This week, you will learn an important aspect of the literature collection process. Many strategies will be explored for archiving content and writing about your process. Assignment Ins

5

Lib ra

ry Te

ch n

o lo

g y R

e p

o rts

alatech so

u rce.o

rg

A u

g u

st/S e p

te m

b e r 2

0 1 7

Open Source Library Systems: The Current State of the Art Marshall Breeding

T his issue of Library Technology Reports takes a look at the open source alternatives available to libraries for their strategic systems. Libraries

depend on their core technology systems for manag- ing and providing access to their collection resources and other aspects of their operations. These core sys- tems include integrated library systems (ILSs), the longstanding model of library automation originally designed for managing print collections, and the newer genre of library services platforms that has gained favor with academic and research libraries.

These strategic systems have been sold to librar- ies primarily as proprietary products controlled by a single vendor. Under this proprietary model, librar- ies that use these products remain dependent on that vendor for the ongoing development of the software, for addressing any problems with the system, and for support or other types of services. Proprietary soft- ware will likely have many different configuration options but may have limitations in the ways that it can be customized to address library-specific issues. The costs with proprietary software may also strain library budgets.

Despite these limitations, proprietary software continues as the dominant approach for strategic library systems, and most libraries express relatively high degrees of satisfaction with their systems and their associated vendors.1

Open source products have been created that present alternatives to the proprietary systems. These open source products include some that are well established and widely deployed and some that have more recently emerged, as well as ones still in devel- opment. These products add an important dynamic to technology products generally dominated by pro- prietary software. Both open source and proprietary

software comes with advantages and disadvantages, which we will explore in the report.

This report aims to provide a current look at the major ILSs and library services platforms and the impact they have made on the broader library tech- nology industry. The intended audience includes those responsible for shaping the technology strategies or involved in evaluating and selecting systems. The dis- cussion is not intended as highly technical and should be accessible to administrators as well as those more directly involved in systems. Persons involved in the development of open source systems will hopefully benefit from the background and perspective pro- vided, but will likely not learn new technical details.

Only a small number of products fall within of the scope of this report. Products discussed include Koha, the original open source ILS, which has come to be one of the most widely deployed library auto- mation products in the world; Evergreen, an open source ILS created primarily for consortia of public libraries; Invenio, an open source platform created by CERN that has recently been made available through its spin-off company TIND; and FOLIO, a new open source initiative to create an open source library ser- vices platform.

Other types of open source software have not been addressed in this report. Product categories such as discovery interfaces, content repositories, and a bevy of specialized tools and utilities also have open source options, which deserve their own detailed treatment and are not described here in detail.

This report takes open source software as an objective alternative to proprietary products. In other words, the technology products discussed are not con- sidered more or less desirable based on whether they are open source or proprietary, but on the merits of

Introduction

Chapter 1

6

Li b

ra ry

T e ch

n o

lo g

y R

e p

o rt

s al

at ec

h so

u rc

e. o rg

A

u g

u st

/S e p

te m

b e r

2 0 1 7

Open Source Library Systems: The Current State of the Art Marshall Breeding

their functionality, how well they have served the needs of libraries that use them, and other tangible factors.

The report also does not aim to provide side-by- side comparisons of features and technical character- istics among the various products discussed or with the proprietary options. Some discussion of the gen- eral approach of each product is provided to give a general impression of its capabilities and suitability to libraries of different types. Those interested in more in-depth information can consult with the documen- tation provided for each of the products discussed on their respective websites.

The story of open source in the library technol- ogy scene continues to unfold. In some chapters, the scene has been set already. ILSs based on open source software have seen continuous rise in popularity since about 2000 and can now be seen as well within the mainstream. New chapters in the saga are being writ- ten even today, with new characters and unexpected turns in plot. The launch of the FOLIO initiative to create a new open source library services platform represents a major twist. In a corner of the industry where Ex Libris has established a solid foothold and seems positioned to extend its dominance even fur- ther, a new project launched by its archrival EBSCO has taken aim to disrupt its course. Will this new open source upstart alter the landscape in the long term? The answer lies in the next chapter yet to be written.

Open Source Software Issues

Open source software is not a new aspect to the library technology environment. Its principles are well understood, as well as the relative advantages and disadvantages of its development models and sup- port arrangements. There is a large body of literature and documentation delineating the issues and details of open source versus proprietary software licenses. This section discusses some of the issues relative to the processes typically involved in open source soft- ware development and the ecosystem of services sur- rounding its implementation and support that have been seen in the open source ILS arena.

