Posts Tagged ‘A-to-Z’

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

A Mash’s a Mash for A’ That

Posted on January 28th, 2011 by Paul Stainthorp

I was in Scotland earlier this week for the latest instalment in the Mashed Library programme: Haggis and Mash formed the first part of a two-day event looking at open source and open data in libraries, held at the National e-Science Centre (NeSC) in Edinburgh.

McEwan Hall

Various people spoke throughout the morning about different aspects of open library systems, including products such as VuFind and Blacklight; software toolkits like Juice*; Linked Data and RDA… followed, in the afternoon, by the now-traditional practical mashing workshops.

Julian Cheal

(*An aside: I spent some time talking to Talis’s Matt Machell about Juice and discussing how it might be used to enhance the e-journals A-to-Z; I’ve since installed it on the Learning Lab server and we’re going to give it a go!)

Mashing. Really mashing.

Nicola Osborne, EDINA’s social media officer, blogged the event live (and very comprehensively); you can also see plenty of photos from Haggis and Mash, on flickr, including this one of the cutting of a celebratory ‘Happy Birthday Open Library Systems 1.0‘ cake…

Happy Birthday Open Library Systems 1.0

Next stop: Pancakes and Mash on 8 March 2011 in Lincoln.

We got print journals in your electronic journals! We got electronic journals in your print journals!!

Posted on September 14th, 2010 by Paul Stainthorp

While my colleagues are busy adding 856 $u tags to MARC records, I’ve been using our Library’s list of current subscriptions to update information about print journal holdings on our e-journals website.

I first did this in May 2009: I wasn’t even sure if it was a job worth doing until I discovered that links to current print holdings wers accounting for one in every fifteen links followed out from the University’s [supposedly "electronic"] journals A-to-Z site.

Photo - me, "reading" a "journal", "yesterday"

(Photo - me, “reading” a “journal”, “yesterday”.)

The Library has only recently transferred many of its print-only (or print+”e”) journal subscriptions to electronic-only, so a freshly-dumped file of our print holdings data was needed. (The shift in subscription format aside, dozens of minor title changes had left confusing, semi-orphaned records in the A-to-Z.)

Screenshot of print holdings on the University of Lincoln's e-journals A-to-Z websiteIt turns out that, from 600 print+”e” titles in May 2009, the University now has 319: the rest, presumably, having gone “e”-only or having been cancelled outright.

The custom ‘package’ of data for our e-journals A-to-Z site was created by taking a list of the ISSNs, plus holdings, for all of our current subscriptions; filtering out those ISSNs which don’t appear in our A-to-Z (i.e. those which are print-only); then using a =LOOKUP() function in Microsoft Excel to pull across a matching title from our e-journals knowledgebase.

Next: to see if usage of this package, as a percentage of total e-journal usage at the University of Lincoln, changes [from 7% last year] over the coming academic year, now that—presumably—the relative demands for electronic vs. print journals have themselves changed at the University …and now that there are only half the print+”e” titles to choose from.

Google magazines (slight return)

Posted on August 20th, 2010 by Paul Stainthorp

I’ve just recreated my list of magazines from Google Books for the University’s e-journals site.

Google now hosts 199 digitised magazine titles, and for the sake of 10 minutes’ work every few months it would be a shame to miss out on the extra full-text coverage, which often complements the “library” sources for a title.

E.g. for the frankly un-put-downable Estonian Journal of Archaeology (available as an Open Access (OA) journal from 2006-, and indexed in Art Full Text), Google provides the missing articles from 1997 (vol.1) up to 2006.

Record for the 'Estonian Journal of Archaeology' on the University of Lincoln's list of e-journals.

I’d like to be able to harvest the Google Books content to build my list using the standard mashlib toolkit (Google spreadsheets; Yahoo! Pipes; some coffee)… but while use of Google’s =ImportHtml() function is limited to 50 per spreadsheet, and because Google search pages block robots.txt files, I can’t figure out a way of doing so.

Instead, I’ve been copying-and-pasting the search results pages into an ordinary Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (thanks, again, Google, for making this possible through your magazine browse page), then using a custom Excel function to ‘unmask’ the URL hidden behind each hyperlinked magazine title.

Google Books magazine browse page, pasted into an Excel spreadsheet.

Finally, I use a bit of text-to-column splitting, search/replace, and filling-in of package-wide fields, to give me a compatible, tab-delimited text file which I then upload to our e-journals knowledge base (which happens to be EBSCO A-to-Z) – I used EBSCO’s custom notes feature to link to Google’s cover image to each entry in the file.