise, mandates for the NIH to publish its grant-funded research through PubMed Central were removed resulting in articles becoming available after a 12-month embargo from the date of publication. This results in the public having to wait a full year for free and open access to valuable medical findings. The European Commission was also conducting a study of the scientific publishing industry at the time this article was written.

In conclusion, the authors admonish the reader to not believe the rumors that the OA movement has stalled out. On the contrary, they cite that 1,463 journals were available through the Directory of Open Access Journals, twice the number of the previous year, and studies are demonstrating that citations and downloads of OA journals will surpass subscription database journals. The movement toward OA has publishers on edge as they see their revenues slipping away as more authors bypass them to publish in institutional repositories or databases such as PubMed Central. The advent of Google Scholar may provide some relief in this matter. The authors believe that the issue of free and open access vs. proprietary databases may become a moot point if Google Scholar increases use and revenue for publishers.

Whittaker, Martha. "The Challenge of Acquisitions in the Digital Age." portal: Libraries
    and the Academy 8.4 (2008): 439-45. Project MUSE  18 September 2009
    <http://0-muse.jhu.edu.www.consuls.org/journals/portal_libraries_and_the
    _academy/v008/8.4.whittaker.html >
 

Martha Whittaker, Head of Technical Services at The George Washington University, Washington, DC addresses the issues facing acquisitions librarians as the field of information science transitions to the acquisition and integration of digital resources. Over the past twenty years, the Internet and access to the World Wide Web has had a dramatic and transformative effect on academic librarianship. Today, the typical academic library user is a digital native, a frequent user of Web 2.0 innovations, accustomed to accessing and using information in the form and format they prefer.

Today’s college students no longer need to come to the library to access information.  Through their library website, they are able to access information and perform the majority of tasks short of picking up print material. This means that today’s acquisitions librarian needs to master the skills required to navigate between print and digital formats. In keeping abreast of the changes in the field brought about by technological changes, librarians have needed to acquire new skills. That has never been so important as today when they are expected to posses knowledge and skills pertaining to print resources in addition to the frequently used social networking tools such as Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, and Second Life. Although Whittaker doesn’t mention them, IM, Twitter and text messaging are currently more relevant than MySpace and Second Life to college students. The interactive nature of social networking tools and the “wisdom of the crowd” (440) are a valuable resource for today’s acquisitions librarian.

Whittaker cites five main challenges in acquisitions in the digital age:

1. Pricing – Due to the increasing cost of digital resources, Whittaker recommends a more collaborative relationship between librarians and publishers, moving librarians away from a victim role and into one of a negotiator.
2. Preservation – Criteria for networked and digital resources still needs to be clarified.
3. Analytics – Librarians are discovering that interpretation of usage statistics is not as straightforward as it would seem. In comparing statistics, there are many more variables than print material usage such as “differences among publisher interfaces, variations among aggregator interfaces, and duplication with the library’s electronic collection”(440).
4. Defining library needs – It is crucial for librarians to actively negotiate with vendors for terms for resource usage.
5. Standards – Establishing accepted industry standards will make cooperative work possible. ERMS necessitates the use of “common protocol and file formats” (441).

She also points out that many books being scanned for the Google Books initiative have never been checked out, using this as a counterpoint when arguments are made comparing digital resource usage vs. budgetary expense. Because electronic resources require large portions of library budgets, care needs to be taken in terms of accountability.  Today, librarians need to be able to deliver information via the devices their users frequent. Whittaker asserts librarians need to negotiate with vendors and publishers to make this happen.

Whittaker cites four major trends in acquisitions in the digital age:

• Electronic Resources Management Systems (ERMS) – An integrated software system for managing digital resources. Whittaker notes that the cost of implementing an ERMS must include the hidden costs of amassing data that resides in multiple locations in addition to the cost of the software.
• Open Access and Institutional Repositories (IR) – There are many factors influencing IR
• Whether IRs should replace or supplement traditional resources
• How licensing vs. owning resources effects access
• Who pays for high costs associated with publishing in OA?
• Harvard University’s policy mandating open access
• National Institutes of Health (NIH) “Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research” has far-reaching implications as NIH funding is in every US academic university and college 

• Assessment Tools – standards are necessary and a collaborative venture between librarians, publishers and vendors is needed. The International Consortium of Library Consortia (ICOLC) and the publishing industry created jointly the Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources (COUNTER) standards. Still, work needs to be done in interpreting the data.
• Electronic Books – Whittaker wonders why e-book are not more widely accepted. Librarian ambivalence is cited, as is difficulty with purchasing.