Content area
Purpose
This paper aims to explore recent trends of how Web 2.0 applications were used in 75 academic libraries in Asia through their library websites.
Design/methodology/approachThe Times Higher Education Asia University Rankings 2016 was considered for this study and out of 200 top universities ranked, 75 universities were selected for data collection. Using a multi-method approach, this study evaluated key design elements, library service platforms and website content of each academic library website, examining their site features, Web 2.0 types and applications. The criteria for selecting the websites were first the website was in English and second had Web 2.0 applications integrated into the main website. For the ranking of websites, a library web service index was developed, benchmarking from these groups – resource discovery tools, Web 2.0 applications, e-resources, mobile applications, library guides, digital reference services and digital inclusion – as indicators.
FindingsThe authors found that over two-thirds of Asian university libraries have deployed one or more Web 2.0 applications, though their popularity and implementation vary greatly. Most widely used Web 2.0 applications are Facebook (61.3 per cent), RSS (53.3 per cent), Twitter (46.7 per cent) and YouTube (37.3 per cent). Instant messaging (5.3 per cent) and podcasting (4 per cent) were least applied. With an average of 44 per cent, the diffusion rate of Web information is moderately high among the majority of the Asian university libraries.
Originality/valueMany studies explored Web 2.0 applications from developed countries. However, this study attempts evaluating the use of Web 2.0 applications through content, sites and features of academic libraries in Asia, from developing countries perspective.
Introduction
Academic libraries are evolving in their services to serve users and the values they create for research impact. Since the revolution caused by social media, functionally and Web use has changed the perceptions, approaches and accessibility among library users, enhancing library services and leveraging their potential to obtain the desirable benefits of access, dissemination and impact in a networked online environment, which is critical for libraries in service provision and outreach (Connaway, 2015; Qutab et al., 2014; Shafawi and Hassan, 2018). Academic libraries facilitate information literacy, learning outcomes and scholarly communication – increasingly through social networking sites (SNSs) as reference uses (Fields, 2010; Steiner, 2009). As a result, they have gained worldwide attention to communicate, share information, and in bringing a closer relationship between libraries and users. As hubs of information, reference and research, academic library sites are embracing new web-based technologies – where discoverability of resources is critical through content, functionalities and site structures (Cohen and Still, 1999). The changing web has necessitated this transition for libraries with substantive implications to embracing Library 2.0 principles and the adoption of Web 2.0 tools (Maness, 2006; Wordofa, 2014). Moving on from monolithic sites, academic libraries have embedded weblogs, folksonomies, wikis, podcasts and vodcast services to promote interactive, learning-centric tools in flexible and adaptable systems (Coombs, 2007). As online communities grew, social media enhanced the perception, usefulness and values in online library services (Spiteri, 2009). Web 1.0 connected information, but Web 2.0 connects, represents meaning, and brings all these items closer together to build the user experience by adding layers of meaning on top of the existing web with social, scholarly and semantic extensions (Balaji et al., 2018; Bolinder, 2008).
A new generation of Web 2.0 applications calls for a diversity of use and web-based services are moving towards resilience, inclusion and adaptability. This is to provide accessible digital resources for all – to be intelligent, interconnected and personalised in a humanised service environment (Kelly et al., 2009; Zhang, 2013). Web 2.0 is about the architecture of participation, where users contribute to reuse content and involves collective intelligence for libraries to infuse a sense of belonging, empowerment and self-service in a democratic way (Barsky and Purdon, 2006). Cloud computing and mobile devices took centre stage; searching technologies and user-generated content became the norm (Belling et al., 2011).
Academic library websites became responsive in design, using different technology adoption models and integrated resource discovery tools for facilitating use. Socializing through social media among various communities of practice, academic libraries work with the mandate to ensure users effectively use ideas and information to communicate and produce creative information. They provide for the millennial users on information landscapes – support, reference services and instruction using SNSs (Currie, 2010). Academic librarianship has deliberately discussed, as the web evolved, designing library websites by structure, look, aesthetics, navigability and quality of information throughout the past two decades, breaking down the unnecessarily strong walls between the silos of library management systems and pathways for integration for searching and accessibility (Clausen, 1999). Figure 1 is adapted from Oakleaf and Kyrillidou (2016) and exhibits the common focus areas of Web 2.0 applications at academic libraries in a broader institutional context.