The tasks associated with the development of soft- ware remain much the same regardless of whether the product will be commercially licensed or released as open source. The manner in which those tasks take place or are managed, however, may differ substan- tially. Open source software tends to be much more oriented to collaboration among a distributed group of developers, often working for different organiza- tions and in different geographic regions. This distrib- uted method fosters a more transparent process since the development takes place more publicly and less behind the firewall of a single development firm.

Proprietary software development can often be conducted with a certain level of efficiency through more direct management of resources and processes. A company creating proprietary software exerts com- plete control over the software development process. It employs technical architects, software engineers, programmers, quality assurance experts, product managers, domain experts, or other roles needed. Through employment contracts and internal oversight processes, a company can hire an appropriately sized development team and manage the quality and pro- ductivity of each step of the process. Companies often make use of outsourced services to reduce personnel costs. It is also possible for such a corporate develop- ment shop to produce open source software.

Open source projects generally follow a more col- laborative and democratic approach. The open source projects related to library systems exemplify the pro- cesses of community development. A diverse group of companies involved in providing services and librar- ies that make use of the software collaborate out of mutual interest to create and improve the product. This spirit of collaboration and the general philosophy of open source software results in a much more public process. It also demands robust communications pro- cesses and tools for collaborative development. Most open source software development projects will make use of several types of collaborative tools, including the following:

• A public repository for storing source code, docu- mentation, and other project resources. Ideally, these repositories will include advanced version control features. Many projects use GitHub.

• An e-mail distribution list. Most projects have one or more Listservs to distribute news and other types of communications appropriate for e-mail.

• Real-time messaging. It is common for open source projects to have an IRC or Slack channel for conversations among developers and other project participants.

• A website. The project website will provide gen- eral information, including links to all pertinent resources.

GitHub https://github.com

Contrary to the stereotype where open source software is created by volunteers in their spare time, most projects are carried out by professional program- mers employed by companies with a direct or indirect financial interest in the product. Open source library system projects will often include a mix of develop- ers from commercial support firms and individuals

7

Lib ra

ry Te

ch n

o lo

g y R

e p

o rts

alatech so

u rce.o

rg

A u

g u

st/S e p

te m

b e r 2

0 1 7

Open Source Library Systems: The Current State of the Art Marshall Breeding

working in libraries that use the software. An open source software development project will rely on a variety of technical and nontechnical roles. These projects greatly benefit from persons who work in libraries lending their expertise in functional areas in overall product design, workflow optimization, speci- fications for feature requirements, testing, and doc- umentation. Some libraries may also have program- mers who work directly with the source code for the product.

The realm of technology increasingly is based more on revenues derived for services than from direct sales of software licenses. Categories of service fees include the following:

• custom software development • implementation • hosting • help desk and support

The use of any software product involves costs, regardless of whether it is open source or proprietary. Open source software does not involve license fees but will require other types of investments or expen- ditures (see table 1.1). In some cases, an organiza- tion can be entirely self-sufficient and may be able to operate a product based on open source software on existing hardware and through the efforts of its own personnel. Such a situation is relatively rare. In most cases, especially in the realm of enterprise-class business software, organizations will contract with specialized firms for the services needed to operate the software with the levels of reliability and perfor- mance expected for critical business functions.

Open Source Resource Management Systems

The following chapters provide information on some of the major products used in libraries available as open source software. These products fall within the category of what can be termed resource management

systems, which serve as the primary business process automation environment to support the core activi- ties in a library. ILSs and library services platforms are two different types of resource management sys- tems. ILSs are well established as automation systems that were originally created when library collections were primarily composed of print and other physical media. Although ILSs have evolved substantially, they continue to retain an orientation to physical materi- als. Examples of ILSs include the following:

• Symphony, a proprietary product from SirsiDynix • Horizon, a proprietary product from SirsiDynix • Millennium, a proprietary product from Innova-

tive Interfaces • Polaris, a proprietary product from Innovative

Interfaces • Library·Solution, a proprietary product from the

Library Corporation • Carl·X, a proprietary product from the Library

Corporation • Apollo, a proprietary product from Biblionix • Voyager, a proprietary product from Ex Libris (A

ProQuest Company) • Koha, an open source product • Evergreen, an open source product

Library services platforms embody a different over- all model of resource management, addressing work- flows for complex, multiformat collections, including electronic, digital, and print materials. These prod- ucts are deployed on multitenant platforms, have web- based interfaces for all staff and public functions, and include built-in knowledge bases. Examples of library services platforms include the following:

• WorldShare Management Services from OCLC • Alma from Ex Libris (A ProQuest Company) • FOLIO, a new product still under development as

an open source initiative

The dividing lines between ILSs and library ser- vices platforms are not precise. There are some

Table 1.1. Common open source infrastructure components. Source: Marshall Breeding, “Open Source Integrated Library Systems,” Library Technology Reports 44, no. 8 (November–December 2008): 7.

