10 Books I want to Read

Books that Make the List

Mockingjay By Suzanne Collins- I had read the two previous books in the trilogy (and loved them!) so I searched by author to find the title of the third book. Mockingjay has an average rating of 4.7 so I have no doubt it will not disappoint!

The Help by Kathryn Stockett- I just finished reading Water for Elephants which is a great book about a man in the traveling circus in the 1920s. I searched for it and scrolled down to the sidebar to look at "people who viewed this also viewed..." and saw The Help. This reminded me that a friend had already recommended The Help, and it had just completely fallen off my radar. It has a rating of 4.48 on Good Reads.

In Defense of Food by Michael Pollen- I had skimmed the back of this book a few months ago and found it really interesting, but I never found the time to actually read it. While using Google Books, I saw their cooking section with Fast Food Nation displayed and it reminded me to add In Defense of Food back to my list.

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck- This used to be one of my favorite books, but it has been at least 8 years since I last read it. I know that it is a quick read so I really should do a little refresh and see if I can still count it among my top 10 list.

Corrag by Susan Fletcher- I went to Library Thing hoping to find a "what's popular now section," but because I did not have enough books saved in my library, it would not give me any recommendations. On the side, however, I saw a spot for "most requested books" and Corrag was listed. It is about a 16 year old girl who is waiting to be burned at the stake because she has been accused of being a witch in seventeenth century Scotland. The Salem Witch Trials fascinate me so this book might also be of some interest. I also checked it out on Good Reads and it has a 4.17 rating.

Frommer's Costa Rica by Eliot Greenspan- I am planning a trip to Costa Rica so I searched "Costa Rica Travel Guide" at Amazon; Frommer's book had the highest rating (almost 5 stars!) I have used Frommer's guides for other trips, and they have proven to be helpful resources with lots of good tips.

The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society by Mary Ann Shaffer- A list made by a fan of Steig Larson, an author who I happen to love, highly recommended The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Society. It has great reviews online and seems like it would be a nice book to read by the pool.

Cutting for Stone by A Verghese- One of my friends had recommended this book, but I had no idea what it was about. I logged onto WorldCat to read the summary and the reviews. It sounds like a good read, but I was disappointed in WorldCat though because there were only two reviews- and it turns out that this book has been on several best seller lists.

Sh*t My Dad Says by Justin Halpern- For this selection, I went to the New York Times Bestseller List to see what is popular. I have long since been a fan on Facebook of Sh*t my Dad Says. In essence, a son posts funny quips that his dad spouts off at random--sometimes with explanation, sometimes without. They are funny and lighthearted so I know I would enjoy this easy read.

PostSecret: Confessions on Life, Death, and God by Frank Warren- PostSecret is an ongoing project where people email a postcard filled with their secrets to Frank Warren. Each Sunday he posts a selection on his blog for followers to view. Sharing a secret out loud has been liberating for those who have sent in postcards, and fans often find themselves connecting with some of the selections. In addition, Frank has become a suicide prevention activist when he saw many of the secrets were about misery and unhappiness. He recently released this new book so it is a must-buy. It has a 4.8 star rating.

Resource Reviews

Google Books- I was surprised by how much I disliked Google Books. I am generally a fan of all things good, but in this case Google fell short. I did like the fact that it had popular books sorted by genre because that is often how I pick out my best read, but most of the other features I expected were absent. When you clicked on a book, it simply gave you a large pdf of the cover and links on where you could buy it. Reviews, summaries, and recommendations were seriously lacking.

WorldCat- I have always liked WorldCat. It shows you what area libraries stock the book, it connects you with critics reviews, it has a star rating system, it has user tags and related subjects, and it has lists that readers have compiled. The only thing that is a little lacking in the star recommendation. Some books might only have 2 or 3 ratings as opposed to a place like Amazon where most resources have hundreds of reviews.

GoodReads- GoodReads does a great job with book ratings and reviews. I would definitely trust the average star rating there more than WorldCat due to the shear number of reviews. The only thing I didn't like is that it would not publish a list of recommended books because I did not have at least 15 books saved. I would have preferred for each book I clicked on to have a "If you like this, read this..." type of section.

Amazon- I am an Amazon junkie, and I do not think any of the other resources will replace it. It has everything I want- reviews, lists, recommendations, ratings, summaries, links to authors' blogs and websites, and more. It even has a section of NY Times bestsellers which I find convenient. Plus, if I see a book I am interested in, I can always purchase it at a discount.

Analysis of Resources

Copyright and Access- Google Scholar Bibliography

This assignment was more challenging than I thought it would be. I have used numerous databases in the past and can typically navigate them quite easily. There are often advanced search features that allow you to narrow your search results and tailor them specifically to your needs. This way, you do not have to spend much time sifting through a bunch of resources that do not fit your criteria. For example, there is often a peer reviewed journal box that you can check if you only want to find articles in peer-reviewed, scholarly journals. However, each of these two databases left something to be desired.

