Posts Tagged ‘A-to-Z’

KB+ project Technical Advisory Group (TAG)

Posted on January 31st, 2012 by Paul Stainthorp

……aaand just as an adjunct to my last blog post, it’s worth mentioning that I’m currently serving [time] on the TAG (Technical Advisory Group) for the JISC Knowledge Base+ (KB+) project. We had our first meeting on 19 December 2011 at HEFCE’s offices in central London.

Over the course of 2011-2012 HEFCE will be investing £600,000 in the creation of a shared service knowledge base for UK academic libraries to support the management of e-resources by the UK academic community.

This is my idea of a worthy cause—e-journal knowledgebase problems being a particular favourite of mine—and I’m pleased HEFCE and JISC Collections have decided it’s worth investing in a serious and robust attempt to share information between universities and to build better systems for managing e-resources. I’m happy to be involved.

Worth reading = KB+: What’s in it for libraries?

  • Improved Data and Tools
  • Enhanced JISC Services
  • Improving ERM systems
  • Shared Community Activity
For the untainted by ERM jargon, Wikipedia explains as well as anywhere what a knowledgebase actually is and what some of the challenges are. The University of Lincoln’s e-journals knowledgebase is the EBSCO A-to-Z. Also related is the work of the UKSG/NISO Knowledge Bases And Related Tools (KBART) working group.

E-journal authentication behind the mask

Posted on November 16th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

This blog post is an attempt to elaborate on a problem with managing on/off campus access to electronic journals at the University of Lincoln. It’s a problem which confuses a lot of our users. I hinted at the issue in an earlier blog post.

Underlying the problem is a lack of consistency in the way e-journal platform providers/publishers implement Athens/”Shibboleth” access to their content.