Related literature review
As Web 2.0 has become mainstream, academic libraries have widely examined the early adoption of web applications and various theories of Library 2.0, discussing the growth and implementation of Web 2.0 services. Wang and Hubbard (2002) analysed the University of Alabama Libraries’ website based on principal characteristics and services provided, even as the Web 1.0 applications evolved. They found that the library’s site had changed the culture of the library, necessitating plans to host electronic resources and provide access remotely. Acknowledging the importance of Web 2.0 for libraries, Maness (2006) pointed out the implications of Library 2.0 theory and underscored the essence of using tools such as synchronous messaging and streaming media, blogs, wikis, social networks, tagging, Rich site summary (RSS) feeds and mash-ups for adoption in libraries to allow access to library collections and services. Linh (2008) found that among 47 Australasian university libraries, at least two-thirds of them had one or more Web 2.0 applications, however, the number of web applications were still low. In another similar study, Han and Liu (2010) found that, out of 38 top Chinese academic library sites, two-thirds of the universities were using Web 2.0 tools. The most used were Catalogue 2.0, RSS and IM; blog, SNS and wiki were less frequently used.
To facilitate quality learning outcomes, academic libraries enable and provide web-based services for learners in a dynamic and interactive ecosystem using Web 2.0 technologies (Konnur et al., 2010). Examining the 57 top world universities, Harinarayana and Raju (2010) analysed Web 2.0 features of their academic library sites and found that RSS and blogging were highly used, while podcasting and vodcasting were the least popular. Si et al. (2011), in a survey of top 30 Chinese university libraries, reported that two-thirds of Chinese university libraries have used one or more Web 2.0 applications; one-tenth used more than four Web 2.0 applications, out of which RSS was found to be used more and wiki the least. Mahmood and Richardson (2011) analysed 100 academic sites in the USA and found that through the blog, RSS, IMs, SNSs, podcasting and vodcasting were widely used, wikis, photo and presentation sharing, virtual worlds, customised web pages and vertical search engines were used less.
In a factor approach study, Alireza and Mansoureh (2014) discussed that the effective factors playing a key role in adopting Web 2.0 applications in academic libraries are as follows: job conditions, changeability, skills, competitiveness and saving time. Baro et al. (2014) investigated the awareness and use of Web 2.0 among librarians in African university libraries and found that Facebook, blogs, Twitter, IMs and wikis were the most used for reference services for announcing library news/events, photo and video sharing and training programmes to users. This study also revealed that the lack of facilities, skills and poor infrastructure as some of the barriers to using Web 2.0 applications.
According to Al-Karousi et al. (2015), the Omani academic library sites were slowly embracing Web 2.0 applications in their web services and found that two out of four academic libraries were using Facebook and one library was using Twitter and Instagram to provide services, getting feedback from users and for reference services. The most perceived benefits of using social media for library users are as follows: keeping up-to-date with general information regarding library services, improved communication, personal connection with the library, asking for help, making recommendations, easier access to information, awareness of new resources and promotion of events and competitions (Jones and Harvey, 2019). Yoon (2016) studied the perceived usefulness, interactivity and ease of use and found they were having significant effects on user attitude and satisfaction for using mobile library applications. Torres-Pérez et al. (2016), in their study of the world’s top 50 universities, found that 44 of the universities have adopted mobile web for their library sites. Verma and Devi (2016) studying the site contents and trends of 12 Indian Institute of Management libraries found that library information, collections and services are prominently displayed on the library sites and Facebook was used the most (83 per cent) and wiki the least (1 per cent) among these academic libraries.
Al-Fadhli et al. (2016), in their study of technology adoption and use in Kuwaiti academic libraries, found that the major challenges encountered for technology adoption are lack of national policy, decision-making styles, library/librarian status, staff shortage and techno-lust and also proposed interventions needed for implementation of web-based services. Mierzecka et al. (2017), in a survey conducted among the Polish and Lithuanian academics, found that the:
[…] accessibility of online resources was revealed as the most important element of an academic library website, although information concerning the traditional or offline function of the library was also highly ranked.
