Preference CDI Link Resolver records over Link in Record when merging
CDI now merges multiple results for the same article together, but when it does it preferences CDI records with 'Link in Record' rather than displaying the Link Resolver choices under Full Text Availability. The Link in Record articles often lead to indexing sites, not to the publisher where the full text is available. We need a config option where we can preference Subscription (Linkresolver) over Link in Record when merging records in Primo
Thank you for raising this, we are considering this idea as part of the idea “Display both link in record and links from link resolver in CDI” , therefore we are releasing your votes on this idea. The direction is to enable customers to show more links and offer some configuration options to set preferences.
Note that this is not something that we can do in the near future since it is a complex change.
Denise Green, CARLI Illinois commented
I couldn't agree more.
Denise D. Green
@Erin Montagu . I totally agree that I would prefer Link resolver links over Link in record for most cases. I'm concerned that it would be a lot of work to set this flag for all collections, and I also guess that Ex Libris has some reasons why they seem to prefer Link in record. As there also could be cases where it would be difficult to determine what works best I suggest that both types of links are shown. Nonetheless; I think that we are on the same page and with (almost) 800 votes I hope that Ex Libris would look into this and I also expect them to comment on this idea.
Es imprescindible que el usuario vea todos los enlaces de los dispone un título. El acceso debe pasar por el proxy y la Biblioteca debe saber que recursos tiene más utilidad para sus usuarios realmente, no porque sea la única opción que se les ofrece,
I don't have any vote left so am leaving a comment. It seems to cause problems with proxy too.
Erin Montagu commented
What I'm proposing Asbjørn is that we have a blanket rule for either preferencing Link In Record or Link Resolver for CDI merged records. Where Link Resolver links are available, we would rather that and no Link in Record links appear at all. This would apply to all sources.
We have found the Link in Records have too many incorrect URLs or take the user to an indexing site where the full text isn't available.
Why should there be a preference for the one over the other. Why not show the end-user both links from link in record and the link resolver in the cases where there are links from both options?
I do not think that there are any algoritm or system that would be able to determine when to use link in record or link resolver for an article. To maintain this manually for each source would also be cumbersome.
Alicia Starr commented
Avondale University College fully support this. Too many issues with linking for staff and students.
AN - UNSW commented
Fully support this - and thanks to Stacey for the comprehensive impact log.
The library should decide how they manage links, as others have sais we need to have links that work for our users easily and simply.
Lynne Jones commented
My thanks to Stacey for listing so many of the reasons why this is a huge problem. I would add that this can devalue our library's subscriptions and make it more difficult for researchers to browse journals and find current scholarship.
Using JSTOR as an example: Say we have a current access subscription to a Taylor & Francis title whose backfiles are also in JSTOR. JSTOR is currently Link in Record and Taylor & Francis is a link resolver collection. Because of this, a researcher who finds an article that is in both T&F and JSTOR would only be presented with a JSTOR link.
JSTOR does not index current content that it doesn't have the full text for. So, by removing a researcher's option to access the article in T&F, you are also taking away their ability to browse current issues of the journal they are accessing. It is extremely common for researchers to find a relevant article and then go on to browse for more articles in the same journal.
This is an unacceptable regression of service and can raise barriers between our users and our subscribed resources.
Nikki DeMoville commented
I fully support this, and am grateful to Stacey for her excellent impact statement. At our library, we display additional GES links to important services such as our online chat service, a help page for sign in issues, and the Unpaywall GES Stacey mentions. All of that is tossed out when link in record takes precedence.
In addition, the presentation is confusing to our users. Despite Ex Libris' efforts to merge records, we still often see multiple CDI results for a single citation. Depending on its source, one search result may display the generic link, while another has the expected link resolver link plus additional GES links.
Denise Donaldson commented
Paula Hasler commented
Fully support this - and thanks to Stacey for the comprehensive impact log.
S. Chalk commented
Totally agree with Sharon Robinson. We want our users to access subscribed resources, in these times of justifying budgets this is paramount.
Stacey van Groll commented
In that particular impact line, I am specifically referring to GES aka General Electronic Services, which is one option for adding the Unpaywall configuration to your environment, which is hidden when there is hardcoded Link in Record preferencing.
This GES sits in the mashup as an 'Additional Service' or similar term, depending on if the display is View It or Get It for no holdings.
This is the option we use for various reasons (see https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Community_Knowledge/How_to_%E2%80%93_Add_an_Unpaywall_General_Electronic_Service_to_Alma%2C_for_Open_Access_links_in_Primo).
I think you might be referring instead to the version Ex Libris added in the November 2019 release, which displays only in the View It alongside all other electronic services, and does not display in the Get It no holdings.
Although we don't use that version, which means I can't answer definitively, I would think logically that the same problem would apply there of the Link Resolver Unpaywall service link being overridden and hidden by the current hardcoded Link in Record preferencing.
Federico Leva commented
Dear Stacey van Groll, thank you for the write up! Can you please clarify what you mean about the priority given (or not) to Unpaywall links? Do you mean that there are resources which have an open access URL on Unpaywall (say, there's a link to PubMed Central) and they end up being linked to that URL instead of what your local URL resolver gives, or vice versa?
