From: "Sowards, Steve" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 01:01:52 +0000

As I follow this discussion about convenience as a factor in Sci-Hub
use, and particularly when I read about the techniques that
researchers are using to navigate among the many library "silos"
(JSTOR, Muse, etc), this question occurs to me...

To what extent are researchers having success or failure with
"discovery layer" / "discovery tool" products like Summon, Primo,
Ebsco Discovery, or the OCLC product? In theory these search tools
should gather together and disclose citation records drawn from most
(though not all) silos, but I don't believe these have been mentioned.
Is that because they have been tried but don't work (and if so, what
is it that doesn't work?), or because they have not been tried
(perhaps because not sufficiently promoted by libraries), or because
not enough libraries offer discovery tools to their users?

--Steve Sowards
MSU Libraries
________________________________________

From: Fred Jenkins <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 21:24:26 -0400

I agree with you that finding the full-text in a library online
journal collection can be a painful experience (I have a hierarchy
when I go to our AtoZ: JSTOR, Muse, OhioLINK EJC, publisher site,
aggregator dead last).  Of course I know what's where, because I did
the licensing for most of it.  But I don't see Google or Google
Scholar as an answer.  The searching capabilities are from the stone
age.  And Google Scholar has made it harder to find and use the
advanced search feature, which is not very advanced anyway.  I have
been doing extensive bibliographical research in multiple languages
and few options are more painful than Google.

Google is great if you just want three articles in English, but not
for anything comprehensive.

Fred W. Jenkins, Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Collections and Operations, University Libraries
Professor, University Libraries and Department of Religious Studies
University of Dayton