I think the answer to this problem is “…use EZProxy as well or instead“. (We plan to do so.) However if anyone from a ‘strong’ federated-access position can suggest a way around the problem based purely on honest, SAML-based principles, then I’m all ears!

~~~wavy lines~~~

The system we use to manage access to e-journals at the University of Lincoln is EBSCO’s electronic journals A-to-Z. Within its underlying journals knowledgebase, the A-to-Z stores a URL for each journal – here I’ll refer to that URL as A.

The A-to-Z also provides the facility—a very nice facility, as it happens—to rewrite that URL according to a set of predictable rules, generating a new URL which is a function of the original URL: in my pseudomathematical shorthand I’ll call this f(A).

EBSCO call this facility of theirs a “Proxy Server”. Now – I could be being thick, but I don’t think this is a proxy server: it’s a URL rewriting application which merely happens to be used by some libraries to redirect traffic via a URL-rewriting proxy (such as the aforementioned EZProxy); in fact it can be used to ‘mask’ any URL.

We use the so-called “Proxy Server” facility to mask the default URL, A, and instead direct the browser back to the OpenAthens authentication point for the journal provider/publisher (allowing authentication both via the UK Federation and trad. Athens), with a redirect back to the post-authentication page for the journal. We’ll call that page A′ (i.e. “A prime”). A′ permits access to the full text of the journal.

Flowchart of URL masking and authentication workflow

N.B. it’s only possible to do this at all if the Athens/UKAMF authentication point for the journal has a predictable structure. If A′ includes any randomly-generated or unknown elements that aren’t in A and which vary from journal to journal, then A′ can’t be generated by f(A) – so some providers rule themselves out at the first hurdle. Bonjour, most legal databases! Yeah, you know who you are…

If it isn’t possible to create an A-to-Z “Proxy Server” URL mask, then our usual fallback position is to rely on IP authentication for on-campus traffic, but to instruct the user to manually select an Athens/’my institution’-type login for off campus access. This is not ideal: it confuses off-campus users who are used to seamless on-campus access, and it requires that we create help guides—I name and shame thee, Elsevier ScienceDirect—to lead people through often terribly confusing login procedures.

Flowchart of authentication workflow with on- and off-campus differences

There’s another complication: some journal providers, upon Athens-esque authentication from A, don’t send the user to A′. Instead, they redirect to a generic post-authentication page, D.

This = Bad. If you do this, I… just… can’t speak to you right now.

If we don’t (or can’t) apply a URL-rewriting mask in the A-to-Z for a journal package which exhibits this awful behaviour, then we’re relegating off-campus users to a third-class service; further widening the gap between on- and off-campus behaviour. If we do apply a mask, we relegate all users to the same lack of functionality. Which compromise do we choose? We’re damaging the user experience in both cases. [Click the diagram below to embiggen.]

Flowchart of complex authentication workflow for masked and non-masked journals

Finally, and for the sake of completeness, I think that this [below] would be the equivalent flowchart for EZProxy. (You can see why some libraries—and apparently their users—find it attractively simple. It also has the advantage that the ’masking’ is consistent across all or most journals, the configuration for each e-journal provider being done within EZProxy itself.)

Flowchart of the authentication workflow using EZProxy

Last word – here’s a useful page from Eduserv of Athens-authentication deep links for various e-resource providers. It may be helpful in creating masked URLs for Athens-authenticated journals.

New journals available off campus (via LibResProxy)

Posted on November 10th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

The following electronic journals are now available from off campus via the e-journals A-to-Z:

  1. Capital & Class (Sage Publications, issn:0309-8168)
  2. Ecology (Ecological Society of America, issn:0012-9658)
  3. New Left Review (New Left Review, issn:0028-6060)
  4. Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science, issn:0036-8075)

…plus the following 14 titles from Palgrave Macmillan Journals:

  1. Corporate Reputation Review (issn:1363-3589)
  2. Economic & Labour Market Review (issn:1751-8326)
  3. Family Spending (issn:0965-1403)
  4. Feminist Review (issn:0141-7789)
  5. Financial Statistics (issn:0015-203X)
  6. Journal of Information Technology (issn:0268-3962)
  7. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases (issn:2043-8869)
  8. Journal of International Business Studies (issn:0047-2506)
  9. Journal of the Operational Research Society (issn:0160-5682)
  10. Knowledge Management Research & Practice (issn:1477-8238)
  11. Monthly Digest of Statistics (issn:0308-6666)
  12. United Kingdom Balance of Payments – The Pink Book (issn:0950-7558)
  13. United Kingdom Economic Accounts (issn:1350-4401)
  14. United Kingdom National Accounts – The Blue Book (issn:0267-8691)

To access these journals you will need to log in using your network\username and password.

Screenshot of the e-journals A-to-Z

(Technical note: this alternative method of access uses LibResProxy, a CGI proxy application which mimics IP-based on-campus authentication. It will be slower than normal access, and not all features of the database may be available.)

Notes on: EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS)

