Library Hi TechThe current state of library open source software research: A descriptive literature review andclassificationAaron Palmer Namjoo Choi

Article information:To cite this document:Aaron Palmer Namjoo Choi , (2014),"The current state of library open source software research", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 32Iss 1 pp. 11 - 27Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-05-2013-0056

Downloaded on: 23 November 2014, At: 07:39 (PT)References: this document contains references to 55 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 536 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Namjoo Choi, (2014),"The application profiles and development characteristics of library Open Source Software projects",Library Hi Tech, Vol. 32 Iss 2 pp. 260-275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-09-2013-0127Joseph Pruett, Namjoo Choi, (2013),"A comparison between select open source and proprietary integrated librarysystems", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 31 Iss 3 pp. 435-454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-01-2013-0003Anilkumar Hanumappa, Mallikarjun Dora, Viral Navik, (2014),"Open Source Software solutions in Indian libraries", LibraryHi Tech, Vol. 32 Iss 3 pp. 409-422 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LHT-12-2013-0157

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 463575 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

The current state of library opensource software researchA descriptive literature review and

classification

Aaron Palmer and Namjoo ChoiSchool of Library and Information Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington,

Kentucky, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to assess the current state of research on open sourcesoftware (OSS) in the library context.

Design/methodology/approach – This study employs a descriptive literature review. Itcategorizes library OSS research according to a classification scheme developed for the study, andanalyzes the research based on year published, publication outlet, type of software discussed, type ofarticle, type of library, and article topic.

Findings – The authors found significant research attention devoted to open source repositoryapplications, online public access catalog (OPAC) software, and integrated library systems (ILS). Themajority of article types employed were case studies and discussion pieces. When articles were focusedon a specific library, it was dominantly an academic library. Article topics centered around OSSadoption, development, provision of foundational or introductory information, and OSS performance.

Originality/value – The authors are not aware of any other study that surveys and synthesizes theliterature on OSS in the library context. Not only does this study provide a reference source andclassification scheme for those conducting future research in this area to utilize, but it also identifiesareas in this field that have received the most research attention, as well as areas that could benefitfrom future studies. This study will prove helpful to scholars looking for directions to take theirresearch.

Keywords Libraries, Open source software, Descriptive literature review

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionRapid advances in technology have significantly changed how our society viewsinformation, and this shift has led to a drastic evolution in the nature of how librariesoperate and how they provide services to their patrons. Development or adoption ofnew technologies has become a necessity if the library wishes to stay viable as aninformation provider. Some of these technologies include the integrated library system(ILS), which automates many of the library’s day-to-day functions, the digital library,which facilitates the dissemination of scholarly research and acts as a repository forthe ever-growing amount of electronic media in library collections, and the discoveryinterface, a more advanced online public access catalog (OPAC) that employs, amongother things, relevancy rankings and faceted searching.

There are many commercial options open to libraries wishing to acquire thissoftware, and indeed, many libraries take this route. However, another possibilityexists for libraries who do not feel that a commercial option suits them: open source

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm

Open sourcesoftwareresearch

11

Received 11 May 2013Revised 4 June 2013

18 June 2013Accepted 21 June 2013

Library Hi TechVol. 32 No. 1, 2014

pp. 11-27q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0737-8831DOI 10.1108/LHT-05-2013-0056

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

software (OSS). As today’s libraries face shrinking budgets and an ever-increasingneed for technology, there has been a growing interest in and adoption of OSS in thelibrary community (Donnelly, 2010). The benefits of OSS, such as greater flexibilityand lower costs, are compelling more libraries to turn to this “attractive” option (Payneand Singh, 2010). Some examples of OSS widely adopted by libraries include Koha andEvergreen (ILS), Greenstone and DSpace (digital repository systems), and Blacklightand VuFind (OPACs).

The role OSS plays in the changing face of modern libraries is an exciting area ofstudy, and as such, much research has already been devoted to its use in the librarycontext. This rising interest in OSS in both library practice and research warrants astudy to assess its current state. By conducting a descriptive literature review, thisstudy attempts to identify the level of attention that various research streams in thisarea have received. The findings from the study will provide library researchers with apicture of where the research stands today, as well as a classification scheme to refer to.More importantly, it will locate under-researched areas and thus offer insights as towhere scholarship should be directed in the future.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: first, a brief overview on thesubject of OSS in the library context will be given. We then present our researchmethodology and classification scheme, followed by the findings of our study. Finally,we discuss the implications raised by these findings, and conclude by proposingdirections for future research.

2. Literature reviewThe Open Source Initiative, as of 2013, lists ten criteria that a piece of software musthave to be considered open source. The first three are the most widely known, and arethe criteria that most people understand defines a product as “open source”: Theredistribution of the software must be free of charge, the source code of the softwaremust be made available, and the code must be able to be modified (Open SourceInitiative, 2013). Grant (2008) puts this definition in a library-applicable context:

Because open source is freely available, many libraries, after doing some basic homework,simply download the application, install it, run it and test it against their needs. Unlike theproprietary world, where this option may not exist, or be a “limited-functionality” version, ora “time limited” version, you can load OSS and run it for as long as you want (p. 228).

As early as 1999, Chudnov (1999) was touting OSS as an option for libraries, drawingparallels between OSS’s philosophy of free and universal availability of source codeand the library’s philosophy of free and universal availability of information, as well asdiscussing practical benefits such as lower costs.