An evaluation of 110 academic library websites in the six Gulf Countries Council found that out of the 83 web features considered, no academic library site contained every Web 2.0 application. Only three of the sites contained most of the features, at 84.3 per cent, 78.3 per cent and 76 per cent, respectively. It is observed that 40 of the sites contained between 51 per cent and 75 per cent of the features, while 45 sites contained between 26 per cent and 50 per cent. The remaining 22 sites had 25 per cent or less of the features (Al-Qallaf and Ridha, 2018).
Scope of the study
This study examines the website structure, library service platforms, design and content of academic libraries of Asia and is limited to the 75 selected academic library sites, based on The Times Higher Education Asia University Rankings 2016. Though the prevalence and use of Web 2.0 applications in academic libraries in individual countries offer a better understanding of the topic, however, using a systematic sampling method, this study collected data from 14 countries, which better represents most of the countries in Asia. Language, cross cultures and the sample size are limitations of the study.
Research questions
What kind of Web 2.0 applications are used and in what ways they have been applied at Asian academic library websites?
To what extent do academic libraries use resource discovery, electronic resources, mobile applications, library guides, digital reference and inclusion tools?
What are the prominent site features, service platforms, key design elements, search options and functionalities (navigation, search interface design and content) found at the library sites?
Research design
Research method
This study used a multi-method research design involving content analysis and website evaluation in a qualitative approach, reporting the summary of any form of content by counting various aspects, often used in the analysis of modern technologies, such as internet sites. The site evaluation techniques used were to get answers to key design elements, such as library service platforms used, interface, navigation and search options. This approach was found to be fit for this research, as it not only shows evidence to the written words but also helps to report data that actually exist (Boateng and Liu, 2014; Linh, 2008).
Research sample
In its first-ever ranking of Asian universities, The Times Higher Education 2016 ranked top universities in Asia, which were consistently improving with strategy, increased research funding, growing investments in higher education, and are competing with the global top universities to gain performance, research impact and recognition. According to The Times Higher Education Asia University Rankings 2016, there were 200 universities ranked (www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2016/regional-ranking). As the universities are linguistically diverse and geographically distributed in different countries in Asia, we decided to collect as much data possible using the following methods:
Populate a list of 200 from The Times Higher Education Asia University Rankings 2016.
Access all Asian library sites on this list to identify the presence of Web 2.0 applications.
Mark the list of academic libraries that used any type of Web 2.0 applications.
Based on the above, shortlist a sample of 75 universities as a sample for this study, representing Asia (Appendix 1 for the countries represented and Appendix 2 for the data collected).
Data collection
The 75 Asian university libraries selected as a representation in this study were visited during the period of April to June 2017 following the below criteria broadly to collect the evidence of Web 2.0 applications found on each library website (Appendix 1). The criteria used for sampling the 75 university libraries was based on the library web service index (Appendix 2) developed for this study to evaluate the library site performance, adapted from these earlier studies (Al-Qallaf and Ridha, 2018; Balaji and Kumar, 2011; Mainka et al., 2013). The indicators used for data collection were:
Site and language: Library website, content and site elements are in English or bilingual in the local language (e.g. Chinese). This included searching home pages and sub-pages; wherever the pages were not in English, they were translated using Chrome browser’s translation tool.
Resource discovery tools: Consists of web OPACs, library management systems, Web-scale discovery systems (WSDS) and search engines including site search options.
Web 2.0 applications: Includes blogs, RSS, SNSs and photo and video tools.
E-resources: Consists of e-books, e-journals, databases, e-learning/personalised system, electronic gateways, institutional repository/ETDs and local arts/heritage/museum digital collections.
Mobile applications: Includes mobile websites, library apps and others.
Library guides: Designed as subject guides, FAQs/Q&A sites, content marketing and site maps/site index.
Digital reference services: Primarily e-mail, web form, instant messaging/chat options and Skype tools.
Digital inclusion: Consists of alternative technologies and web accessibility tools for colour-disabled (changing colours and fonts) and digital tools for physically challenged (speech converters, special keyboards, etc.).
