Editorial

Citation

Chalcraft, A. (2005), "Editorial", Reference Reviews, Vol. 19 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/rr.2005.09919caa.001

Editorial

Google is an immensely ambitious and, many would consider, visionary company. Its very name, derived from “Googol”, the mathematical term for the number one followed by 100 zeros, signifies the company’s quest to conquer the seemingly infinite mass of information on the internet. Only launched in 1998 and a relative late comer compared to rival search engines now left standing in web dust, 2004 saw Google power further ahead with a number of new initiatives that have immense portent for the reference and information world. One of these was the launch of GoogleScholar, something we will consider in more depth in a future issue of this journal. Another was the announcement, just before Christmas, that it was to launch Google Web Library.

For those who somehow missed the blizzard of publicity and comment that accompanied this news, Google Web Library is a development of the existing Google Print programme that will digitise the full text of books from five major research libraries and make them accessible through the search engine. Two of the participating libraries, Michigan and Stanford universities, appear to have eagerly embraced the temptation of free digitisation that Google offers and agreed to the inclusion of all their public domain (out of copyright) volumes. The other three, Oxford in the UK and Harvard and the New York Public Library in the USA, seem to be a little more guarded. In the case of Oxford only nineteenth century books will be included, while Harvard is confining the exercise to a pilot of 40,000 volumes (for information on Harvard’s participation see http://hul.harvard.edu/publications/041213faq.html). Whatever the scale of the digitisation, this is clearly the start of a new era with far-reaching implications. While John Wilkin of the University of Michigan might be over-egging it in proclaiming “[T]his is the day the world changes”, this initiative promises to propel Google forward in its Star Trek like mission, as expressed on the opening line of Google Print’s Web page (http://print.google.com), “to organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”.

Organizing information and making it accessible and useful is the bread and butter of libraries and, not unexpectedly, there have been voices of concern and scepticism from both within and beyond the library profession. These have focussed on a number of issues including the selection of material and privacy worries stemming from the way Google stores information on users. At the heart of many concerns, however, and the one that will surely strike a chord with reference librarians, is how this development will fit in with existing reference tools. At the time of writing detailed information on how digitised full text content will be indexed and retrieved through Google Print is not available. There must be a danger that digitised books will become “lost” in a vast welter of information that even the sophisticated algorithms that generally serve Google so well cannot unravel. Then there are questions about how Google Print will position itself alongside the “portal” that every research library already has, namely its online catalogue, not to mention the relationship to existing universal finding tools such as WorldCat. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Google’s move into the digitisation of books may well foster the impression already seemingly deeply entrenched among many, especially students, that all information worth having is freely available on the web and can be found by simply punching in a handful of keywords.

Perhaps this is drifting too close to a Luddite view. It is not meant to; there is much to applaud in Google’s initiative, but the world of reference has been developed incrementally over many years. The web has already been successfully integrated into reference provision. It is important that digitisation does not become an unstructured and unplanned headlong rush that allows one company to dominate and gain a monopoly. Google’s digitisation programme needs to be carefully integrated with existing information tools, to complement and develop those that already exist, not sweep them aside. Let us hope that having given Google the key to the stacks, Michigan and the other libraries can exercise influence over the web giant so that libraries, rather than commercial providers, remain at the heart of information provision.

One fine example of the use of the web to provide full text information in a structured yet innovative way, that Google would be well-advised to look to as a model, is Oxford Scholarship Online (RR 2005/122). From Oxford University Press, one of the most respected names in publishing, this makes available the full text of over 750 humanities and social sciences titles, with at least a further 200 new or recently published titles promised annually. Supported by comprehensive searching features this has, of course, the major advantage of up to date material protected by copyright that cannot be digested, at least in its full text form, by the Google giant. Another full text database subject to our scrutiny is PubMed Central (RR 2005/157). This makes freely available the content of 159 biomedical and life science journals from 2001 forward and, emanating from the National Library of Medicine (NLM) in Bethesda, complements and takes forward existing NLM information tools such as Medline.

Business Monitor Online (RR 2005/136) is a further mainly full text source that has been built on the foundations of an established service. Containing reports, views, analyses and industry surveys for 175 countries, but with a focus on the Middle East, Central America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, it is one of several business databases that have recently sought to reach beyond their traditional marketplace of information units in financial institutions and multinational companies to academic and even public libraries. A more traditional abstracting and indexing database is America History and Life (RR 2005/165) from ABC-Clio a company which, incidentally, has recently celebrated its fiftieth anniversary, proving that smaller publishers can compete in the world of reference publishing over the longer term. A companion to Historical Abstracts (to be reviewed in a forthcoming issue of this journal), America History and Life is an example of the many abstracting and indexing databases that have attempted to compensate for the lack of full text by providing links to electronic journals. Over 103,000 links are now claimed, a good number to freely available electronic titles.

Many other important new titles are reviewed in this issue of Reference Reviews, including a number of other electronic full text databases such as a further instalment of Past Masters: The English Letters Collection (RR 2005/147) and World Bank e-Library (RR 2005/134). We also have reviews for some sizeable and significant new print titles including Kluwer’s Encyclopedia of Health Psychology (RR 2005/155), Gale’s Encyclopedia of Recreation and Leisure in America (RR 2005/163) and Routledge’s Medieval Italy (RR 2005/174), the latest volume in their important Encyclopedias of the Middle Ages series. Perhaps, the most impressive large scale work, however, and one where the full text is also available electronically, is the six-volume Greenwood Encyclopedia of Daily Life (RR 2005/170). Focussing on everyday life across historical time periods this is an innovative new work that has already been the recipient of a number of awards. School and college libraries, especially in the USA, are the most likely market for this title, but to what extent will students make use of it? Will they prefer the carefully selected and referenced material served up here or will they be seduced by the apparently easy option of a trawl through Google?

Anthony ChalcraftEditor, Reference Reviews and College Librarian, York St John College, York, UK