As mentioned above, in recent years OSS has become more accepted in the librarycommunity as an alternative to proprietary software. However, the extent of thisacceptance is still a matter for debate. Rafiq (2009) finds that although OSS adoptionamong libraries is still a relatively recent phenomenon, it is quickly gaining moremomentum, and there is an overall positive perception of OSS among currentlibrarians. By contrast, Breeding and Yelton (2011), writing on ILS adoption in librariesbut discussing the wider open source movement as well, state that “the overall pictureof open source interest is conflicted, and data can be found to support (or undermine)many hypotheses” (p. 21). Payne and Singh (2010) write of a “defined and beneficial

LHT32,1

12

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

relationship between OSS applications and library professionals” (p. 715), and statethat “libraries are very eager to adopt cost effective solutions and to be involved in theprocess of OSS development and distribution” (p. 716). However, they also mentionconcerns among librarians regarding the dependability and sustainability of OSSproducts, and call for future research on the effects of OSS adoption in libraries toalleviate these worries.

Increasing attention in recent years has been paid to topics such as the adoption anduse of OSS (e.g. Blackburn and Walker, 2010; Blanke et al., 2012), the usability of OSS(e.g. Chen and Albee, 2012) and the economic value of OSS (e.g. Breeding, 2008). Andnaturally, given the aforementioned concerns mentioned by Payne and Singh (2010),there have been several studies that provide an introduction to specific types of OSS(e.g. Breeding, 2008; Lagoze et al., 2006) to clarify misunderstandings and assuageworries. In a similar vein, there have been an extensive number of case studiespublished investigating the effects of OSS adoption and development on individuallibraries, in order to “test the waters” and better understand this emergingphenomenon. Such studies have been published on open source ILS (e.g. Bissels andChandler, 2010; Genoese and Keith, 2011; Shafi-Ullah and Qutab, 2012), open sourcedigital libraries (e.g. Bindu et al., 2010; Doctor, 2008; Stanger and McGregor, 2007), andopen source discovery interfaces (e.g. Featherstone and Lei, 2009; Houser, 2009; Sadler,2009), as well as many other kinds of OSS employed in the library context.

3. Research methodology3.1 A descriptive literature review and its scopeWe assessed the state of OSS research in the library context by conducting adescriptive literature review. This type of assessment is essential to distill the existingresearch in a subject field, the objective being to promote the progress of the researchbody by surveying and synthesizing prior scholarship. It begins by performing acomprehensive review to collect as much relevant literature as possible on a desiredsubject, and then analyzes it to identify recurring themes and interpretable patterns inthe research area (Guzzo et al., 1987). It typically involves utilizing frequency analysisto quantify such information as year of publication and methodology, and generallyemploys a systematic procedure of searching for, filtering, and classifying theliterature (Yang and Tate, 2012).

To locate and collect the relevant literature, we targeted two prominent librarydatabases:

(1) Library Literature & Information Science Full Text; and

(2) Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (LISTA).

These databases were accessed through EBSCOhost. We felt, given EBSCOhost’sposition as one of the largest and most frequently used academic search services, thatits holdings would be comprehensive enough to return a representative state of OSSresearch in the library context for our review. Searches in both databases wereconducted using the keywords “libraries” AND “open source software”. The articlescontaining the exact phrase of “open source software” as of the end of February 2013were extracted. This ensured that only articles relating to the use of OSS in the librarycontext would be returned.

Open sourcesoftwareresearch

13

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

This review is intended to provide a classification scheme for OSS researchers, andto act as a starting point for those interested in investigating this area further,informing, for example, what research has already been conducted and identifyingareas that have not received significant attention to prompt ideas for future direction.Thus, our study targeted only peer-reviewed, academic publications. The searcheswere filtered using EBSCOhost’s limiter “Scholarly (Peer-reviewed) Journals”, and bylimiting the language to “English”.

3.2 Filtering processOur initial search resulted in 603 hits. The titles and abstracts of the returned articleswere analyzed, and irrelevant articles and duplicates were removed. Articles wereconsidered irrelevant if they did not address both OSS and its use in the librarycontext, or if OSS and libraries were only mentioned in the article without being a mainpoint of focus. When the relevance of an article could not be ascertained from theabstract, the full text of the article was reviewed. The remaining 391 articles wereimported into an EndNote database. The titles and abstracts were read a second time,and any irrelevant articles or duplicates that had been overlooked during the initialfiltering process were deleted. For the purposes of this review, short opinion pieces ormagazine articles, even if they appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, were found notto provide the appropriate level of depth or analysis to be included and were discarded.There were several articles returned that were separate chapters of one larger body ofwork. These chapters were compiled into separate “group” folders in EndNote, andeach folder of chapters was treated as a single source. This second round of filteringresulted in a total of 164 articles. During the coding process, eight more irrelevantarticles were omitted, resulting in a final total of 156 articles with which to conduct ourliterature review.

3.3 Classification schemeAfter the final round of filtering, the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles werereviewed again and coded based on a literature classification scheme developed tosystematically generate academic insights from the extant research on OSS in thelibrary context. If the information in the title and abstract was not sufficient to code thearticle, the full text of the article was examined. Codes were developed based on type ofsoftware discussed in the article (e.g. ILS, digital resource software, OPAC software),type of article (e.g. case study, survey, technical paper), type of library (e.g. academiclibrary, public library, science and technology library), and overall topic of the article(e.g. discussing adoption of an already existing piece of software, development ofhomegrown software, an instructional article for those new to OSS).