The Literature and Information Sciences Database

My first problem with the Literature and Information Sciences Database is that it is a privately-owned database and employs a subscription model. Although this is true with many journal databases, you can still typically find multiple avenues to reach it- either through Kent State, OhioLink, Columbus Metropolitan Libraries, or others. This database must be one of the less popular ones because it was only accessible through Kent State with a Kent State log in. This should not have been a problem; however, the Kent State site was not functioning when I first started this assignment, which was frustrating to say the least. I found no alternatives to logging in through the Kent library homepage so I was forced to wait.

After I was able to log in, the database looked fairly similar to more popular databases like Academic Search Premier. I searched "Copyright and Access" and over 1,000 articles were returned. Once I narrowed the search further (using only library-related material), I began compiling my bibliography--this is where the real trouble started.

My bibliography consisted of roughly 25 articles from peer-reviewed scholarly journals, which I then searched in the Social Sciences Citation Index to make sure each article had been sited at least 5 times. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the articles were not found. I don't know if the Social Sciences Citation index typically uses a different pool of journals or if it simply outdated, but the two did not correlate well at all. I spend a great deal of time simply trying to find new articles that waere in both databases--and then hoped that they had been cited five times. Many headaches could have been avoided if the Literature and Information Sciences Database simply included the number of times each article had been cited directly in the search results. This would've allowed me to eliminate articles immediately as well as eliminate the need to use another database.

This is not to say it was all bad. I appreciated that the Literature and Information Sciences Database indexed articles from over 400 peer-reviewed scholarly journals. In fact, I am sure a great number of the articles returned had been cited at least five times and were from well-respected publications. I also appreciated the fact that once I searched, I could narrow down the results to just once about Library Science which narrowed the over 1000 results down to about 220. Lastly, I also appreciated the fact that there was a citation tool that automatically generated the citation to be used in the bibliography for each article.

Google Scholar

I had never used Google Scholar before, but like all Google products, I found it straight forward and easy to use. Immediately, I appreciated that it was free so I did not have to access it through another website that may or may not be working. From there, you simply typed your search terms (Copyright and Access) and were on your way.

Perhaps the best feature of Google was the fact that the number of citations were listed conveniently on the page. I did not have to guess if the article would appear in another database and take time to search for the article. It should be noted, however, there was no guarantee that each citation was from a scholarly work.

The biggest problem with Google Scholar is information overload. When I entered my search terms, over 2 million hits were returned. Some of these were dead links, which was frustrating, and it was hard to tell the validity of the article. If there had been a peer-reviewed journal search, it would have been very helpful.

Another problem is that there are not very many ways to narrow your search results: you cannot choose to search only full-text, you cannot search specific subject categories (you must choose one of their 8 or so listed, but I was not sure which category library science fell into), you cannot choose to search only peer-reviewed journals, etc. Because of these factors, there were thousands and thousands of hits. I then added "librar* as a search terms because that was the only way I could think to narrow down the subject. This reduced the number of results to about 35,500.

In general, I liked using Google Scholar more than the Literature and Information Science database. It was streamlined, which saved me a great deal of time, and it was straight forward. I had thousands of results so there were plenty of articles to choose from, and I could easily see how many times an article had been cited. However, there are certain features from the Literature and Information Science database that I wish Google Scholar would incorporate. The main of which would be a search feature that only returned peer-reviewed works. Another of which would be the ability to search multiple subject areas--not just the prefabricated ones listed.

References

Bailey Jr, C. W. (2005). The role of reference librarians in institutional repositories. Reference Services Review, 33(3), 259-267. (Cited 29 times)

Band, J. (2005). The google print library project: A copyright analysis. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 10(3). (Cited 11 times)

Casey, M. E., & Savastinuk, L. C. (2006). Library 2.0: Service for the next-generation library. Library Journal, 131(14), 3. (Cited 133 times)

Chuanfu, C. (2004). Types of open contents and management of their intellectual property [J]. The Journal of the Library Science in China, 1. (Cited 14 times)

Coleman, A., & Roback, J. (2005). Open access federation for library and information science. D-Lib Magazine, 11(12), 1082-9873. (Cited 18 times)

Dougherty, R. M., & Dougherty, A. P. (1993). The academic library: A time of crisis, change, and opportunity. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 18(6), 342-346. (Cited 25 times)

Gadd, E. (1997). Copyright clearance for the digital library: A practical guide to gaining electronic permissions for journal articles. Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community, 10(1), 27-31. (Cited 7 times)

Gasaway, L. N. (2002). New access right and its impact on libraries and library users, the. J.Intell.Prop.L., 10, 269. (Cited 23 times)

Jensen, M. B. (1993). Is the library without walls on a collision course with the 1976 copyright act. Law Libr.J., 85, 619. (Cited 17 times)

Jun-ping, Q., & Shao-qiang, Z. (2006). Copyright protection technology of digital library and the legal limitations on its circumvention [J]. Information Science, 1. (Cited 9 times)

Ke, Q. (2008). The copyright policy and the construction of open access [J]. Library Work and Study, 1. (Cited 5 times)

Kidd, T. (2003). Does electronic journal access affect document delivery requests? some data from glasgow university library. Interlending & Document Supply, 31(4), 264-269. (Cited 21 times)

Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2006). Motivations for URL citations to open access library and information science articles. Scientometrics, 68(3), 501-517. (Cited 26 times)

Lancaster, F., Connell, T. H., Bishop, N., & McCowan, S. (1991). Identifying barriers to effective subject access in library catalogs. Library Resources and Technical Services, 35(4), 377-391. (Cited 26 times)

Lewis, D. W. (2007). A strategy for academic libraries in the first quarter of the 21st century. College & Research Libraries, 68(5), 418. (Cited 24 times)

Lopatin, L. (2006). Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines. Library Hi Tech, 24(2), 273-289. (Cited 22 times)

Mandel, C. A., & Herschman, J. (1983). Online subject access--enhancing the library catalog. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 9(3), 148-155. (Cited 19 times)

Mitev, N. N., Venner, G. M., & Walker, S. (1985). Designing an online public access catalogue: Okapi, a catalogue on a local area network. (Cited 64 times)

Oakley, R. L. (1990). Copyright and preservation: A serious problem in need of a thoughtful solution. (Cited 10 times)

Proskine, E. A. (2006). Google's technicolor dreamcoat: A copyright analysis of the google book search library project. Berkeley Tech.LJ, 21, 213. (Cited 26 times)

Shannon, D. M. (1996). Tracking the transition to a flexible access library program in two library power elementary schools. School Library Media Quarterly. (Cited 14 times)

Tushnet, R. (2005). My library: Copyright and the role of institutions in a peer-to-peer world. UCLA L.Rev., 53, 977. (Cited 23 times)

Witten, I. H., & Bainbridge, D. I. (2002). How to build a digital library Morgan Kaufmann Pub. (Cited 226 times)

Copyright and Access Bibliography

References

Britz, J., & Lipinski, T. (2001). Indigenous knowledge: a moral reflection on current legal concepts of intellectual property. Libri, 51(4), 234-46. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 5 times) Burkert, H. (1992). The legal framework of public sector information: recent legal policy developments in the EC. Government Publications Review, 19, 483-96. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 5 times) Chowdhury, G., & Chowdhury, S. (1999). Digital library research: major issues and trends. Journal of Documentation, 55(4), 409-48. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 20 times) Cornish, G. (1991). The impact of networking on international interlibrary loan and document supply. Libri, 41, 272-88. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited5 times) Cullen, R., & Houghton, C. (2000). Democracy online: an assessment of New Zealand government Web sites. Government Information Quarterly, 17(3), 243-67. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 15 times) Dallman, D., Draper, M., & Schwarz, S. (1994). Electronic pre-publishing for worldwide access: the case of high energy physics. Interlending & Document Supply, 22(2), 3-7. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 6 times) Eschenfelder, K., Desai, A., & Alderman, I. (2005). The limits of DeCSS posting: a comparison of internet posting of DVD circumvention devices in the European Union and China. Journal of Information Science, 31(4), 317-31. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. 2010. (Cited 5 times) Evans, J., Bevan, S., & Harrington, J. (1996). BIODOC: access versus holdings in a university library. Interlending & Document Supply, 24(4), 5-11. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 5 times) Foroughi, A., Albin, M., & Sharlett, G. (2002). Digital rights management: a delicate balance between protection and accessibility. Journal of Information Science, 28(5), 389-95. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 8 times) Frazier, K. (1999). What's wrong with fair-use guidelines for the academic community?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(14), 1320-3. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 5 times) Freiburger, G., & Ralph, L. (1998). Electronic reserves: the changing landscape of instructional support. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 86(1), 17-25. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 5 times) Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003). RoMEO studies 2: how academics want to protect their open-access research papers. Journal of Information Science, 29(5), 333-56. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 14 times) Garrett, J., & Lyons, P. (1993). Toward an electronic copyright management system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 44, 468-73. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 5 times) Lipinski, T. (2003). The Myth of Technological Neutrality in Copyright and the Rights of Institutional Users: Recent Legal Challenges to the Information Organization as Mediator and the Impact of the DMCA, WIPO, and TEACH. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 824-35. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 5 times) Lopatin, L. (2006). Library digitization projects, issues and guidelines: A survey of the literature. Library Hi Tech, 24(2), 273-89. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 8 times) McCain, K. (2000). Sharing digitized research-related information on the World Wide Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1321-7. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 16 times) Morton, B. (1995). Canadian federal government policy and Canada's electronic information industry. Government Information Quarterly, 12(3), 251-95. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 5 times) Muir, A. (1998). Publishers' views of electronic short-loan collections and copyright clearance issues. Journal of Information Science, 24(4), 215-29. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 7 times)

Muir, A. (2004). Digital preservation: awareness, responsibility and rights issues. Journal of Information Science, 30(1), 73-92. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 7 times)

Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2005). Scholarly communication in the digital environment: The 2005 survey of journal author behaviour and attitudes. Aslib Proceedings, 57(6), 481-97. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 10 times)

Schöpfel, J. (2005). Between open access and copyright: document supply in France. Interlending & Document Supply, 33(3), 158-61. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database. (Cited 5 times)