Evaluation and usage scenarios of open source digital library and collection management tools

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate open source software (OSS) for digital libraries and collection management and to propose different utilization scenarios based on the characteristics of the tools. Design/methodology/approach – The tools are assessed on the basis of their technical features and options, the type of the content they manage, the support for common library operations such as cataloging and circulation, the searching support and the interoperability options. Then they are evaluated by users and finally a number of usage scenarios are analyzed based on the results of the evaluation. Findings – The basic findings of the study is that open source digital library and collection management tools offer advanced operations and support various metadata and interoperability protocols with easy and user-friendly interfaces. Most of the tools are extensively used under various settings and establishments already. Language support for the interfaces should be extended with more languages and some tools with limited operations should be improved to be of practical use. Practical implications – The findings of the paper could be used support the selection of specific open source tools for various types of establishments. Originality/value – The study reviews the characteristics of a few OSS for digital libraries and collection management and reveals their specific strengths and weaknesses. It also presents a number of realistic scenarios and proposes the usage of specific tools based on time, technology and staff constraints.

Evaluating digital libraries: a systematised review

“…Other topics of interest to researchers in the assessment of digital libraries are: efficacy (Buchanan & Salako, ) information security (Hariri & Nazari, 2012) task orientation (Meyyappan, Foo & Chowdhury, ) electronic resources (Hariri, Nooshinfard & Radfar, ) impact (Jabeen et al., ; Madle, Kostkova & Roudsari, ) open sources (Gkoumas & Lazarinis, ) …”

“… review (all types of review articles) (Ahmad & Abawajy, ; Alipoorhafezi & Adabi, ; Cullen, , ; Esfandiyari‐moghadam & Bayat, ; Fuhr et al., ; Jose, ; Mehrabadi, ; Noroozi, , 2010a; Noroozi & Akbari, ; Saracevic, ; Tsakonas et al., ; Tsakonas & Papatheodorou, ) checklist (Evaluate and compare the information displayed on digital libraries of national content consortium, ; Evaluation of search capabilities of digital libraries applications in Iran, ; Evaluation of Simorgh Digital Library with emphasis on managerial perspective, ; Hoe‐Lian Goh et al., ; Nabavi, ; Noroozi, 2010b; Noroozi & Montazeri, ; Tripathi & Jeevan, ; Zolghadr & Momeni, ) content analysis (Azadi‐Ahmadabadi, ; Gkoumas & Lazarinis, ; Sohrabi et al., ) online questionnaire and interview (Lai et al., ; Madle et al., ; Zhang, ) Online questionnaire (Garibay et al., ; Tsakonas & Papatheodorou, ) library methods (Retrospective studies that include reviews of articles and books, and questions from expert people) (Hassanzadeh & Sohrabzadeh, ) questionnaire and interview (Moreira et al., ; Snead et al., ) researcher developer questionnaire and checklist (mixed tools) (Amini, ; Ghaebi, Baradar & Farnaghi, ) semiexperimental method (Quijano‐Solís & Novelo‐Peña, )See Figure for the frequency of the methods used. …”

“…As Figure 3 suggests, the majority of studies were focused on evaluating the quality of digital libraries' services from the perspective of the users (Ahmad & Abawajy, 2014;Amannollahi-Nik, Alipoorhafezi & Matlabi, 2014;Amini, 2014;Garibay, Guti errez & Figueroa, 2010;Helena Vinagre, Gaspar Pinto & Ochôa, 2011;Jafar-Begloo, Hamidi, Anvari & Rouhani, 2014;Kyrillidou & Giersch, 2005;Lai, Chiu, Huang, Chen & Huang, 2014;Moreira, Gonc ßalves, Laender & Fox, 2009;Naiej, Noroozi & Hamidi, 2012;Sohrabi, Farzaneh & Reisi, 2010;Yousefzadeh-Najdi, 2013 Goh et al, 2006;Jose, 2007;Masoudnia & Ali-Ebadi, 2013;Tripathi & Jeevan, 2011;Xie, 2006Xie, , 2008. Studies are conducted to: • analyse aspects and methods used in the evaluation of digital libraries (Azadi-Ahmadabadi, 2008;Cullen, 2003Cullen, , 2004Esfandiyari-moghadam & Bayat, 2008;Mehrabadi, 2011;Noroozi, 2012;Saracevic, 2005;Zhang, 2010) • analyse the user interface/usability of digital • efficacy (Buchanan & Salako, 2009) • information security (Hariri & Nazari, 2012) • task orientation (Meyyappan, Foo & Chowdhury, 2004) • electronic resources (Hariri, Nooshinfard & Radfar, 2014) • impact (Jabeen et al, 2017;Madle, Kostkova & Roudsari, 2008) • open sources (...…”

Assessing the Ability to Communicate in Self-archiving Interfaces

“…There are also few heuristic evaluations of OAR interfaces and assessments of DSpace interfaces. The most common methods for evaluating repository interfaces are user studies [1,3,5,11] and questionnaires [3,6,12].…”

Hitting the Road towards a Greater Digital Destination: Evaluating and Testing DAMS at the University of Houston Libraries

“…12 Some of the use cases formulated by the researchers address digital platforms, including features related to supporting a diverse array of metadata schema and using a simple web interface for the management of digital assets. 13 These use cases mirror local feature and functionality requests incorporated into the UH Libraries' evaluation criteria.…”