The categories for coding the type of software were initially taken from Foss4Lib(see http://foss4lib.org/), a web-based repository of OSS for libraries that divides itssoftware by type into 20 “packages”. However, this proved to be insufficient for ourstudy, as many pieces of software discussed in the articles could not be sorted into anyof Foss4Lib’s categories. Fifty-seven software categories were identified as a result ofthe coding process. These were then synthesized into 17 broader categories morerepresentative of the software discussed in the literature, while still using the Foss4Libpackages as a foundation to build on. Table I presents the software categories withtheir definitions.

LHT32,1

14

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

The categories for coding the type of article were developed based on a thoroughreading of abstracts and when necessary, the full text of the article, especially themethodology section. Key words and phrases in the abstract and article were lookedfor to shed light on the article type (e.g. the use of the phrase “case study” or “onelibrary’s experience with . . . ” would indicate that the article was a case study). Thecoding resulted in eight distinct categories. Table II presents these categories with theirdefinitions.

The categories for coding the type of library were developed based on the website ofthe International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, IFLA; see www.ifla.org/), which contains a section describing the different types of libraries. Anadditional code of “any library” was added for articles whose findings’ applicabilitywas not restricted to a specific type or types of library. Three IFLA categories,“Libraries Serving Persons with Print Disabilities”, “National Libraries”, and “SocialScience Libraries”, were not found to be relevant to any article and were removed fromthe code book. Table III presents the library type categories with their definitions.

The categories for coding the article topic were developed by performing a closereading of titles and abstracts, in order to identify the key focus of the article (Naidoo

Software categories Definitions (this category encompasses software designed to . . .)

Bibliography Collect and organize citations (e.g. Zotero)Database managementsystem

Facilitate the design, maintenance, and querying of a database(e.g. MySQL)

Digital repository Collect and manage digital resources, including digital repositories,preservation repositories, and electronic reserves software(e.g. Reserves Direct)

OPAC software Facilitate the searching of a library catalog, including discoveryinterfaces and traditional OPACs (e.g. Blacklight)

Integrated library system Automate many traditional functions of a library (e.g. Koha)Interlibrary loan Facilitate document delivery and resource sharing between libraries

(e.g. Prospero)Journal publishing Facilitate the electronic publishing of journals (e.g. DPbS)Research guides Collect resources for the purpose of aiding research, including subject

guides and knowledge bases (e.g. ResearchGuide)Link resolver Direct users to desired resources (e.g. SFX)Metadata manipulation Alter or convert metadata (e.g. MARC.pm)Reference Aid reference librarians in providing services to patrons (e.g. LibStats)Management aids Aid in the management and coordination of various tasks, including

course management software, conference management software(e.g. Moodle)

Desktop software Function as the basic components of any computer, includingoperating systems and web browsers (e.g. Linux)

Statistics Provide libraries with statistics on the use of various services(e.g. Serial Count)

Public access computing Manage public access computing, including session managementsoftware and security software (e.g. Internet Station Manager)

Geographic informationsystems

Analyze geographic data to enhance library services (e.g. GRASS)

Content management systems Allow the publishing and editing of web content (e.g. Drupal)Table I.

Software categories

Open sourcesoftwareresearch

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

et al., 2013). When the focus could not be gleaned from simply the title and the abstract,the full text of the article was reviewed. When examining the articles, we askedourselves “What is this paper about?” and “What are the fundamental concepts beingaddressed in this paper?” (Aksulu and Wade, 2010). Paying particular attention to thethesis statement of the article, key phrases and words were looked for (e.g. the use ofthe phrase “this paper discusses the library’s implementation of . . . ” in the thesisstatement would indicate that the focus of the article was to describe the adoption of aparticular software application). Six distinct categories were identified based on thecoding process. Table IV shows these categories and their respective definitions.

This descriptive review provides a picture of the current state of OSS research in thelibrary context by conducting a systematic classification of the literature using theclassification scheme detailed above. The results of the classification are presented inthe following section. Note that because several codes in each of these categories oftenapplied to a single article, the codes were not mutually exclusive.

4. Results and analysisA total of 156 articles were classified according to our scheme. In addition, articles werealso classified by year of publication and publication outlet to identify trends in whereand when OSS research has been published over the years.

4.1. Distribution of articles by yearAs shown in Figure 1, there was a noticeable rise in OSS literature in the mid-2000s.The number of articles published rose from five in 2004 to 13 in 2005, and then to 20 in2006. Production of articles generally remained on a plateau until 2012, with a smalldrop in 2007 and a small peak in 2010. The increase in the literature coincides with a

Article types Definition (This category refers to articles that . . .)

