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