Posted on July 22nd, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

The EBSCO Discovery Service is EBSCO’s own next-generation resource discovery system, built on the already-very-familiar EBSCOhost database platform.

EBSCO’s particular ‘angle‘ for EDS is that its content is built up out of a lot of high-quality, ‘scholarly’, subject-indexed content (similar to the individual bibliographic databases on EBSCOhost), which they are keen to push as superior to basic ‘Google-type’ keyword-indexed searching, where the quality-assured, ‘information literacy’ aspect to resource discovery may not be as strong.

(Enough scare quotes for ya?)

Features of EDS:

  • Highly customisable/’brandable’ – logos, colours, background images, text/field labels;
  • Uses the same administrative interface (for back-end configuration) as EBSCOhost;
  • Integrates with EBSCO Electronic Journals A-to-Z and LinkSource (i.e. Find it @ Lincoln) for access to full text via OpenURL;
  • Harvests MARC records from local catalogue, and repository etc. records (via OAI-PMH, presumably, although I forgot to ask);
  • Content: as well as the library’s own local collections (above), EDS searches a central EBSCO ‘base index’ of content/metadata from ~20,000 providers, plus content from those EBSCOhost databases to which the library subscribes; it also contains a lot of enhanced book metadata (cover images, subject headings, reviews, etc.). See EBSCO’s website.
  • It’s possible to set up a public, ‘guest’ version of EDS to search catalogue, repository, and the main EBSCO index – then allow your own users to log in and search the more complete content including subscription databases (though EBSCO suggest that few libraries actually provide guest search in practice, despite asking for it to be made possible!); it’s also possible to use EDS to create custom search interfaces for groups of packages/databases (or even for individual databases) – e.g. subject clusters;
  • Users can extend their search out to remote databases (i.e. those not included in EBSCO’s central base index + local databases) via a traditional metasearch facility (related: EBSCOhost Integrated Search);
  • It’s possible to limit the default search to full-text items only (making use of the coverage information held in the A-to-Z/LinkSource knowledgebase) – however EBSCO advise that most subscribing libraries don’t do this – instead starting their users off with searches of the complete EDS collection, then later on allowing users to narrow the search results down to full-text-only, if they want to;
  • Various APIs, HTML widgets, and other extension tools available through an ‘EBSCOhost Integration Toolkit’ (http://support.ebscohost.com/eit/) – N.B. some of these can also be used with the existing EBSCOhost databases;
  • Developer community of library people extending and customising EDS – example blog posts here and here;
  • While the advanced search options and user interface are highly configurable, there’s no facility to adjust the search ranking algorithms – i.e. the relative placing of items/collections against each other in search results (as is possible in e.g. Ex Libris Primo);
  • FRBRising of search results will be introduced in 2012;
  • EBSCO will offer libraries free trial access to EDS, including MARC record harvest where possible.

UK HE libraries using EDS include:

A fresh coat of paint for the e-journals A-to-Z

Posted on July 12th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

The Library’s electronic journals A-to-Z service is in line to receive an updated look and feel this summer.

beta preview of the still-in-development new-look A-to-Z will be available until the end of August. The new A-t0-Z will be launched on 1 September 2011. EBSCO Information Services, who supply the A-to-Z to the University, are making these changes to bring the look of the A-to-Z more in line with their EBSCOhost databases.

The Library will be working through August to tweak the new-look A-to-Z site, to make sure it’s properly set up for the University of Lincoln, and to produce some new training materials on using the A-to-Z to find e-journals by title.

You can try the (still beta!) new-look A-to-Z for the University of Lincoln, at: http://beta.atoz.ebsco.com/titles/1710

Screenshot of the new-look A-to-Z

EBSCO have some slides about the enhancements they’re making to the A-to-Z, available to download from their website.

Pruning surplus e-journal packages

Posted on June 23rd, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

I’ve removed a number of e-journal ‘vendor’ packages from the e-journals A-to-Z.

The titles within them are all listed under/provided by another e-journal package (usually SwetsWise FullText Titles), so we haven’t lost access to any e-journal content.

The ‘pruned’ packages are:

  • Atypon Link Journals
  • JSTOR Current Collection
  • Pier Professional
  • SpringerLINK Journals

This is part of the work we’re doing to simplify our Electronic Resources Management (ERM) procedures.

Managing e-journal holdings: different types of package: any tips?

Posted on June 9th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

The University of Lincoln Library provides access to lots and lots of electronic journals72,000-odd unique e-journal titles, at last count.

Some of these 72,000 titles are individual subscriptions – that is, journals that we pick off the shelf and pay for one-by-one – because they’re particularly appropriate to the teaching/research of the University. Many, many more of them are journals that come to us as part of a one-size-fits-all “Big Deal” database package, where we have little or no control over the titles on offer, but where there’s a critical mass of valuable content with makes it worth our while to subscribe to the whole thing. Yet more are freebie and/or Open Access titles available on the Internet which we list to make it easy for our users to find them.