Case study Conduct a case study of the implementation/use of a specific piece ortype of software on a specific library (e.g. Genoese and Keith, 2011)

General overview Provide a general overview of the definition and principles of OSS,without discussing a specific piece or type of software(e.g. Krishnamurthy, 2008)

Comparison Compare the functions, advantages, or drawbacks of two or morepieces of software (e.g. Lihitkar and Lihitkar, 2012)

Literature review Examine the literature on a particular type of OSS, for purposes ofgaining a picture of the state of the research and putting new researchin context (e.g. Felstead, 2004)

Checklist/approach toevaluation

Provide a comprehensive checklist of criteria that a softwareapplication should meet (e.g. Balnaves, 2008)

Survey Base their findings on surveys conducted among a group ofparticipants. (e.g. Doctor, 2008)

Discussion of piece/pieces/type of software

Provide an overview or in-depth discussion of one or more specificpieces or types of software, without discussing the impact on a specificlibrary (e.g. Breeding, 2008)

Technical paper Discuss technical issues of a piece of software, intended for readerswith significant prior experience in that software’s use (e.g. Changet al., 2010)

Table II.Article types

LHT32,1

16

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

higher level of interest in OSS itself, brought about in part due to the advantages of themodern internet, which allowed OSS programs and information about OSS to bespread among a wider group at a rate far more rapid than had previously been possible(Muir, 2005). Both the increased interest in OSS and the greater volume of scholarshipanalyzing the phenomenon indicate a wider acceptance of the overall movement in thepast decade.

4.2 Distribution of articles by publication outletJournals specializing in the technical side of library and information science (LIS) havedevoted the most research attention to OSS in the library context. Library Hi Techstands out in this regard (17 articles, accounting for 10.9 percent of the total), closely

Library types Definition (this category refers to a library whose . . .)

Any library Refers to articles whose findings can be applicable to any library(e.g. Bisson, 2007)

Academic and researchlibraries

Primary purpose is to serve academic or scholarly research needs.Case studies taking place in an academic library were included in this,as were any articles whose findings were specifically applicable to thistype of library. For purposes of this study, an archive was consideredto be this type of library (e.g. Chapman et al., 2009)

Art libraries Primary holdings are works of art. Articles whose findings werespecifically applicable to this type of library were included in thisstudy (e.g. Bieber and Schweibenz, 2005)

Government libraries Primary purpose is to serve a governmental body. Articles whosefindings were specifically applicable to this type of library wereincluded in this study (e.g. Hswe et al., 2009)

Health and bioscienceslibraries

Primary holdings are on the topic of health or biology, as well aslibraries that serve a specific hospital. Case studies taking place in ahealth or medical library were included in this, as were any articleswhose findings were specifically applicable to this type of library(e.g. Bissels and Chandler, 2010)

Law libraries Primary holdings are works on the subject of law. Case studies takingplace in a law library were included in this, as were any articles whosefindings were specifically applicable to this type of library(e.g. Jackson, 2011)

Library and research servicesfor parliaments

Primary purpose is to serve a parliamentary body. Case studies takingplace in such a library were included in this (e.g. Shafi-Ullah andQutab, 2012)

Metropolitan libraries Refers to a public library serving a population of 400,000 people ormore. Case studies taking place in a metropolitan library wereincluded in this (e.g. Evans, 2006)

Public libraries Primary purpose is to serve members of the general public, as opposedto a specific group such as students or medical professionals, and ispublicly funded. Case studies taking place in a public library wereincluded in this, as were any articles whose findings were specificallyapplicable to this type of library (e.g. King et al., 2005)

Science and technologylibraries

Primary holdings are on the topic of science or technology. Casestudies taking place in a science or technology library were included inthis, as were any articles whose findings were specifically applicableto this type of library (e.g. Anuradha et al., 2011)

Table III.Library types

Open sourcesoftwareresearch

17

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

followed by Program: electronic library and information systems (14 articles,accounting for 9 percent of the total). By and large, the journals that published the mostOSS-related articles all had a technological focus, some other examples being OCLCSystems and Services with nine articles (5.8 percent), Information Technology andLibraries with eight articles (5.1 percent), and Library Technology Reports, with sevenarticles (4.5 percent), with journals that possessed a broader scope generally onlypublishing one or two. An interesting exception is Serials Librarian, which publishedten OSS-related articles, accounting for 6.4 percent of the total. Table V shows thefrequency and percentage of the appearance of each journal in the research, and alsofunctions as a guide for researchers looking for quality sources on OSS, or looking foravenues to publish their work.

4.3 Distribution of articles by softwareOur literature review revealed significant research attention devoted to three types ofsoftware in particular:

Article topics Definition (this category refers to articles that/in which . . .)

Performance Make a judgment on the performance of a piece of software relative toeither a proprietary counterpart or another similar piece of OSS.Technical papers aimed at improving performance were also includedin this category (e.g. de Smet, 2011)

Adoption Describe a library’s adoption of an already existing piece of software,as opposed to the development of a homegrown product (e.g. Binduet al., 2010)

Development Describe a library’s development of homegrown software, as opposedto the adoption of an already existing product (e.g. Sadler, 2009)

Predictions Attempt to predict the state of either general OSS or a specific type ofsoftware at some point in the future (e.g. Wusteman, 2004)

Foundational/introductions Discuss a specific piece of software, review the current market ofeither a specific type of software or general OSS, and/or provideinsights for librarians looking to educate themselves on OSS(e.g. Witten and Bainbridge, 2005)

Persuasion Attempt to persuade the reader of the benefits of OSS, or argue thatOSS is a preferable choice to proprietary software (e.g. Grant, 2008)

Table IV.Article topics

Figure 1.Distribution of articles byyear

LHT32,1

18

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

(1) digital repository software (54 articles, accounting for 34.6 percent of the total);

(2) OPAC software (32 articles, accounting for 20.5 percent of the total); and

(3) ILS (40 articles, accounting for 25.6 percent of the total).

