Assignment #9

Copyright and Access

Arms, CR (1999) Getting the picture: observations from the library of congress on providing online access to pictorial images. Library Trends, 18(2), 879-400. 20 citations.

Atherton, Paulene (1978) Books are for use: Final report of the subject access project to the council on library resources. 1-190. 34 citations.

Band, J. (2006) The Google print library project: a copyright analysis. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 10(3). 11 citations.

Bennett, S. (1994) The copyright challenge: strengthening the public interest in the digital age. Library Journal, 119(19), 34-37. 9 citations.

Chen, HL and Rasmussen, EM (1999) Intellectual access to images. Library Trends, 48(2), 291-302. 32 citations.

Coleman, A (2997) Self-archiving and the copyright transfer agreements of ISI-ranked library and information science journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(2), 286-296. 9 citations.

Coleman, A and Roback, J (2005) Open Access Federation for Library and Information Science. D-Lib Magazine, 11(12). 18 citations.

Covey, Denise (2005) Acquiring copyright permission to digitize and and provide open access to books. Digital Library Federation Council on Library and Information Resources. 1-72. 16 citations.

Gadd, E (1997) Copyright clearance for the digital library: A practical guide for gaining electronic permissions for journal articles. Serials, 10(1), 27-31. 7 citations.

Gasaway, Laura (2002) The new access right and its impact on libraries and library users. Journal of Intellectual Property, 10, 269. 23 citations.

Ginsburg, JC (1993) Copyright without walls? Speculations on literary property in the library of the future. Representations, 42, 53-73. 18 citations.

Jensen, MB (1993) Is the library without walls on a collision course with the 1976 copyright act. Law Library Journal, 85, 619. 17 citations.

Jun-ping, Q and Shao-qiang, Z (2006) Copyright protection technology of digital library and the legal limits of its circumvention. Information Science. 9 citations.

Ke, Q (2008) The copyright policy and construction of open access. Library Work and Study. 5 citations.

Koehler, AEC (2006) Some thoughts on the meaning of open access for university library technical services. Serials Review, 32(1), 17-21. 8 citations.

Kousha, K and M Thelwall (2006) Motivations for URL citations to open access library and information science articles. Scienceometrics, 68(3), 501-517. 26 citations.

Laughlin, G. (2002) Sex, lies, and library cards: The first amendment implications of the use of software filters to control access to internet pornography in public libraries. Drake Law Review, 51, 213. 32 citations.

Mitev, Nathalie N. and Venner, G. M. and Walker, S. (1985) Designing an online public access catalog: Okapi, a catalog on a Local Area Network. Library and Information Research Report, 39. 60 citations.

Moyo, LM (2002) Collections on the web: some access and navigation issues. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services, 26(1), 47-59. 27 citations.

Oakley, RL (1990) Copyright and preservation: a serious problem in need of a thoughtful solution. Commission on Preservation and Access, 1-69. 10 citations.

Proskine, EA (2006) Google's technicolor dreamcoat: a copyright analysis of the Google book search library project. Berkeley Tech Law Journal, 21, 213. 26 citations.

Samuelson, P and Glushko, R (1991) Intellectual property rights for digital library and hypertext publishing systems: an analysis of Xanadu. Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, 39-50. 65 citations.

Shannon, DM (1996) Tracking the transition to flexible access library program in two library power elementary schools. School Library Media Quarterly, 23(3), 158-163. 14 citations.

Simpson, C, and Worthington, O (2007) Copyright for schools: a practical guide. Library Student Journal. 46 citations.

Terry, R (2005) Funding the way to open access. PLOS Biology, 3(3). 22 citations.

Toushnetr, R. (2005) My library: copyright and the role of institutions in a peer-to-peer world. UCLA Law Review, 53, 977. 11 citations,



I found Google Scholar to be a much easier resource to use than the conjunction of the Library Literature and Information Science Full Text Database and the Social Sciences Citation Index. The problem was not with locating articles that related to my topic (Copyright and access). I found plenty of intriguing articles on the Full Text database. Had our assignment been to compile a 2 page bibliography of the most relevant sounding articles, it would have been simple. (Which is why, I suspect, we were not assigned to do that.) The difficulty lay in searching for the article on the Social Sciences Citation Index. Many authors of very interesting sounding articles could not be found. Strong publications in the library community, such as Information Outlook, were not to be found on the Citation Index because they are not peer reviewed. It soon became apparent that my promising list of potential articles to include was not so promising after all, because I was unable to locate many of them on the Citation Index. Additionally, for whatever reason the search terms like “library”, “copyright”, and “open access” turned up innumerable medical journal articles that, as far as I could see, had nothing to do with my search terms.

It was clear that I needed to shift strategies. Recalling the class demonstration of the Index, I began to follow the citation trees. Once I finally found an article that a) I had found on the Full Text Database and b) had more than 5 citations, I began to see what articles had been cited, who had cited the original article, and what the articles who had cited the original article had cited. It felt rather like cheating, as I was beginning to come across articles that I had not originally found on the Full Text Database, but it also felt like the best way to use the tools that I had to meet my requirements. This process was fairly slow, and I hit several citation tree “dead ends”, but eventually I was able to fill two pages with solid citations.

Using Google Scholar, on the other hand, was a much simpler and straightforward process. I chose the same search terms from my initial assignment, hit the search button, and immediately had hundreds of pages, about 2/3 of which were relevant hits. It was also very gratifying to have the number of citations displayed on the search page. This enabled me to gauge the criteria for inclusion in my bibliography all at once. Relevant title? From a reputable journal? Has sufficient citation? It spend up the process immensely. I was able to find two pages of highly relevant, highly cited journal articles much more quickly.

In addition, I was able to find articles by two authors (Gadd and Gasaway) whose names showed up many, many times in the Full Text Database but who I was unable to locate in the citation index. As they have both written many articles on this subject area, my first bibliography felt far from comprehensive leaving them out. I was also pleased to find relevant articles from journals that are not officially library science affiliates, such as law journals, or the journal of intellectual property. The abstracts of these articles seemed to fit my topic perfectly, but I would not have found them in the Full Text Database.

I do note, however, that my two bibliographies have very little overlap. A few of the same articles appear on both lists, but by and large these two methods turned up very different sources. I'm certain that one way to account for the differences is that Google Scholar and the Citation Index are pulling articles from different sources. I suspect that the Full Text Database might provide the overlapping point between the two. Still, perhaps the most comprehensive way in which to build a bibliography is to utilize all three of these resources to be certain that no stone is left unturned.