Category Open Source Proprietary Source code Must be made available. Usually held privately by developers.

Intellectual property Subject to copyright. Subject to copyright and commercial li- censes.

License options Must include terms consistent with open source principles.

Commercial license will specify conditions of use, fees, and responsibility of provider.

Software development Collaborative community. Directly managed development team.

Source code management Stored in a public repository such as GitHub.

Stored in private repository.

Support Internal, community, or commercially pro- vided.

Commercially provided.

8

Li b

ra ry

T e ch

n o

lo g

y R

e p

o rt

s al

at ec

h so

u rc

e. o rg

A

u g

u st

/S e p

te m

b e r

2 0 1 7

Open Source Library Systems: The Current State of the Art Marshall Breeding

products with hybrid characteristics, including the following:

• SirsiDynix BLUEcloud, a multitenant platform providing web-based interfaces and extended functionality for libraries using Symphony or Horizon.

• Sierra, a product evolved from Innovative’s Mil- lennium product that includes some of the func- tional and technology characteristics of a library services platform though retaining much of the character of an ILS.

The next sections take a closer look at the open source resource management systems Koha, Ever- green, TIND, and FOLIO.

Note 1. Marshall Breeding, “Perceptions 2016: An Interna-

tional Survey of Library Automation,” Library Tech- nology Guides, January 25, 2017, https://library technology.org/perceptions/2016.

Copyright of Library Technology Reports is the property of American Library Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

5/18/22, 9:17 AM BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724) – BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 1/4

Books and Resources for this Week

Week 3

BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724)

Managing References

Managing your sources is a major task in writing a literature review. You will search

through hundreds of sources to complete the full literature review during the dissertation.

It is a good idea to begin saving your articles now and to return to any applicable articles

you found during classes, and then add them to the system you create this week for

managing your articles or the library you create this week.

You will explore different software programs that guide you in developing a system that

works best for you. It is important to find a system early and add all articles to this as you

may need to add articles that you did not add; this will be applicable later on in chapter 2.

You will want to avoid having to backtrack through a site for an article that went missing.

This is lost time and very frustrating, and it may cause you to delete content from your

chapter if the article is not ever found.

Remember, even if you paraphrase information this must be referenced and credit given

to the source. The research found on the web must also be sourced by adding the web

address. Your work will go through Turnitin for plagiarism and originality. Be sure you

document all the content you find through research. Additionally, charts, diagrams,

pictures, etc. must all be cited with the source. In a literature review, you are not allowed

to cite yourself. A few tools to check out are RefWorks, EndNote, Mendeley, and Zotero.

Be sure the version you choose is free.

Be sure to review this week's resources carefully. You are expected to apply the

information from these resources when you prepare your assignments.

87.5 % 7 of 8 topics complete

5/18/22, 9:17 AM BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724) – BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 2/4

Ivey, C., & Crum, J. (2018). Choosing

the Right Citation Management Tool:

Endnote, Mendeley, Refworks, or

Zotero. Journal of the Medical Library… Link

Bramer, W. M. (2018). Reference

checking for systematic reviews using

Endnote. Journal of the Medical Library

Association, 106(4), 542–546. Link

Breeding, M. (2017). Chapter 1:

Introduction. Library Technology

Reports, 53(6), 5. Link

Kratochvil, J. (n.d.). Comparison of the

accuracy of bibliographical references

generated for Medical Citation Styles

by EndNote, Mendeley… Link

NCU Libraries, (2018). Refworks Link

ProQuest RefWorks Link

Soilemezi, D., & Linceviciute, S. (2018).

Synthesizing Qualitative Research.

International Journal of Qualitative

Methods, 17. Link

5/18/22, 9:17 AM BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724) – BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 3/4

Week 3 – Assignment: Identify a Process for Managing

and Organizing Information Assignment

Due May 22 at 11:59 PM

This week, you will learn an important aspect of the literature collection process. Many

strategies will be explored for archiving content and writing about your process.

Assignment Instructions:

Sign into ProQuest RefWorks or one of the other sites mentioned above in Week 3

introduction, and then create an account. Load all of your articles and book references

into this account.

1. Include a screenshot of the organization of your references within your paper.

2. Describe your approach to developing this library of your own sources.

3. Include any difficulties or workarounds you encountered.

4. Find one other software, such as one from your reading that will also create a

library of your sources.

5. Describe the second software and compare the two.

Length: 3-5 pages

References: Include a minimum of five (5) scholarly resources.

Your presentation should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts

presented in the course and provide new thoughts and insights relating directly to this

topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards. Be sure

to adhere to Northcentral University's Academic Integrity Policy.

