Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Publishing partners
  4. Facet Publishing
  5. Content Listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

5856 results in Facet Publishing

Page 128 of 293

  • 12 - Conclusion

    • By Andy Tattersall, information specialist at the School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield
  • Edited by Andy Tattersall
  • Book:
    Altmetrics
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 June 2016, pp 205-211

  • Summary

    Introduction

    This final chapter considers the evidence from the preceding chapters and attempts to summarize where the future lies for altmetrics and associated developments. As with the rest of the book, this chapter aims to give readers a realistic view of developments and of the benefits and pitfalls that LIS professionals face when contemplating new ways of incorporating technology into their work processes. The chapter aims to provide a picture of the here and now and looks to a future that holds many possibilities, but also uncertainties.

    Altmetrics: a work in progress

    Like so much published research that is supported by LIS professionals, the ideas and changes captured in this book are a work in progress. By the time this book is published altmetrics will be just over five years old. In relation to the creation of the web that is about one-fifth of its history. The web has existed for about one generation but has changed the lives of many demographic groups, academics being one of them. No one could have predicted what the web would look like five years ago and it is virtually impossible to say what it will look like in the future. However, what we can say about the current state of web and social technology adoption in relation to research publishing and communication is that it is in its greatest ever state of flux and change. The evidence presented in this book and other similar titles is that the academic community has been slow to adapt to the opportunities brought about by the internet. Universities and research centres were quick to make themselves visible on the web in the early 1990s, but beyond that there has been inertia, or certainly confusion over which areas to focus on. Other industries, including the arts, media and especially pornography, have seen the value in spreading their content across the web in easily accessible formats. But academic content is no less important or interesting to online communities. The biggest problem in terms of the slow uptake is two-fold. First is the confusion over which technologies and platforms to use, in addition to the creation of learning initiatives; second are the cultural issues surrounding change and the adoption of new ways of communicating and measuring research, which take many academics away from their comfort zone.

  • 1 - Introduction

    • By Andy Tattersall, School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield
  • Edited by Andy Tattersall
  • Book:
    Altmetrics
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    30 June 2016, pp 1-10

  • Summary

    Introduction

    The purpose of this chapter is to give an introduction and context to the book and its theme. It will give an overview of the changes occurring in academia right now that are part of a wider picture that includes open access, MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), big data, emerging learning technologies and, finally, altmetrics. It will explain why this change is happening, how it is all connected, and how some library and information professionals are at the heart of it, while others should pay heed to it. It will provide an overview of the key ideas and themes within altmetrics as well as how this fits in with existing academic cultures.

    Altmetrics focuses on research artefact level metrics that are not exclusive to traditional journal papers but also extend to book chapters, posters and data sets among other items. It offers an alternative indicator of attention, review and conversation that adds a highly responsive layer to the slower to accrue traditional research metrics.

    Altmetrics is one of those terms, like MOOCs and big data, that many people in academia have heard of but are not entirely sure what it means. For a start, it sounds rather geeky, and perhaps something that sits within the domain of a group of experts, for example statisticians. In reality it is much simpler than that and has a potentially much wider audience, some of whom are already unknowingly using some of the technologies that contribute to altmetrics. Altmetrics has the potential to be of use to every academic, PhD and master's student thinking of going into a research career. While the term and the concept of altmetrics have been around in popular use only since 2012, the ideas and opportunities that seek to exploit it have been around for longer.

    Although altmetrics is not commonplace or widely discussed outside the offices of some fund holders, publishers, PhD students, scientists and a few librarians, it has significant traction and potential. So much so that this book was commissioned to help library and information professionals gain a better understanding of the subject. To this author's mind, librarians and information professionals have an important part to play in the use of altmetrics, and the opportunity is there for them to take, should they wish to do so.

  • 4 - Identifying and understanding your community

  • from PART 2 - YOUR COMMUNITY: FROM PERCEPTIONS TO PRACTICE
  • Edited by Sharon Markless
  • Elizabeth Bentley, Sarah Pavey, Sue Shaper, Sally Todd, Carol Webb
  • Book:
    The Innovative School Librarian
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 May 2016, pp 53-70

  • Summary

    Throughout this book a key message has emerged: the librarian who is closely identified with the processes of teaching and learning within the school has the power to make the most difference. Understanding our community and the range of opportunities there is crucial if we are to make this a reality. This is not as easy as it might first appear. Schools are highly complex organizations and political in nature – and things are not always as they appear. Exploring beneath the surface will help us to ascertain the teaching and learning priorities of the school so that we can focus our energies. Ultimately our research informs our management of change and leadership of learning.