In all, we maintain access to 73 separate e-journal packages (plus a handful of individual oddities that don’t form part of a package), and nearly 110,600 e-journal links (a fair number of titles are duplicated across packages).

Screenshot of the A-to-Z

To help us keep tabs on all this content, and to make sense of the many different e-journal access points on behalf of Library users, we make use of a nifty tool called the Electronic Journals A-to-Z, which is provided and maintained by a company called EBSCO Information Services. The A-to-Z consists of:

  • A hosted e-journal ‘knowledgebase’: a directory of all the possible e-journals available, from which we can select those titles to which we have access;
  • A public, searchable journal listings site, with tools for customising the display of particular e-journals (or entire packages), including the holdings data (i.e. the start- and end-dates of full-text holdings) for each title;
  • An OpenURL link resolver, which we brand as – Find it @ Lincoln
  • Various admin services including usage reports.

Even with the tools that the A-to-Z provides, it’s still a lot of work to keep on top of so many e-journals from so many different sources. To help us (“us” being me and two colleagues from the E-resources and Acquisitions teams), we maintain an ERM spreadsheet in Google Docs: this contains details of all the acquisitions & technical information we need to manage each package in the list.

The packages fall into four distinct categories [below]; each category has to be maintained in a different way.

  1. Big Deal“-style databases, to which we subscribe in toto. These cause little or no bother. EBSCO do most of the work for us. Their A-to-Z knowledgebase contains details of all the titles in the database; EBSCO add new titles and remove old ones for us; we can be reasonably confident that their holdings data accurately reflect the database. The only real problems we have with these (and all) packages are around authentication – but that’s another story. This class of packages includes all the EBSCOhost databases (such as Academic Search Elite), most business databases, quite a few packages from JISC Collections, and all Open-Access platforms.
  2. “Vendor packages”, made up of a selection of individual titles from a single publisher or journal aggregator. Although all the titles exist within the knowledgebase, ready to be selected, EBSCO have no way of knowing in advance which titles we hold (save for a few titles for which EBSCO Information Services act as our ‘subscription agent’ – keeping up with all this?), nor the details of our full-text holdings. These packages (which include most of the high-impact scholarly journals from recognised academic publishers; those which—by definition—the Academic Subject Librarians have chosen on their constituencies’ behalf) are hard work to maintain, as well as being very prone to error. For any more than a small handful of titles, we can’t possibly keep on top of them ‘manually’, and must rely on downloaded publishers’ holdings reports, which we then have to process into an EBSCO-friendly, tab-delimited format before uploading them to the A-to-Z. Publishers rarely make their holdings reports available in an immediately usable format, and subscription holdings tend to be irritatingly regularly subject to change, making this the Forth Bridge (Sisyphean task for non UK-ers!) of e-resources admin. We’re starting to try and reduce the size of the job by looking to see if all of these packages are absolutely necessary: I’ve a suspicion that some of the smaller publishers could be rolled up into the larger ‘aggregator’ packages with no loss of access.
  3. “Other” titles that don’t belong to any package. These represent a tiny proportion of our e-journals (we currently list 45 “Other” titles out of 72,000 = 0.06%) and an even more minuscule proportion of our overall usage… BUT are responsible for a disproportionately large amount of work: especially around authentication. For that reason, I try and keep the number of “Other” titles to the absolute minimum possible. I’ll use any excuse to drop one :-)
  4. Finally, what EBSCO refers to as “Custom” collections (we have 13 in total): ‘local’ packages (for local people?): stuff that doesn’t appear in EBSCO’s knowledgebase at all. This is a grab-bag of oddities, experiments, print holdings (surprisingly popular), RSS feeds, and packages with really, really funky authentication requirements. Same as for the Vendor packages in 2, we have to add these to the A-to-Z by constructing and uploading a tab-delimited file. Again, I battle to keep these “Custom” packages to a minimum: but in actual fact they’re less trouble than they might be. We have complete control over the data, so they’re relatively easy to update, and they tend to be fairly low-maintenance once they’re up and running.

You can browse a list of our current e-journal packages at: http://lncn.eu/h59

I’d really, really like to simplify things, especially for classes 3 and 4. Question for fellow e-resources librarians: what tricks do you have for managing your e-journal packages and holdings information?

The joy of e-resource authentication (warning: may contain sarcasm, hyperbole, and self-indulgent whining)

Posted on May 18th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

(Alternative title: why I’m going bald.)