Development of repository applications began in the 1990s, when academicians desireda way to make research more freely available to the scholarly community (Caplan,2008; Witten et al., 2001). The advent of the internet, along with other developments indigital and communication technology, means that the potential for this objective to beachieved is greater than ever before (Shoeb, 2010). Naturally, this makes digitalrepositories an exciting area for research. And as the three dominant repositoryapplications (i.e. DSpace, Fedora, and EPrints) are all open source (Caplan, 2008),research efforts would logically have a heavy focus on not only those applications, butother OSS repositories as well.

Library users became increasingly dissatisfied with the traditional OPAC followingthe advent of mainstream search engines (e.g. Google and Amazon) that providedsuperior services by employing relevance rankings and faceted searching, as opposedto library OPACs that simply returned results in the order they had been cataloged inthe database (Emanuel, 2011; Sadler, 2009; Schneider, 2006). Libraries were beginningto serve users that were expecting the type of services provided by Google, whichlibraries could not provide (Sadler, 2009; Schneider, 2006), and it was found thatfrustrated patrons would first attempt searches on Google and Amazon beforeattempting to utilize their library’s catalog (Skinner, 2012). The “next-generationOPAC” was developed to address this issue, but due to the significant monetaryinvestment required for a library to implement such software, many open sourcealternatives have emerged (Emanuel, 2011). The push to improve the OPAC and returnthe library to its status as a major player in information seeking has garnered theinterest of many researchers, and due to the attractiveness of OSS options for librariesseeking next-generation OPACs, the open source market is seen as an importantresearch area as well.

Felstead (2004) found that although OSS ILS had little impact on the market in theearly 2000s, and were being met with resistance from vendors, there was nonetheless astrong likelihood that they would have a very large impact on the market in the future.This was proven true; by 2008, libraries were increasingly turning to open source ILS

FrequencyJournal n Percentage

Library Hi Tech 17 10.9Program: electronic library and information systems 14 9.0Serials Librarian 10 6.4OCLC Systems & Services 9 5.8Information Technology and Libraries 8 5.1Library Technology Reports 7 4.5The Electronic Library 6 3.8Code4Lib Journal 5 3.2DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology 5 3.2Library Trends 5 3.2

Table V.Distributions of articles

by journal (top ten)

Open sourcesoftwareresearch

19

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

over proprietary software, and their presence in the mainstream ILS market wasexpected to increase still further (Balnaves, 2008). Given the relative novelty of OSSapplications in the ILS market, it is unsurprising that this expansion has garneredsubstantial research interest.

Also of interest is the smaller, but no less important, research on contentmanagement systems (CMS) (13 articles, accounting for 8.3 percent of the total). Manylibraries face issues with their current web presence, such as an inability to managetheir site’s growing complexity, complications with users accessing their website witha variety of different browsers, and the need for a greater number of users to be able tocontribute content (Bahr and Speed, 2010; Benzing, 2006; Fennell, 2007). This level ofresearch interest indicates a growing desire to address these issues. Table VI shows thefrequency and percentage of the appearance of each software category in the research.

4.4 Distribution of articles by article typeNearly half of the articles employed a case study approach (72 articles, accounting for46.2 percent of the total). The next most popular types of article were those thatdiscussed a specific piece or type of software (53 articles, accounting for 34 percent ofthe total) and those that provided comparisons between software applications (22articles, accounting for 14.1 percent of the total). Sixteen articles (accounting for 10.3percent of the total) presented a general overview of the definition and principles ofOSS, coming in fourth place. One interesting finding the results show is a relative lackof survey research (12 articles, accounting for 7.7 percent of the total). More surveysenabling wider reaching generalizations on, for example, libraries’ level of interest in aspecific type of software or users’ level of satisfaction with a given library OSSapplication are called for. Table VII presents the frequency and percentage of theappearance of each type of article in the research.

FrequencyType of software n Percentage

Bibliography 2 1.3Database management system 7 4.5Digital repository 54 34.6OPAC software 32 20.5Integrated library system 40 25.6Interlibrary loan 2 1.3Journal publishing 4 2.6Research guides 6 3.8Link resolver 6 3.8Metadata manipulation 1 0.6Reference 3 1.9Management aids 4 2.6Desktop 8 5.1Statistics 2 1.3Public access computing 2 1.3Geographic information systems 1 0.6Content management systems 13 8.3

Table VI.Distribution of articles bysoftware

LHT32,1

20

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

4.5 Distribution of articles by library typeMany of the articles projected scenarios and discussed software that could be appliedto any library (56 articles, accounting for 35.9 percent of the total). However, when asingle library was specified, the vast majority of them were academic libraries (68articles, accounting for 43.6 percent of the total). A small number of other articles weredevoted to health libraries (nine articles, accounting for 5.8 percent of the total), scienceand technology libraries (ten articles, accounting for 6.4 percent of the total), or publiclibraries (five articles, accounting for 3.2 percent of the total). Table VIII shows thefrequency and percentage of the appearance of each library type in the research.