    How do we define our community?

    We have to be clear about how we see our school community. Since it consists of individuals whose needs are ever changing as they grow and develop, study of these needs enables us to evaluate our effectiveness in developing the library's role. Our professional ethics require us to ensure that our services are representative and inclusive of all in that community, but in practical terms we have to decide who we think the library is for. Should we buy popular adult fiction for staff holiday reads? Should we buy books in Russian for just one pupil when Russian is not on the curriculum? Should we lend materials to the local primary school? Should we provide a collection of resources for school governors?

    There is also the wider community of parents and governors. Do we see provision for these groups as part of our role? In the UK, schools in the independent sector must develop their role of charitable use, and in the state sector schools are under pressure to extend their opening hours and enhance community involvement. Do we need to think about who will use our services beyond the school walls and if so how do we respond to this responsibility? Recent technological advances and the use of social media have made it easier to share information with others.

  • 3 - Bridging the gap between how we see ourselves and how others see us

  • from PART 1 - WHO IS THE LIBRARIAN?
  • Edited by Sharon Markless
  • Elizabeth Bentley, Sarah Pavey, Sue Shaper, Sally Todd, Carol Webb
  • Book:
    The Innovative School Librarian
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 May 2016, pp 39-50

  • Summary

    A gap between practice and professional beliefs can arise in all sectors of the library world and, it appears, in all areas of education. Indeed, some experienced teachers are finding that the ideals that attracted them to the profession are no longer valued and that priorities they do not share rule the day. Cognitive dissonance is a term that describes what happens when someone has to absorb opposing points of view (Festinger, 1957) or when new information or a new interpretation of information challenges existing knowledge or ideals (Atherton, 2013). We may experience this when our vision differs from that of our school community. What may seem the ‘professional pathway’ for us may conflict with the school leadership's plans. When this happens, a dichotomy may arise between principles and practice and we will need to bridge the gap between others’ expectations and our beliefs.

    Is there always a dichotomy between principles and practice?

    What level of congruence between our own ideology and our school's requirements should we expect? We frequently reconcile ourselves to the fact that not everything can be ideal and we will not always be in total sympathy with our employers. Unfortunately, as time goes by, tensions may develop when we are constrained to act against our values, in order to comply with the school's outlook, and so a gulf between belief and practice may emerge. The cognitive dissonance we experience may cause a gradual modification in our views as a result of accom - modating to the school's required behaviour. On the other hand, a confident practitioner might take a job exactly because of that challenge, because it offers the opportunity for them to make a real difference. Influence and impact can work both ways in reconciling opposing views.

    Sometimes we do not have access to the vision and strategy of our senior leaders and instead we are on the receiving end of operational necessities. If we do not understand the bigger picture it is easy to perceive a conflict between our own ideas and those of the leadership team. In our turn, we may not take steps to communicate our vision of the library and where it sits in the work of the school. We need to understand what is going on and not necessarily characterize it as a gap.

  • 2 - Sharing metadata across discovery systems

  • Edited by Louise F Spiteri
  • Book:
    Managing Metadata in Web-scale Discovery Systems
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 May 2016, pp 17-56

  • Summary

    As we increasingly use web-scale discovery systems to help clients find a wide assortment of library materials, how do we manage the different metadata schemes used to describe these different materials? This involves the concept of mapping within and across collections, depending on the scope of the collection. How do we manage these mappings to provide seamless discovery? How do we create, maintain and share records that reflect the needs, languages and identities of culturally and ethnically varied communities?

    The importance of sharing across library silos

    Patrons are looking for easy access to curated, high quality materials through the library, yet until somewhat recently, libraries have struggled with showcasing the extent of their digital collections. Accessing the variety of digital and digitized library contents required visiting a number of electronic resources, including the online library catalogue, licensed journal articles in specialized library databases, institutional repository contents, and the contents of curated resources available on the web or through other systems. Barriers to searching these disparate systems included how content was indexed, retrieved and displayed. Before patrons could begin to search these systems, they had to know the systems even existed.