Sharon Robinson commented
This is an urgent change. The current set up is preventing our users from accessing subscribed sources. I am expecting a flood of enquiries/complaints if the August change does not result in a significant improvement.
Katie Dunn commented
I see this on the CDI Known Gaps and Issues page (https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Primo/Content_Corner/Central_Discovery_Index/Documentation_and_Training/020Your_Move_to_CDI/Known_Gaps_and_Issues)
"Based on feedback from many customers, we are changing the following link rule in the merged record:"
"If the library has access to at least one of the collections that use the link in the record, those collections will be given precedence over the collections that use OpenURL. Links that use a document ID will be given priority over metadata links."
"To: If the library has access to at least one of the collections that use the link in the record and that link is not for an open access item, those collections will be given precedence over the collections that use OpenURL. Links that use a document ID will be given priority over metadata links. If the "link in the record" collection is open access then the OpenURL link will be given precedence."
"For more information on linking rules, see Linking and the Merged Record."
(Target release: August)
This planned adjustment to the linking rules will resolve a problem we're having with at least one CDI collection (DataCite).
Tracey Reeves commented
University of Adelaide definitely supports this also. I would add to Stacey's list of impacts that Library staff cannot easily tell at a glance what alternative access options there are for articles originating from "Link in record" collections which are either not working or inaccessible to users. This could potentially result in unnecessary Interlibrary Loan requests being made, especially seeing as there is no way for us to manually override these links.
Stacey van Groll commented
Thank you for submitting this idea, Erin. UQ supports this idea wholeheartedly.
We would ideally like a configuration option which allows us to control this preferencing, as we feel is best for our users.
We should not have to deactivate full text collections and resources in order to restore our autonomy over the links, information, and services we present to our users.
The reasoning for Link in Record hardcoded preferencing of presenting the most stable link is valid, but this sacrifices too many Alma functions and services which Libraries provide to our users, by eliminating our ability to surface these in Primo.
Relaxing this preferencing for Open Access, rolled out in July 2020, regressed, and rolled out again in August 2020, does not go far enough.
Ex Libris describes Link in Record collections as composing approx. 40% of collections, but they are also changing even more collections from Link Resolver to Link in Record, including almost all the JSTOR collections in the August CDI Collection List, with no other notice to the community.
Impact log, many contrary to recently revised NISO RP-19-2020, Open Discovery Initiative: Promoting Transparency in Discovery (approved June 22, 2020)
* supplementary features and value-added Additional Services are hidden, for example General Electronic Services supporting staff workflows such as OpenURL calls to external reading list management systems shown only to Library Staff by user group, help links for users to locally created web content offering expert guidance on navigating various ebook platforms and sharing accessibility assessments, and the Unpaywall Look for Open Access version option by DOI to support all users
* only one static link is presented, rather than a full list of Link Resolver options, as failsafe options in the event of failure and also hides more options for users with limited privileges
* removal of library autonomy in platform preferencing, with no option to present links in our configured preferred order as per Alma Online Services Order, as well as undermining efforts for sites to support linking neutrality
* removal of library ability to present only certain access points over others in granular fashion when needed or desired, by preventing the use of Display Logic Rules to hide full text when other full text is available
* no option to add Public Notes for user information, such as when it is known via staff information or user reports that the platform is experiencing an issue. This is a key direct communication channel between Libraries and our users, where we can support them by sharing temporary workarounds
* no option for sites to use the Alma URL override options at the service level, when the platform is experiencing a problem. This is a vital workaround for sites to immediately implement corrections when metadata between the Alma CKB and CDI is mismatched or Ex Libris introduces regressions, so that our users are not further impacted with loss of direct access to resources while we open cases and wait for a defect fix
* no option for sites to utilise Show License information, which includes locally configured options from Alma, with key information on our contractual obligations and limits of access. This is a loss not just for users but for our staff managing Document Delivery services who use this information directly in Primo as a quick workflow to determine if they can fill ILL requests from external institutions
* static link collections are often problematic, such as only pre-print content, rather than final version
* missing provider information from the link text for the destination, which libraries cannot control, use to find the source, and fix ie 'View full text in collection' dummy text, rather than advising a user which platform they will be sent to, and also removing their ability to choose
* variable confusing behaviour when collections are restricted to authentication for search ie several Link Resolver options are presented when not logged in, and then upon logging in, the display changes to a static link (eg Westlaw)
* Database Link in Record collections are made full text active in their entirety. For A&Is, the Link in Record then leads only to the abstract, hiding valid Link Resolver services to the full text. This is made worse by Ex Libris incorrectly marking some of these collections as CDI Type of Full Text Collection
* user clicks on Link in Record static links are not recorded in either Primo Analytics or Alma Analytics. User clicks on Link Resolver services are recorded in Link Resolver Usage Alma Analytics, which is a valuable resource for correcting linking problems experienced by users without need for direct user report, and a valuable metric for libraries to report on engagement with Library electronic resources