{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,19]],"date-time":"2025-10-19T21:18:38Z","timestamp":1760908718972,"version":"3.41.2"},"reference-count":18,"publisher":"Emerald","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2011,6,14]],"date-time":"2011-06-14T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1308009600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/site-policies"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2011,6,14]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-heading\">Purpose<\/jats:title><jats:p>The study described in this paper aims to identify the progress made in the efforts to model current online public access catalogs (OPACs) after the next generation catalog (NGC) in academic libraries in the USA and Canada.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-heading\">Design\/methodology\/approach<\/jats:title><jats:p>A random sample of 260 colleges and universities was selected from <jats:italic>Peterson's Guide to Four\u2010Year Colleges 2009<\/jats:italic>, an estimated 10 percent of the total population of 2,560 listed academic institutions. A checklist of 12 features of the NGC was used to evaluate the OPACs of the 260 libraries in the sample. The authors took as the OPAC that which the library linked to as its \u201ccatalog,\u201d even though some might be more properly considered \u201cdiscovery tools\u201d or \u201cdiscovery layers.\u201d Some libraries used more than one OPAC interface simultaneously; in this case, each OPAC was analyzed separately. In the case of several institutions using the same consortial OPAC, only the first instance of the OPAC was analyzed. About 15 percent of the institutions (<jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>=40) in the sample either did not have web sites or did not provide access to their online catalogs. In all, a total of 233 unique instances of OPACs were analyzed. Data were collected from September 2009 through July 2010. The findings can be extrapolated to the population at the 95 percent confidence level with a confidence interval of \u00b13.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-heading\">Findings<\/jats:title><jats:p>While bits and pieces of the next generation catalog are steadily working themselves into the current catalog, academic libraries still have a long way to go. About 16 percent of the OPACs in the sample did not show any advanced features of the NGC. More than half of the libraries (61 percent) had only one to five advanced features in their OPACs. Many of those with six or more NGC features were discovery tools. Only 3 percent of the OPACs in the sample (<jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>=8) demonstrated seven to ten out of the 12 functionalities of the NGC, and they were instances either of WorldCat Local or Summon. The weak areas were federated searching, relevance based on circulation statistics, and recommendations based on patron transactions.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-heading\">Originality\/value<\/jats:title><jats:p>This is the first and only study on a large scale conducted thus far that evaluates the progress towards the NGC in academic libraries in the USA and Canada. The findings help academic librarians to recognize and pin\u2010point the weak links in implementing a true next generation catalog.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1108\/07378831111138170","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2011,7,25]],"date-time":"2011-07-25T11:29:40Z","timestamp":1311593380000},"page":"266-300","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":30,"title":["Next generation or current generation?"],"prefix":"10.1108","volume":"29","author":[{"given":"Sharon Q.","family":"Yang","sequence":"first","affiliation":[]},{"given":"Melissa A.","family":"Hofmann","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[]}],"member":"140","reference":[{"doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Antelman, K., Lynema, E. and Pace, A.K. (2006), \u201cToward a twenty\u2010first century library catalog\u201d, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 128\u201039.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b1","DOI":"10.6017\/ital.v25i3.3342"},{"unstructured":"Breeding, M. (2007), \u201cIntroduction\u201d, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 5\u201014.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b2"},{"unstructured":"Creative Research Systems (2010), \u201cSample size calculator\u201d, available at: www.surveysystem.com\/sscalc.htm (accessed 20 April 2010).","key":"key2022031220464573500_b3"},{"unstructured":"Funer, J. (2008), \u201cUser tagging of library resources: toward a framework for system evaluation\u201d, International Cataloging and Bibliographic Control, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 47\u201051.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b4"},{"unstructured":"Haahr, M. (2010), \u201cRandom.org: random integer generation\u201d, available at: www.random.org\/integers\/ (accessed 12 October 2009).","key":"key2022031220464573500_b5"},{"doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kudo, E. and Kataoka, S. (2008), \u201cA big wave of next generation catalog \u2013 its features and implementing into Japanese library systems\u201d, Joho Kanri, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 480\u201098.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b6","DOI":"10.1241\/johokanri.51.480"},{"doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Luong, T.D. and Liew, C.L. (2009), \u201cThe evaluation of New Zealand academic library OPACs: a checklist approach\u201d, Electronic Library, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 376\u201093.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b7","DOI":"10.1108\/02640470910966844"},{"unstructured":"McCormack, N. (2008), \u201cUser comments and reviews: decline or democratization of the online public access catalogue?\u201d, Feliciter, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 129\u201031.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b8"},{"doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Mendez, L.H., Qui\u00f1onez\u2010Skinner, J. and Skaggs, D. (2009), \u201cSubjecting the catalog to tagging\u201d, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 30\u201041.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b9","DOI":"10.1108\/07378830910942892"},{"doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Mer\u010dun, T. and \u017dumer, M. (2008), \u201cNew generation of catalogues for the new generation of users: a comparison of six library catalogues\u201d, Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 243\u201061.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b10","DOI":"10.1108\/00330330810892668"},{"unstructured":"Murray, P. (2008), \u201cDiscovery tools and the OPAC\u201d, PowerPoint Presentation at NISO Forum on Next Generation Discovery Tools: New Tools, Aging Standards, available at: http:\/\/dltj.org\/article\/discovery\u2010layer\u2010video\u2010tour\/ (accessed 27 January 2010).","key":"key2022031220464573500_b11"},{"unstructured":"Peterson's (2009), Peterson's Four\u2010Year Colleges, Peterson's, Lawrenceville, NJ.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b12"},{"doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Spiteri, L.F. (2007), \u201cThe structure and form of folksonomy tags: the road to the public library catalog\u201d, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 13\u201025.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b13","DOI":"10.6017\/ital.v26i3.3272"},{"unstructured":"Tennant, R. (2005), \u201cDigital libraries: \u2018lipstick on a pig\u2019\u201d, Library Journal, Vol. 130 No. 7, p. 34.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b14"},{"unstructured":"Tennant, R. (2007), \u201cDigital libraries: \u2018lipstick on a pig 2.0\u2019\u201d, available at: http:\/\/blog.libraryjournal.com\/tennantdigitallibraries\/2007\/05\/04\/lipstick\u2010on\u2010a\u2010pig\u20102\u20100\/ (accessed 3 June 2010).","key":"key2022031220464573500_b15"},{"unstructured":"Trommer, D. (1997), \u201cOpen market goes live with next\u2010generation catalog solution\u201d, Electronic Buyers' News, No. 1075, p. 90.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b16"},{"doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Yang, S.Q. and Hofmann, M.A. (2010), \u201cThe next generation library catalog: a comparative study of the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager\u201d, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 141\u201050.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b18","DOI":"10.6017\/ital.v29i3.3139"},{"doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Yang, S.Q. and Wagner, K. (2010), \u201cEvaluating and comparing discovery tools: how close are we towards the next generation catalog?\u201d, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 690\u2010709.","key":"key2022031220464573500_b17","DOI":"10.1108\/07378831011096312"}],"container-title":["Library Hi Tech"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emeraldinsight.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1108\/07378831111138170","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/07378831111138170\/full\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/07378831111138170\/full\/html","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,7,24]],"date-time":"2025-07-24T23:33:54Z","timestamp":1753400034000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emerald.com\/lht\/article\/29\/2\/266-300\/266667"}},"subtitle":["A study of the OPACs of 260 academic libraries in the USA and Canada"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2011,6,14]]},"references-count":18,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2011,6,14]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1108\/07378831111138170"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/07378831111138170","relation":{},"ISSN":["0737-8831"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"0737-8831"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2011,6,14]]}}}