    One early solution to the problem of siloed information was the use of federated searching. With federating searching, patrons could query multiple databases, and have results retrieved for each. Sophisticated federated search engines de-duplicated the results if indeed a hit was found in more than one resource. Federated searching is slow, however, and requires that a number of web-based databases respond quickly to a query. Federated searching was a marked improvement over system-by-system queries, but it was fraught with problems nonetheless.

    The advent of the current generation of discovery systems that rely on large-scale central indexes generated from content representing the broad range of databases, electronic journal collections, as well as metadata describing local physical and digital collections, brings an important advancement over federated search applications that prevailed previously. These federated search platforms relied on casting search queries to multiple content targets to receive and display results to users.

  • 1 - Introduction: the landscape of web-scale discovery

  • Edited by Louise F Spiteri
  • Book:
    Managing Metadata in Web-scale Discovery Systems
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 May 2016, pp 1-16

  • Summary

    Introduction: from search to discovery

    An area of growing importance and concern that I address in my courses on the organization of information, as well as basic and advanced cataloguing, is the ability of our existing library metadata standards and practices to provide sufficiently robust means to manage the growing assortment of library materials available in public and especially academic libraries, including books, e-books, journal articles (print and digital), special collections, archival collections, videos, music, open access collections and so forth.

    The library catalogue has typically and traditionally provided access to only parts of the collections owned by a library system, such as physical collections of books, journals, DVDs, CDs and so forth. The bibliographic records for these collections are typically structured using standard library metadata systems such as the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), controlled vocabularies, normally Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), and encoded within the Machine-Readable Cataloging (MARC) framework. Increasingly, however, particularly in academic libraries, a number of institutional collections may not be indexed in the central library catalogue, and are thus not accessible via a central portal.

    Historically, the catalogue has provided access to materials that are bought and processed within the library's system workflow. Materials that are licensed, such as e-books, pass through a different workflow and often have different processing and discovery systems associated with them. Institutionally digitized or born-digital materials have yet other workflows and systems associated with them. Institutional repositories are expanding in scope to include physical collections, digital collections, digital news feeds, course materials and syllabi, images, audio files and so forth (Balnaves, 2013). Traditional library catalogues have struggled to provide an adequate search portal to access these different resources, especially since the bibliographic records can consist of different metadata standards (more about this later).

    Let us use a generic university environment to provide an illustration of a typical search environment for academic libraries. The library catalogue can provide a search portal to a number of collections that form part of the library's repository, such as:

  • • an e-book collection

  • • an e-journal collection

  • • a reference collection

  • • government documents

  • • audio-visual resources

  • • monographs

  • • DVDs and CDs.

  • 4 - Redefining library resources in discovery systems

  • Edited by Louise F Spiteri
  • Book:
    Managing Metadata in Web-scale Discovery Systems
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 May 2016, pp 91-112

  • Summary

    Introduction

    As the nature and form of the library catalogue has evolved over time, so has the definition of library resources. In fact, the term ‘resources’ used in this context is a relatively recent development, as traditionally library assets have been referred to as ‘materials’. While the word ‘materials’ is broader in scope than terms for specific things managed by libraries, such as books, journals or DVDs, it still implies a physicality that no longer accurately reflects the wide array of resources managed by libraries, particularly research libraries. Most large research libraries, and many smaller libraries, especially those associated with more recently established academic institutions, allocate a significant proportion of their budgets towards licensed electronic content, including e-books and journals. These resources not only lack a physical embodiment, but they are often not even owned by the library. The library pays for access to the content, but the access is typically not perpetual and can change over time.

    The increased scope of web-scale library discovery systems leads us to further reconsider the definition of library resources, and what we provide access to in the catalogue. Along with all the physical and electronic resources managed by the library, additional content provided by users or third parties can be made accessible, as well as a multitude of other services. Should libraries include information about these services within the discovery system? What are the best methods for doing this, and what challenges does this present for the management of metadata?

    From catalogue to discovery system

    The original library catalogues took several different forms, beginning as books and scrolls inventorying the contents of an individual library's physical collection. These evolved into the nearly ubiquitous card catalogue, which was the primary format from the late 19th century through the 1970s. It is probably safe to say that when online public access catalogues began to emerge in the 1980s, most librarians did not anticipate the multitude of ways in which the continuing development of information technology would force them to completely rethink the role and purpose of the library catalogue. Initially, OPACs sought to replicate as much as possible the features of the card catalogue, in providing an inventory of materials physically held by the library, and allowing users to search by browsing indexes of authors, titles and subjects.

Page 128 of 293