Results and discussion
Figure 2 shows that 62 (83 per cent) universities are using Web 2.0 tools on their websites, while 13 (17 per cent) did not. This means that two-thirds of them are using Web 2.0 applications for various purposes; however, using traditional methods, such as e-mail, web form and phone, for mainly providing users with reference services is still prevalent.
Resource discovery tools
As the analysis shows, resource discovery applications built in-house or vendor discovery platforms are being deployed for discoverability of library resources and content – regardless of location, devices and open access resources. This mainly consists of web OPACs, WSDS and search engines. In this study, an examination of the resource discovery platforms, the structure of site home pages and the use of WSDS was carried out, as well as the most commonly used specific terms on their search boxes for searching were noted. It was found that 43 of the 75 libraries (57.3 per cent) featured a tabbed search interface on their library home page, 22 libraries (29.3 per cent) had multiple search boxes and 10 libraries (13.3 per cent) had single search boxes (Table I). These academic libraries have used several terms in their tabbed, multiple search boxes and the most popular are as follows: “E-journals”, “Catalogue”, “Books”, “Databases”, “Search”, “Thesis”, “Course” and “Guides”.
As exhibited in Table II, “E-journals” and “Catalogue” were invariably the most used common terms for searching library websites. Course search includes courses and instructors, which eight universities displayed as part of their search options. We found that 41 of the 75 libraries (54.7 per cent) have search engines embedded on their websites.
Further, we found that all 75 of the universities analysed are moving from standalone systems to integrated discovery platforms. The analysis of the library management systems and WSDS revealed that ExLibris was the most used discovery platform (37.3 per cent), followed by EBSCO’s Discovery Services (17.3 per cent), independent systems (17.3 per cent) and SirsiDynix (8 per cent) (Table III).
Use of Web 2.0 applications
Web 2.0 applications widely applied were blogs, RSS, SNSs, photo and video sharing media and instant messaging tools. Facebook was the most used application (61.3 per cent), followed by RSS (53.3 per cent), Twitter (46.7 per cent), YouTube (37.3 per cent), blogs (18.7 per cent) and Instagram (17.3 per cent); podcasting was found to be the least used at 4 per cent. Figure 3 shows the top used Web 2.0 applications and their types promoting library resources and services through content and tools (videos, posts and microblogs).
Blogging
In this study, we found there were 14 (18.7 per cent) universities using blogs in their library websites. Blogs are mainly used for relaying news and events at the academic libraries, writing reviews, training for databases, teaching aids and software, products and upgrades, celebrating days of national and international importance, information literacy programmes and library orientation sessions for the various user groups associated with the academic institutions.
Rich site summary
RSS helps to track and read content updates on RSS readers instead of visiting the originating websites, by syndicating all the new content available on various sites. Libraries are providing RSS-rich sites for tracking events and news, providing search results and announcing new arrivals. In this analysis, we found that 53.3 per cent were using RSS and many WSDSs enable RSS feeds even for search results. The multiple purposes of RSS in WSDS are exhibited in Figure 4 – showing the RSS home page of the City University of Hong Kong for new arrivals, the RSS feeds of news and events at United Arab Emirates University libraries and the RSS feeds for search results at National University of Singapore Libraries.
Social networking sites
SNSs are the most popular media for academic library services. Many university catalogues were found to have embedded social media at the article/record level in WSDSs and at library websites. The presence of social media indicated that the catalogues had a set of social media tools or applications (e.g. Google Book previews to share buttons such as AddThis and others). In this analysis of 75 universities, on an average, 44 per cent of the universities were using one or the other social media on their library websites. Facebook was the most used social media among 46 (61.3 per cent) of the university libraries for promoting their resources, news, events through posts, newsfeeds and media. In total, 35 (46.7 per cent) university libraries were using Twitter as a popular microblogging site (Figure 5). In total, 28 (37.3 per cent) universities were using YouTube for videos on education, programmes, training, library promotions and e-learning tutorials, while 17 universities had their own YouTube channel exclusively for the library. Nine (12 per cent) university library sites had LinkedIn on their sites, seven (9.3 per cent) university libraries were using Pinterest, six (8 per cent) university library sites embedded Google+, five (6.7 per cent) university libraries were using Tumblr and three (4 per cent) university libraries were using podcasting.