4.6 Distribution of articles by topicSixty-three of the articles (accounting for 40.4 percent of the total) discussed theadoption of a piece of OSS by a specific library. Forty-nine articles (accounting for 31.4percent of the total) discussed the performance of certain pieces of OSS, and 33(accounting for 21.2 percent of the total) discussed a library’s development of its ownsoftware. The purpose of these studies, in the case of adoption and development, was toinform the wider library community of the benefits that came from such a move(e.g. Doctor, 2007; Mah and Stranack, 2005; Shafi-Ullah and Qutab, 2012). Given thefact that OSS is a relatively recent development in the library world, and manylibrarians may be concerned about the reliability of these products (Payne and Singh,

FrequencyArticle type n Percentage

Case study 72 46.2General overview 16 10.3Comparison 22 14.1Literature review 2 1.3Checklist/approach to evaluation 9 5.8Survey 12 7.7Discussion of piece/pieces/type of software 53 34.0Technical paper 9 5.8

Table VII.Distribution of articles by

article type

FrequencyType of library n Percentage

Any library 56 35.9Academic and research libraries 68 43.6Art libraries 1 0.6Government libraries 1 0.6Health and biosciences libraries 9 5.8Law libraries 3 1.9Library and research services for parliaments 1 0.6Metropolitan libraries 1 0.6Public libraries 5 3.2School libraries and resource centers 1 0.6Science and technology libraries 10 6.4

Table VIII.Distribution of articles by

library type

Open sourcesoftwareresearch

21

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

2010), it is not surprising that studies would be published detailing real, concretebenefits resulting from implementation of OSS. These provide librarians with insightinto how OSS might affect their own library, and are helpful sources of information torefer to when considering a shift away from proprietary software. The performancearticles had a similar purpose, to provide specific information for librarians about howa piece of software functioned, and thus acting a helpful source to refer to whenconsidering a move to OSS.

Sixty articles (accounting for 38.5 percent of the total) were designed to provide afoundation or introduction to OSS. Their intent was to educate library professionalsnew to OSS, describe potential benefits for interested librarians, and present theoptions available to librarians to better enable them to make informed decisions fortheir library (Breeding, 2008; Kamble et al., 2012). This was the second most populouscategory, suggesting that library OSS research is still at its infancy. Persuasion andpredictions account for 9 percent of the total (14 articles) and 1.9 percent (3 articles),respectively. Table IX presents the article topic categories and their frequency andpercentage.

5. DiscussionThe intention of this study is to provide a picture of where library OSS research standsas of now. We presented a descriptive review, classifying the literature in a range ofcategories. Our findings have revealed several interesting implications for futuredirections that scholarship in this area could take.

We found that while there was an increase in the published literature in themid-to-late 2000s, the number of articles published fell in 2012. While this is notnecessarily a cause for alarm, or indicative of future trends (there was a similar drop in2007, but publication picked back up the next year), we do encourage librarians andacademics to continue to publish OSS research. We also found that, by and large,publication of OSS research was restricted to technologically centered journals.Journals with a broader focus are encouraged to take a greater interest in the opensource movement as it relates to libraries. This will expose OSS research to a wideraudience, and attract more attention from a wider base of librarians.

An aspect of the research that we found particularly interesting was the high levelof attention paid to repository applications, OPAC software, and ILS. While this levelof attention is to be expected, as we discussed in section 4.3, there are many types ofOSS that are of great importance to libraries, but have received comparatively littleattention in the literature. For example, Donnelly (2010) found that OSS GIS use is

FrequencyArticle topic n Percentage

Performance 49 31.4Adoption 63 40.4Development 33 21.2Predictions 3 1.9Foundational/introductions 60 38.5Persuasion 14 9.0

Table IX.Distribution of articles bytopic

LHT32,1

22

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

extensive among a small, dedicated group of researchers, and recommends OSS GIS asa viable alternative to proprietary software for small-to-medium libraries, as well aslarge research libraries wishing to augment already-existing GIS services. Furtherresearch is called for to investigate this burgeoning trend, and to provide informationon this topic for interested librarians. While GIS are only one example, virtually all OSSidentified, other than repository applications, OPACs, and ILS, received scant researchattention (an exception being CMS, as discussed in section 4.3). These applications,however, are of no less importance to libraries. Further research is called for toinvestigate the extent of these applications’ use, identify existing options and theirrelative performance, and how such OSS could potentially benefit libraries andlibrarians.

Another aspect of the research that we found interesting was that the number ofcase studies published was disproportionately high, comprising nearly half of thearticles reviewed. This is understandable; as previously mentioned in section 4.4, it isbeneficial for interested librarians to know what experiences other libraries have hadwith OSS before making a decision themselves. However, with the exception of articlesintended to discuss a specific piece or type of software, other types of studies have notbeen heavily utilized. In particular, we found the lack of survey studies significant.Surveys have previously been employed to examine the perception of OSS in thelibrary community (Rafiq, 2009), as well as to provide insights into the librarycommunity’s level of interest in open source ILS and gauge the satisfaction oflibrarians who already use such software (Breeding and Yelton, 2011). However, thereare still many more research areas that could benefit from surveys. For example,studies are needed to assess satisfaction and interest for types of OSS other than ILS. Inaddition, a survey investigating the level of OSS adoption amongst libraries is calledfor, to assess how widespread OSS use has become in the library community, and seewhether positive perceptions of OSS among some librarians (Rafiq, 2009), havetranslated into adoption.

While the findings of many of the articles reviewed could have benefits for anylibrary, when this was not the case the applicable library was almost always anacademic library. This may be because academic librarians, more than any other type,are encouraged to publish as part of their duties (many of the academiclibrary-centered articles were case studies conducted by staff or faculty employed atthe library in question). Researchers are encouraged to conduct studies detailing thebenefits of OSS in other types of libraries, such as public libraries or national libraries,to investigate the effectiveness of OSS in different settings, with libraries that have adiverse set of needs and goals.