Managing the authentication of university students and staff to electronic library resources is an awful, awful pain and I wish it would all just disappear. There, I’ve said it.

My line manager (Deputy Librarian: Academic & Technical Services, Lys Ann Reiners) is very keen for me to involve as many Library staff as possible in managing our authentication régime. For most aspects of my job, I’m more than happy to spread the love around (I don’t agree with keeping knowledge—or extra work—to myself), but when it comes to authentication, I feel guilty even asking my colleagues for help, in case I expose them to some kind of toxic authentication ju-ju death rays.

I realise that I can’t shy away from explaining things merely because they’re confusing and depressing. We can only make sense of authentication for our users once I’ve stopped putting my fingers in my ears and hoping it’ll all just go away. We have already made a start on documenting the mess, but it was these [Nicole Harris] two [Dave Pattern] recent blog posts which have spurred me into writing this, in the spirit of catharsis:

Authentication to e-resources at the University of Lincoln

A trilogy. A tragedy. A travesty.

1. IP authentication (for on-campus users)

  • Some (but not all) of the 150+ e-resource publishers/providers with which we have a relationship have the University’s IP ranges on file. This allows people using on-campus computers to seamlessly access restricted content (e.g. full text) from those providers’ sites.
  • But we have no real procedure for keeping those IP ranges up to date – i.e., of informing providers of any changes. I’ve asked my colleague (Library (E-resources) AssistantElif Varol to do something about this.
  • In particular, we now have single ‘apparent’ external IP addresses associated 1:1 with each University building. This should mean we can [a] simplify the information we give to providers, and [b] associate usage with particular buildings.
  • So far, so simple. But the fact that on-campus authentication is so seamless (as far as our users are concerned – they needn’t even know it’s there!) does cause a problem when those same users try and access the same resource from off campus and don’t get the same seamless access.
  • Also, University ICT services occasionally look worried when I tell them about IP authentication. They just aren’t comfortable that I pass on details of our IP ranges to third parties.
  • For resources where only IP-based authentication is available, in order to provide off-campus access we make use of a CGIProxy-based application which we call ‘LibResProxy’ (see part 3, below), with mixed success.

2. [Open]Athens and “Shibboleth” (but not really)

Deep breath:

  • We are members of the UK Access Management Federation. Our nominated, outsourced Identity Provider (IdP) is Eduserv, to whom we pay an annual subscription. This means we can use their product, OpenAthens (often just referred to as “Athens”), to provide local authentication (via University Portal login using network\accountID) to both ‘traditional’ Athens-protected resources and to resources which have abandoned Athens in favour of true federated access (which lots of people refer to as “Shibboleth“, even though that’s not really the correct terminology). The Eduserv software we’re running on the Portal is called ‘AthensDA’; we probably ought to upgrade this to a newer version called ‘OpenAthensLA 2.0‘, but we haven’t really discussed it yet.
  • As far as the user is concerned, this means we can create a link to an e-resource which will work both on- and off-campus. These URLs are generally in the form: http://auth.athensams.net/setorg.php?id=LINCUNI&ath_returl=XXXXXXX, where the first part of the URL sets an Athens ‘preferred organisation’ cookie, associating the user’s computer with the University of Lincoln, and “XXXXXXX” is the percent-encoded URL of either: [a] the defined Athens authentication point for resources that use the ‘old’, traditional Athens protocol (these have to be activated first—”cascaded to permission sets” in Eduserv terminology—by an administrator); or [b] a WAYFless URL for a resource which uses the ‘new’ federated access. The format of this last category of WAYFless URLs are unpredictable and very difficult to build, and for some resources can’t be created at all, leaving the user with no choice but to navigate a horrible “Where Are You From?” form where they have to select their institution from a list before they’re allowed to log in.
  • What the user sees when they click on this link is a blue-and-orange login page with a link to ‘Go to the University of Lincoln login page »‘. Clicking on that link displays a pop-up http login box (unless they are on campus using IE, in which case they’re logged in automatically), in which the user must enter some variation of network\accountID and their University network password. This is highly variable, depending on the user’s operating system and browser.
    Screenshot of the OpenAthens login point
  • This is fine for situations where we can control exactly where the user is going and what links they are clicking on, and where we have a chance to set the Athens cookie: this happy state of affairs applies to the University Portal, and almost nowhere else; certainly not to the open web and users coming via Google Scholar.
  • Problems: and they are legion:
    1. We’ve not been systematic about migrating resources from the ‘old’ Athens login to the ‘new’ federated access. (We deliberately didn’t want to stop using ‘old’ Athens links to resources if they were working. If it ain’t broke…) For the user, there’s no difference between the two, hence the lack of urgency – for the Library, it’s become rather confused and difficult to manage.