Vodcasting was available in 10 (13.3 per cent) libraries, consisting of online tutorials, e-learning modules and instructional videos on using the library resources, infrastructure and facilities. Bilkent University Library has a tutorial site for the user instruction (Figure 6).
Instagram as an image and video application is gaining traction as an emerging social media platform for sharing pictures and videos, as 13 (17.3 per cent) universities were using Instagram on their library sites for sharing pictures of library resources, events and programmes (Figure 7). Six (8 per cent) libraries were using Flickr. As social media became reference uses some of the popular Twitter hashtags are #refdesk, #bookillustrationoftheday and the Instagram tag #Bookfacefriday were creatively found to be enhancing reference services. Figure 8 shows the top four university libraries highly active in social media activities on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. This illustrates that YouTube counted by a number of videos and subscribers, Facebook by number of likes, visitors and followers and Twitter based on the number of followers and tweets of Hong Kong Baptist University, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Middle East Technical University and the National University of Singapore. Figure 8 also shows the 12 universities that were found to be the most active on Twitter through their number of tweets and followers and on Facebook by their number of followers and likes.
Library guides
Library guides essentially include course, database and subject guides and 37.7 per cent of the library sites were found to integrate these guides with microsites and web guides for learners and faculty. See the library guides example at The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Library in Figure 9.
Digital reference services
The overall percentage obtained for digital reference service is 23.1 per cent. Though all the universities have e-mail support, instant messaging tools were used less as live help to address short questions and reference queries. We found that 5.3 per cent are using IM tools, which contradicts an earlier study conducted by Harinarayana and Raju (2010) where IM tool usage was high among 37 libraries. However, other applications, such as WhatsApp, Google Hangout and library mobile apps have gained popularity as IM tools on library sites. Only two university libraries used Skype for video calls and chats.
Mobile web applications
As exhibited in Figure 10, the topmost used mobile apps are QR code (26.7 per cent), SMS (9.3 per cent), WeChat (8 per cent), WhatsApp (8 per cent), iTunes U (6.7 per cent) and Snapchat (1.3 per cent). We observed that a few libraries have their own library apps available for Android and iOS devices. This app is used to browse and search library websites, to access mobile catalogues and resources accessible through smartphones, and for off-campus access, which can be used across Apple, Android and most wearable devices. Figure 11 shows the mobile app of National Taiwan University (www.uaeu.ac.ae/en/vc/doit/mobile). Many universities do technology lending allowing users to borrow laptops, tablets and Kindle e-readers from the libraries (an example can be seen at: www.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/en/use/borrowing/kindle). Plurk and Line are other social media applications used across electronic devices in Asia, but at much lower rates.
Digital inclusion
For web accessibility, a few of the libraries are building inclusive academic spaces and special collections – audio books and question banks – especially for physically and visually challenged at 4.66 per cent. Some of the prominent features for inclusive web accessibility are increasing font sizes, changing to contrasting colours and converter plugins for text-to-speech for special needs users. The Younes and Soraya Nazarian Library at the University of Haifa has a Learning Center for the visually impaired, demonstrating this inclusiveness in Figure 12. Keyboards with access keys, designated as an alternative technology for people with disabilities, were used at the library of National Taipei University of Technology. Speechmaking is enabled at the United Arab Emirates University Library site, which has a special plugin to read the contents of the site by the ReadSpeaker application (www.library.uaeu.ac.ae/en).
Ranking of the university libraries
Out of the 75 universities, 43 universities scored 40 and above for having rich content, being intuitively enhanced, and for adopting Web 2.0 applications to facilitate library users and 32 universities have scored less than 40. In the rankings, we found that United Arab Emirates University scores the highest rank at 77 followed by Middle East Technical University (71.5). Universities that scored more than 60 are as follows: Sabanci University (69.5), Erciyes University (69.5), Istanbul Technical University (66.5), Istanbul University (65), Hacettepe University (64.5), Mahidol University (63), Boğaziçi University (62), King Abdulaziz University (62), Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (61.5), Chinese University of Hong Kong (61), National Taiwan University (61) and National Tsing Hua University (60). See Figure 13 for the complete ranking and performances of the 75 university library websites that were evaluated.