The topics of the articles were, for the most part, evenly distributed across thecategories. As previously mentioned in section 4.6, they indicated a research streamaimed at providing examples of real benefits for readers to appraise before making aninformed decision, and educating librarians about OSS. However, papers that made theextra push towards actively persuading librarians to make the move to OSS andpredicting the adoption and use of OSS in libraries were few and far between. Thefuture of OSS in libraries is an exciting area of study, and speculation on the possibledirections it could take would be beneficial for scholars looking to produce new,innovative research.

Open sourcesoftwareresearch

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

We found the number of articles on the topic of software development significant.Libraries are not only adjusting to a changing era by adopting new technology, but aremaking their own contribution to the OSS movement. This has been occurring for thepast several years (for example, DSpace, the product of a collaboration between thelibraries of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Hewlett-Packard, wasdeveloped in the early 2000s; Smith et al., 2003), yet there are many unexploredresearch areas in this aspect of OSS in the library context, such as the extent of OSSdevelopment among libraries (i.e. are there a significant number of libraries that aredeveloping their own software but not publishing the results of its implementation?),the impact of library-developed software on the market, and the motivations oflibraries and librarians who participate in OSS development. Studies are called for toinvestigate these areas.

OSS use is growing among libraries (Payne and Singh, 2010), and extensiveresearch has already been conducted on this phenomenon. In this study, we conducteda descriptive review of the current state of library OSS research. One hundred andfifty-six peer-reviewed journal articles were organized into categories and analyzed.The results of this analysis offer insights on where this research stands at the moment,and where more research attention should be directed next. We believe that thefindings from this study will prove helpful in guiding researchers towards new areas inwhich to pursue scholarship, and that they will assist with further innovations in thisfield.

References

Aksulu, A. and Wade, M. (2010), “A comprehensive review and synthesis of open sourceresearch”, Journal of the Association of Information Systems, Vol. 11 No. 11, pp. 576-656.

Anuradha, K.T., Sivakaminathan, R. and Kumar, P.A. (2011), “Open-source tools for enhancingfull-text searching of OPACs: use of Koha, Greenstone and Fedora”, Program: electroniclibrary and information systems, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 231-239.

Bahr, E. and Speed, M. (2010), “Creating library websites with Joomla: not too big, not too small,just right”, Code4Lib Journal, No. 12, pp. 1-14.

Balnaves, E. (2008), “Open source library management systems: a multidimensional evaluation”,Australian Academic & Research Libraries, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Benzing, M. (2006), “Luwak: a content management solution”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 24 No. 1,pp. 8-13.

Bieber, C. and Schweibenz, W. (2005), “Images of Italian art on the web – the database of thePhoto Library of the German Art Institute in Florence”, New Library World, Vol. 106Nos 9/10, pp. 430-440.

Bindu, B., Ajesh, C. and Sugumaran, C. (2010), “Indexing of internet Spacenews items using‘Greenstone’ software for intranet users: a case report”, Information Studies, Vol. 16 No. 3,pp. 155-181.

Bissels, G. and Chandler, A. (2010), “Two years on: Koha 3.0 in use at the CAMLIS library, RoyalLondon Homoeopathic Hospital”, Program: electronic library and information systems,Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 283-290.

Bisson, C. (2007), “Open-source software for libraries”, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 43 No. 3,pp. 5-53.

Blackburn, G. and Walker, M. (2010), “Subject guides & more: creatively transforming an opensource management system”, Code4Lib Journal, No. 12, pp. 1-10.

LHT32,1

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Blanke, T., Bryant, M. and Hedges, M. (2012), “Ocropodium: open source OCR for small-scalehistorical archives”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 76-86.

Breeding, M. (2008), “Open source integrated library systems”, Library Technology Reports,Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 1-32.

Breeding, M. and Yelton, A. (2011), “Librarians’ assessments of automation systems: surveyresults, 2007-2010”, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 5-34.

Caplan, P. (2008), “The preservation of digital materials”, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 44No. 2, pp. 5-38.

Chang, N., Tsai, Y. and Hopinkinson, A. (2010), “An evaluation of implementing Koha in aChinese language environment”, Program: electronic library and information systems,Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 342-356.

Chapman, J.W., Reynolds, D. and Shreeves, S.A. (2009), “Repository metadata: approaches andchallenges”, Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, Vol. 47 Nos 3/4, pp. 309-325.

Chen, H.-I. and Albee, B. (2012), “An open source library system and public library users: findingand using library collections”, Library and Information Science Research, Vol. 34 No. 3,pp. 220-227.

Chudnov, D. (1999), “Open source software: the future of library systems?”, Library Journal,Vol. 124 No. 13, pp. 40-43.

de Smet, E. (2011), “Special features of the advanced loans module of the ABCD integratedlibrary system”, Program: electronic library and information systems, Vol. 45 No. 3,pp. 323-332.

Doctor, G. (2007), “Knowledge sharing: developing the digital repository of SIPS”, VINE: thejournal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 64-73.

Doctor, G. (2008), “Capturing intellectual capital with an institutional repository at a businessschool in India”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 110-125.

Donnelly, F.P. (2010), “Evaluating open source GIS for libraries”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 28 No. 1,pp. 131-151.

Emanuel, J. (2011), “Usability of the VuFind next-generation online catalog”, InformationTechnology & Libraries, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 44-52.