5/18/22, 9:17 AM BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724) – BUS-7100 v1: Scholarly Literature Review (6760019724)

https://ncuone.ncu.edu/d2l/le/content/159454/printsyllabus/PrintSyllabus 4/4

321

3 Managing Systems for Organizing References

Click each number to the right to know more about:

• Reworks • Zotero • EndNote

Launch in a separate window

Upload your document and click the Submit to Dropbox button.

T R E N D S A N D T O O L S DOI: dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.489

Journal of the Medical Library Association 106 (4) October 2018 jmla.mlanet.org

542

Reference checking for systematic reviews using Endnote Wichor M. Bramer See end of article for author’s affiliation.

In searches for systematic reviews, it is recommended that authors review references from the reference lists of retrieved relevant reviews for possible additional, relevant references. This process can be time consuming, since there often is overlap between the reference lists and the lists contain references that were already retrieved in the initial searches. The author proposes a method in which EndNote is used in combination with the Scopus or Web of Science databases to semi-automatically download these references into an existing EndNote library.

Most guidelines for searches for systematic reviews recommend that, next to searching traditional databases, alternative methods are used to find relevant articles. One alternative method is to review the reference lists of relevant reviews and already included citations to find articles that were not yet retrieved [1–3]. In the experience of Chapman et al., the new content can add 5%–10% to the citations found [4]. These extra references do add to the burden for the reviewer, especially since items on the reference lists often overlap and might have already been found by the database searches. Nevertheless, other studies have found that searching reference lists can add great value to database searches and should, therefore, not be omitted [5].

The author proposes a method that allows deduplication between these reference lists both internally and against the existing content that was downloaded from bibliographic database searches. Chapman et al. investigated the validity of a similar method, compared to manual screening of the reference lists [4]. They found that the method saved the time to screen the reference lists by 62.5%. However, they did not provide enough detail on how to execute each step, and the time needed for their method seems substantial. This article describes in detail the steps that can be used to efficiently perform my method. The method described by Chapman et al. has been improved by

automating the Scopus search with a specially designed output style from EndNote that allows automatic searching of articles from an existing EndNote library in Scopus, allowing faster downloading of the reference lists than reported in Chapman et al.’s article [4].

AUTOMATIC DOWNLOADING OF REFERENCE LISTS OF INCLUDED REFERENCES

Several databases allow users to download cited or citing references of a list of articles. Two of such databases are Scopus by Elsevier [6] and ISI Web of Science by Clarivate Analytics [7]. They both need a subscription to be accessed. If a researcher or librarian has access to one of these databases, custom-made export formats from EndNote can create strategies for the selected references in those databases, leading the searcher to extra, relevant articles.

For this purpose, the functionality of Scopus is superior to that of Web of Science, because Scopus can export the cited and citing references of a list of articles simultaneously. Web of Science, on the other hand, is only able to deliver those lists per individual reference, making the process much more cumbersome and time consuming. Using Web of Science, a researcher can export all reference lists individually, and therefore, the reference lists have to be deduplicated internally before being compared

R e f e r e n c e c h e c k i n g u s i n g E n d n o t e 5 4 3

DOI: dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.489

jmla.mlanet.org 106 (4) October 2018 Journal of the Medical Library Association

to the existing list of references retrieved from the bibliographic database. Results exported from Scopus are already internally deduplicated, so an article cited by more than one reference is present only once.

Also, I have found that Scopus was able to retrieve more articles via this search option than Web of Science. Nevertheless, I describe the methods in both Scopus and Web of Science.

THE METHOD

Step 1: Change the EndNote settings as preparation

First, the EndNote settings have to be prepared for this method. Special Output Styles have to be installed. Also, a column showing page numbers of references in EndNote should be made visible. This allows the selection of papers that have page numbers as they will be searched differently than those that do not.

1. Go to bit.ly/emcendnote.

2. Open the zip file.

3. Open the file _scopus search.ens.

4. In EndNote, select File > Save as.

5. Remove Copy from the file name and Click [Save].

6. Repeat steps 3–5 for the files _scopus pmid.ens, _scopus title.ens, _wos search.ens, _wos pmid.ens, and _wos title.ens (depending on the platform you choose to use).

7. Go to Edit > Preferences > Display Fields.

8. For one of the columns (preferably, one of the higher numbered columns), select Pages from the drop-down menu and click OK.

9. Change the deduplication settings: Go to: Edit > Preferences > Duplicates. Select Year, Title and click OK.

Step 2: Prepare an EndNote library containing the relevant references

Create a new EndNote library that contains only those articles for which you want to perform the reference check: included references and relevant reviews. In that EndNote library, create a group named “resolved” and a group

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.