Conclusion
The analysis of Web 2.0 applications demonstrated how academic library websites became central hubs adequate for essential information services to increase engagement of their users. Web 2.0 is about collective intelligence and an integrated web experience to connect people, concepts and applications. As such, how library web sites can evaluate their own offerings through innovative design, website elements and Web 2.0 applications for academic libraries as a supplement to existing systems and infrastructure in a web environment is discussed. As academic library services become more and more web-based using various applications for discoverability, access is no longer constrained by time and location. Hence, constantly innovating with disruptive technologies to revisit the value of the academic library is crucial. As this opens up many opportunities to shape the future to demonstrate student learning and success, positing libraries at the heart of learning and development is essential, which has implications far beyond not only creating world-class academic libraries but also engages learning communities through social media and digital spaces. Web 2.0 applications and social media certainly influence the participation of students and faculty in the information services delivery and in enhancing the research impact and value of academic libraries. There is a consensus among the library community to identify and support academic resources through social media to drive change and to cater to different user groups. As the mainstreaming of web-based information services is quickly catching up, widespread adoption and diffusion of Web 2.0 applications among Asian university libraries is evident. The present study identified a few trends of how Web 2.0 had been integrated into Asian academic library services and further research will focus on the scholarly web, web standards for user experience design, accessibility, discovery and the applications ecosystem for academic libraries. The Web 2.0 model has shaped academic librarianship, and users, tremendously with the advancements of web technologies towards collective intelligence and participatory development. As this evolves, we should examine emerging Web 2.0 theories and applications to envisage the future of academic libraries. Best practices, risks and policies involved, challenges and lessons learned for using Web 2.0 applications from developed countries will help Asian libraries to move forward. Moreover, if academic libraries are proactive in their approaches to serve users better, their services and innovation will revolve around Web 2.0 applications for implementation.
The authors would like to thank the TEL Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their critical comments in revising this paper.
Common focus areas of Web 2.0 applications in academic libraries
Academic libraries and Web 2.0 applications
Types of Web 2.0 applications
RSS use cases in libraries
Use of Twitter at Nanyang Technological University Libraries
Vodcasting at Bilkent University
Instagram at NUS Libraries
Top universities active on social media: Facebook, YouTube and Twitter
Library guides at HKUST Library in Hong Kong
Top used mobile applications
The library mobile app of National Taiwan University
Learning center for the visually impaired, Younes and Soraya Nazarian Library, University of Haifa
Scorecard of the 75 university library websites
Types of search boxes (n = 75)
| S. No. | Type of search | No. | (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tabbed | 43 | 57.3 |
| 2 | Multiple | 22 | 29.3 |
| 3 | Single | 10 | 13.3 |
| Total | 75 | 100 |
Number of terms used in tabbed search boxes
| S. No. | Term | Use count |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | E-journals* | 49 |
| 2 | Catalogue** | 44 |
| 3 | Books*** | 31 |
| 4 | Databases | 29 |
| 5 | Search**** | 29 |
| 6 | Thesis***** | 17 |
| 7 | Course | 8 |
| 8 | Guides | 5 |
*“e-journals” search includes “e-journals” (n = 35) and “e-articles” (n = 14);