    2. If, for whatever reason, the user doesn’t end up with (or loses) the Athens cookie which sets their preferred organisation, then they don’t see the link to ’Go to the University of Lincoln login page »‘, and instead have to follow the rigmarole of setting their preferred institution again. Needless to say, most students and staff are entirely mystified by this arcane process.
    3. Related to point 2: a students or member of staff who has a relationship with more than one UK institution (e.g. two universities/colleges, or a university and the NHS) tend to run into problems, because you can’t easily have two Athens ‘preferred organisation’ cookies set at the same time on the same machine. I know, I know: it doesn’t sound very “federated”, does it?
    4. Sometimes… it …Just. Doesn’t. Work. (Because of pop-up blockers, trusted sites, peculiarities of various versions of Windows, bugs in Google Chrome, leaves on the line, etc.) When this happens—when we can’t solve the problem—and when the user is getting very frustrated, I have to grit my teeth and generate a separate, “classic“ hum————— Athens username and password for that user. This gets around the access problem in the short term, but tends only to increase confusion in the longer term.
    5. Finally, and most frustratingly: all of this is completely blown out of the water if the user encounters a resource (a journal article, say) on the open web: via Google, or even via our own Electronic Journals A-to-Z. They don’t automatically see the OpenAthens login point, so they have to hunt down a link to “login to Athens here” (or similar). Each provider deals with this differently, so a user can’t necessarily apply what they’ve learnt from one resource to any other. Some providers (‘SPs’ in access-speak) allow libraries to construct complex ‘masked’ deep-linking authentication URLs. These make it easier for us to automate the login process from the A-to-Z to an individual journal. Others just don’t work that way – so we write help guides instead. Eduserv have a web page about creating deep links for authentication.
  • If you’re not utterly, hopelessly confused by all of the above, then I bow down to your machine-like intelligence.

3. The grab-bag approach: everything else

  • For e-resources that don’t work with OpenAthens, we have a number of tricks of last resort. Some of these tricks have been built for us by Tim Simmonds of the Online Services Team (ICT). When they work, they’re brilliant. But we have no control over whether they’ll work or not with a particular resource. They tend to use the Portal-esque network\accountID and password as login, which is at least consistent with OpenAthens.
  • This includes our form capture tool, which we use to create ‘faked’ URLs for resources that have their own username and password (in effect, it pastes the login details into an HTML login form on the user’s behalf and hides the authentication from public view). The popular business database Factiva works like this.
  • It also includes LibResProxy, which provides off-campus access to certain (IP-authenticated) library e-resources. We fall back on it where no other method of off-campus authentication exists. It’s a bit hit-and-miss whether it will work with any given website, depending greatly on how the site is constructed and particularly on how heavily the site makes use of scripts (e..g JavaScript) rather than ‘vanilla’ HTML: for instance, it’s fine with the ACM Digital Library, but spits its dummy out over the IEEE Computer Society Digital Library.
  • Last of all – if all else fails, we give a username and password out to the student and tell them to get on with it. We change these passwords once a year as a security measure.

4. Whatchagonnadoaboutit?

We can’t go on living like this. In a future blog post, I’m going to map out a possible way forward for authentication. It’ll probably involve thinking about some of the plans my colleagues in ICT have for single-sign on and OAuth, and what those plans mean in a library context.

E-journals A-to-Z unavailable this weekend

Posted on April 27th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

The e-journals A-to-Z and Find it @ Lincoln link-resolver service will be unavailable this weekend.

  • From: Midnight on Friday, 29 April
  • Until: 5.00pm on Sunday, 1 May

This is being done so that EBSCO (who provide these services to the University of Lincoln) can upgrade their systems. Please accept our apologies for whatever inconvenience this causes you. You will still be able to search for and access the full-text of electronic journals by using the databases listed on the e-Library section of the University Portal.

More Google Analytics / Site Search

Posted on March 30th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

I’ve just enabled Google Site Search on the e-journals A-to-Z (see my previous post for context!)

Looking at the first few days’ worth of keywords seems to paint an encouraging picture: we’ve always assumed [suspected; feared] that our users are terribly confused about what the A-to-Z is for; anecdotally, students get frustrated when they search by article keyword, author’s name, etc., and receive no results, because the only thing the A-to-Z understands is the names of journals (e.g. “Annals of Tourism Research“), ISSNs, and publishers.

That happens, undoubtedly, but seems to happen a lot less than we assume. The vast majority of the search terms in the top 500 searches (based on barely a week’s worth of data, admittedly) are valid A-to-Z searches, and ought to have led the user to something meaningful.

Screenshot of Google Site Search terms for the e-journals A-to-Z