1. Correcting Accidentals: Using an Availability Study to Identify and Resolve the “Suspensions” Impeding Access to Electronic Resources Sanjeet Mann, University of Redlands How often do e-resource errors occur? Why do e-resource errors occur? How can librarians fix them? Edit proxy server settings or adjust link resolver knowledge base to eliminate proxy errors Contact database technical support staff to correct source metadata errors Customize local holdings in knowledge base or contact link resolver technical support to correct holdings errors Edit link resolver interfaces to include ISSN and title searching of library catalogs Configure link resolver to prevent circular linking; notify target full text providers of concatenated records and search algorithm issues that may cause additional loops Customize ILL forms to parse OpenURL metadata correctly for each item type Contact ILL vendor to ensure support for extended character sets, particularly in non-Western languages Learn about and advocate for initiatives such as NISO’s IOTA (Improving OpenURL Through Analytics) Redlands next steps Edit WAM forward table to fix proxy errors Adjust Serials Solutions holdings Contact database provider, Serials Solutions and OCLC support staff to coordinate resolution of issues identified in this study Customize ILLIAD forms as part of library-wide website redesign Continue ongoing usability testing of all aspects of library web presence (LibGuides, catalog, Serials Solutions, ILLIAD) Discuss how best to equip students and faculty to successfully obtain full text (instruction, online tutorials, public Serials Solutions notes?) Continue to build collaborative relationships with subscription agents and database, link resolver, ILL vendors. Openness and enthusiasm for working together among all parties are crucial to improving the electronic research experience for library users. I started with the availability method as developed by Buckland (1975), Kantor (1976), Nisonger (2009) and others… Procedure …but modified it to account for student search behavior observed in local usability tests. I derived 4 searches in each of 10 disciplines from actual student research topics documented in our reference statistics tool… …ran the searches in an A&I database, and recorded data in a survey spreadsheet (available at http://goo.gl/606us) I tested the first 10 items from each search for local print or electronic availability, and for the presence of an error. Errors needed to be significant enough to stop a student (or an ILL direct request). This required a judgment call in my simulated study. Next time I’ll use actual students… ILL is no longer an “acquisition error” (Ciliberti et al. 1998) Many students use simple keyword searches and don’t go beyond the first result page OpenURL targets must lead directly to full text (PDF or HTML is ok) Desirability of a resource is inversely proportional to the time required to obtain it You can do it! Before I embarked on this study I pilot tested a sample of 100 items. An availability “micro study” of this size or smaller can complement your ongoing usability testing and help you prioritize troubleshooting efforts. Try running a few searches in an A&I database and document the results in a spreadsheet. This is a fascinating task to delegate to well trained staff or student workers – everyone loves a good mystery! As Wakimoto et al. (2006) noted, most students expect immediate, full text access to electronic resources. However, in my study of e-resource availability at the University of Redlands, only about 1 in 4 items was actually available. About 1 in 3 items had to be requested through ILL. 40% of items produced an error with the potential to confuse a student or delay fulfillment of an interlibrary loan. Online scholarly research requires interoperability between multiple systems operated by vendors, libraries and other organizations. Not surprisingly, errors can occur at any juncture between the major components: a library proxy server, source database, link resolver and knowledgebase, and target resources. For this study, I tracked six categories of error. While it is difficult to precisely ascribe a cause to each issue, the most common problems seemed to involve: 1)Forms and translation rules connecting Serials Solutions to ILLIAD 2)Problems with the OpenURL title, date and author fields 3)Less than optimal selection of holdings in Serials Solutions Trainor and Price (2010) note the impact of e- resource errors, which can discourage users from using library resources for research in the future. Works Cited Acknowledgements Contact Sanjeet Mann is Electronic Resources and Arts Librarian at the University of Redlands. Email: sanjeet_mann@redlands.edu Buckland, Michael (1975). Book Availability and the Library User. New York: Pergamon. Ciliberti, Anne, et al. (1998). Empty Handed? A Material Availability Study and Transaction Log Analysis Verification. Journal of Academic Librarianship 24 (4): 282-289. Kantor, Paul (1976). Availability Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 27 (5): 311-320. Nisonger, Thomas E. (2009). A Simulated Electronic Availability Study of Serial Articles Through a University Library Web Page. College & Research Libraries 70 (5): 422-446. Trainor, Cindi, and Jason Price (2010). Rethinking Library Linking: Breathing New Life into OpenURL. Chicago: American Library Association. Wakimoto, Jina Choi, et al. (2006). The Myths and Realities of SFX in Academic Libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship 32 (2): 127-136. This presentation would not be possible without the generous support of Armacost Library and the College of Arts Dean’s Office. Catherine Walker and Osman Trad of ITS provided timely assistance with printing.