Irrelevant Discovery Layers? An Evidence-Based Evaluation of Three Common Library Search Tools.
Over the past fifteen years, most academic librarians have implemented one-stop search tools, commonly referred to as discovery layers, to accommodate contemporary user expectations. In more recent years these tools have come under criticism due to their limitations and shortcomings. We set out to e...
| Publicado en: | Information Technology & Libraries Vol. 44; no. 2; pp. 1 - 22 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , |
| Formato: | tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
American Library Association
Jun2025
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=186511080&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 186511080 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 07309295 ITL jtl: Information Technology & Libraries issn: 07309295 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jun2025 vid: 44 iid: 2 pid: 55 pub: American Library Association place: Chicago, Illinois artinfo: ui: 186511080 186511080 186511080 10.5860/ital.v44i2.17266 186511080 ppf: 1 ppct: 21 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: Irrelevant Discovery Layers? An Evidence-Based Evaluation of Three Common Library Search Tools. aug: au: Szpunar, Ruth Bradley, Eric Gabrielson, Erin Pellegrino, Catherine affil: Reference, Instruction, and Outreach (RIO) Coordinator and Consultant, PALNI sug: subj: Libraries, Academic Information Storage Information Retrieval Reference Databases Library Services Professional Practice, Evidence-Based User-Computer Interface Information Seeking Behavior Internet Web Search Engines ab: Over the past fifteen years, most academic librarians have implemented one-stop search tools, commonly referred to as discovery layers, to accommodate contemporary user expectations. In more recent years these tools have come under criticism due to their limitations and shortcomings. We set out to evaluate if a discovery layer, when prompted with typical user keyword search strings, produced the most relevant search results when compared with two other widely accessible academic search tools. We compared search results from a discovery layer with a central index (WorldCat Discovery) with search results from a subscription interdisciplinary index and abstract database (Academic Search Complete) and a freely accessible academic web search engine (Google Scholar). We created a rubric detailed enough for multiple evaluators, who were the authors, to judge search results for currency, relevancy, proximity, and authority, as well as to assign appropriate penalties. Academic Search Complete search results received the highest overall scores, while WorldCat Discovery search results received the lowest overall scores. When considering individual pieces of the rubric, Academic Search Complete provided the most current and authoritative sources, while Google Scholar provided the most relevant sources. This article provides recommendations for libraries moving forward to consider the benefits and costs of discovery tools. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|