Evans, R. (2006), “Delivering sizzling services and solid support with open source software”,IFLA Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 19-27.

Featherstone, R. and Lei, W. (2009), “Enhancing subject access to electronic collections withVuFind”, Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 294-306.

Felstead, A. (2004), “The library systems market: a digest of current literature”, Program:electronic library and information systems, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 88-96.

Fennell, C.M. (2007), “Content management and Web 2.0 with Drupal”, Medical ReferenceServices Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp. 143-167.

Genoese, L. and Keith, L. (2011), “Jumping ship: one health science library’s voyage from aproprietary ILS to open source”, Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, Vol. 8No. 2, pp. 126-133.

Grant, C. (2008), “Gone open yet?”, Public Library Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 223-241.

Guzzo, R.A., Jackson, S.E. and Katzell, R.A. (1987), “Meta-analysis analysis”, in Staw, B.M. andCummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, JAI Press, Greenwich,CT, pp. 407-422.

Houser, J. (2009), “The VuFind implementation at Villanova University”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 27No. 1, pp. 93-105.

Open sourcesoftwareresearch

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Hswe, P., Kaczmarek, J., Houser, L. and Eke, J. (2009), “The Web Archives Workbench (WAW)tool suite: taking an archival approach to the preservation of web content”, LibraryTrends, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 442-460.

Jackson, D.W. (2011), “Watson, answer me this: will you make librarians obsolete or can I use freeand open source software and cloud computing to ensure a bright future?”, Law LibraryJournal, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 497-504.

Kamble, V.T., Raj, H. and Sangeeta, S. (2012), “Open source library management and digitallibrary software”, DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, Vol. 32 No. 5,pp. 388-392.

King, D., Tipton, J.K. and Hill, H. (2005), “KCResearch: creating a research portal using opensource technology”, Public Library Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 63-73.

Krishnamurthy, M. (2008), “Open access, open source and digital libraries: a current trend inuniversity libraries around the world”, Program: electronic library and informationsystems, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 48-55.

Lagoze, C., Payette, S., Shin, E. and Wilper, C. (2006), “Fedora: an architecture for complex objectsand their relationships”, International Journal on Digital Libraries, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 124-138.

Lihitkar, S.R. and Lihitkar, R.S. (2012), “Open source software for developing digital library:comparative study”, DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, Vol. 32 No. 5,pp. 393-400.

Mah, C. and Stranack, K. (2005), “Db Wiz: open source federated searching for academiclibraries”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 490-503.

Muir, S. (2005), “An introduction to the open source software issue”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 23No. 4, pp. 465-468.

Naidoo, J., Huber, J., Cupp, P. and Wu, Q. (2013), “Modeling the relationship between an emerginginfectious disease epidemic and the body of scientific literature associated with it: the caseof HIV/AIDS in the United States”, Journal of the American Society for Information Scienceand Technology, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 380-391.

Open Source Initiative (2013), “The open source definition”, available at: http://opensource.org/osd (accessed March 19, 2013).

Payne, A. and Singh, V. (2010), “Open source software use in libraries”, Library Review, Vol. 59No. 9, pp. 708-717.

Rafiq, M. (2009), “LIS community’s perceptions towards open source software adoption inlibraries”, International Information & Library Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 137-145.

Sadler, E. (2009), “Project Blacklight: a next generation library catalog at a first generationuniversity”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-67.

Schneider, K. (2006), “How OPACs suck. Part 1: relevance rank (or the lack of it)”,www.alatechsource.org/blog/2006/03/how-opacs-suck-part-1-relevance-rank-or-the-lack-of-it.html (accessed April 15, 2013).

Shafi-Ullah, F. and Qutab, S. (2012), “From LAMP to Koha: case study of the Pakistan legislativeassembly libraries”, Program: electronic library and information systems, Vol. 46 No. 1,pp. 43-55.

Shoeb, Z. (2010), “Developing an institutional repository at a private university in Bangladesh”,OCLC Systems and Services, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 198-213.

Skinner, K. (2012), “A comparison of searching functionality of a VuFind catalogueimplementation and the traditional catalogue”, Library Trends, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 208-217.

LHT32,1

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)

Smith, M., Barton, M., Bass, M., Branschofsky, M., McClellan, G., Stuve, D., Tansley, R. andWalker, J. (2003), “DSpace: an open source dynamic digital repository”, D-Lib Magazine,Vol. 9 No. 1.

Stanger, N. and McGregor, G. (2007), “EPrints makes its mark”, OCLC Systems & Services, Vol. 23No. 2, pp. 133-141.

Witten, I.H. and Bainbridge, D. (2005), “Creating digital library collections with Greenstone”,Library Hi Tech, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 541-560.

Witten, I.H., Bainbridge, D.I. and Boddie, S.J. (2001), “Greenstone: open-source digital librarysoftware with end-user collection building”, Online Information Review, Vol. 25 No. 5,pp. 288-298.

Wusteman, J. (2004), “Patently ridiculous”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 231-237.

Yang, H. and Tate, M. (2012), “A descriptive literature review and classification of cloudcomputing research”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 31No. 2, pp. 35-60.

Corresponding authorNamjoo Choi can be contacted at: namjoo.choi@uky.edu

Open sourcesoftwareresearch

27

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ER

SIT

Y O

F E

XE

TE

R A

t 07:

39 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

(PT

)