In a follow up to my previous article Open Access Publishing: allergic reaction sets in, we find Google seeing, and perhaps seizing, the opportunity. Information Today (10 May) describes yet another pilot initiative. In the article CrossRef Search Uses Google to Provide Full-Text Access we find Google collaborating with nine leading commercial publishers to allow full-text searching of scholarly journals, conference proceedings etc.
On April 9, in the article Google Teams Up With 17 Colleges to Test Searches of Scholarly Materials the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Google and a number of universities in the DSpace Federation have teamed up in a pilot project. The UK's Cranfield University is one of the pilot sites.
But some commentator's aren't happy. Launched in 1992 and developed jointly by MIT Libraries and Hewlett Packard the open source DSpace describes itself as:
“… a groundbreaking digital library system to capture, store, index, preserve, and redistribute the intellectual output of a university’s research faculty in digital formats.”
The digital formats accomodated by DSpace include:
“Documents, such as articles, preprints, working papers, technical reports, conference papers
Books
Theses
Data sets
Computer programs
Visualizations, simulations, and other models
Multimedia publications
Administrative records
Published books
Overlay journals
Bibliographic datasets
Images
Audio files
Video files
Reformatted digital library collections
Learning objects
Web pages”
But some commentators aren't happy. For example, the article Google searches repositories: so what does Google search for? in 'In Between' a weblog on scholarly online publishing, open access, and library related technology raises concerns that since DSpace is but one part of the ePrint space why has Google just focused on DSpace?
In February last, prior to the announcement of both Google initiatives, we had Stephen J Bell in his Chronicle of Higher Education article 'The Infodiet: How Libraries Can Offer an Appetizing Alternative to Google' (subscription required), comparing Google to junk food (greasy burgers and fries) and highlighting terms like 'infobesity'. He also seemed to associate all web articles with 'low quality'. I know this is a tempting argument for information professionals to make, but it also conveys, perhaps, a sense of insecurity.
Just ask your students and faculty what they're using? There's perhaps something to learn from Google as well as something to criticize. Stephen Bell's contention appears to be that its just a question of more information literacy input and assignments which 'force' students to use quality assured resources, which presumably excludes the web. Oh well that's Auricle et al out of the way then!
We should keep in mind that Google's partnerships are just pilot initiatives, currently. We should also remember, however, that Google will shortly have shareholders to keep happy and so it needs to lever whatever technological advantage it has currently. If Google decides to show preference to one digital archive or another beyond a pilot study then that would have major implications, and perhaps unintended consequences, for the takeup of one archive system or another, whether open source or not.