**“catalogue” search includes “OPAC” (n = 8) and “catalogue” (n = 36);
***“books” search includes “book and media” (n = 16), “e-books” (n = 13) and “multimedia” (n = 2);
****“search” search includes “quick search” (n = 6), “one search” (n = 8), “all search” (n = 5), “total search” (n = 2), “power search” (n = 1), “unique search” (n = 1), “literature search” (n = 1), “everything” (n = 1), “wonder search” (n = 1) and “site search” (n = 3), though this indicated a search of the library site, not an external site;
*****“thesis” search includes “thesis” (n = 13), “digital library” (n = 3) and “repository” (n = 1)
Number and percentage of the websites using WSDS
| S. No. | Name of WSDS | No. | (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ExLibris* | 28 | 37.3 |
| 2 | EBSCO’s discovery service | 13 | 17.3 |
| 3 | Independent** | 13 | 17.3 |
| 4 | SirsiDynix | 6 | 8.0 |
| 5 | Libsys | 2 | 2.7 |
| 6 | Encore | 2 | 2.7 |
| 7 | iLiswave | 2 | 2.7 |
| 8 | WorldCat | 1 | 1.3 |
| 9 | PAND | 1 | 1.3 |
| 10 | BSLC system | 1 | 1.3 |
| 11 | Transtech 2.2 T2 | 1 | 1.3 |
| 12 | Sulcmis | 1 | 1.3 |
| 13 | Kosmos | 1 | 1.3 |
| 14 | Limedio | 1 | 1.3 |
| 15 | Webcat Plus | 1 | 1.3 |
| 16 | T-LineS6 | 1 | 1.3 |
| Total | 75 | 100 |
*ExLibris includes “Primo” (n = 13), “Summon” (n = 10) and “Alma” (n = 1);
**Independent includes in-house library management systems, which could not be identified
the 75 Asian university libraries
| S. No. | Asian rankings | University name | Country | URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 46 | China Medical University | Taiwan | http://lib.cmu.edu.tw/english |
| 2 | 2 | Peking University | China | http://eng.lib.pku.edu.cn |
| 3 | 161-170 | Shantou University | China | www.lib.stu.edu.cn/eng |
| 4 | 40 | Sun Yat-sen University | China | http://202.116.65.75/web/EN |
| 5 | 65 | Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee | India | http://mgcl.iitr.ac.in |
| 6 | 141-150 | University of Calcutta | India | www.caluniv.ac.in/libraries/library.html |
| 7 | 76 | Amirkabir University of Technology | Iran | http://library.aut.ac.ir/indexpercent20English.html |
| 8 | 151-160 | Gifu University | Japan | www1.gifu-u.ac.jp/∼gulib/Eng/Welcome.html |
| 9 | 111-120 | Juntendo University | Japan | www.juntendo.ac.jp/english/library |
| 10 | 23 | Tohoku University | Japan | www.library.tohoku.ac.jp/en |
| 11 | 52 | Tokyo Metropolitan University | Japan | www.lib.tmu.ac.jp/english/index.html |
| 12 | 96 | King Saud University | Saudi Arabia | http://library.ksu.edu.sa/en |
| 13 | 12 | Sungkyunkwan University | South Korea | https://lib.skku.edu/en/ |
| 14 | 17 | Hebrew University of Jerusalem | Israel | http://lib-authority.huji.ac.il/eng/index.htm |
| 15 | 79 | Ben-Gurion University of the Negev | Israel | http://in.bgu.ac.il/en/aranne/Pages/default.aspx |
| 16 | 171-180 | Kyushu Institute of Technology | Japan | www.kyutech.ac.jp/english/library_facilities/library |
| 17 | 141-150 | Savitribai Phule Pune University | India | http://lib.unipune.ac.in:8002/jl |
| 18 | 17 | Korea University | South Korea | http://library.korea.ac.kr |
| 19 | 7 | University of Tokyo | Japan | www.lib.u-tokyo.ac.jp/index-e.html |
| 20 | 9 | Seoul National University | South Korea | http://library.snu.ac.kr/?language=en |
| 21 | 151-160 | Shahid Beheshti University | Iran | http://library.sbu.ac.ir |
| 22 | 101-110 | Inha University | South Korea | http://lib.inha.ac.kr/eng |
| 23 | 52 | University of Ulsan | South Korea | http://library.ulsan.ac.kr/en/index.ax |
| 24 | 121-130 | University of Science and Technology Beijing | Beijing, China | http://lib.ustb.edu.cn |
| 25 | 48 | Kyushu University | Japan | www.lib.kyushu-u.ac.jp/en |
| 26 | 161-170 | Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology | Japan | http://lib.s.kaiyodai.ac.jp/?lang=english |
| 27 | 19 | Fudan University | China | www.library.fudan.edu.cn/main_en/index.htm |
| 28 | 20 | Tel Aviv University | Israel | https://en-libraries.tau.ac.il |
| 29 | 191-200 | Tokai University | Japan | www.tsc.u-tokai.ac.jp/ctosho/lib-e/tosho-e.htm |
| 30 | 131-140 | Asia University, Taiwan | Taiwan | http://library.asia.edu.tw/bin/home.php?Lang=en |
| 31 | 161-170 | Suranaree University of Technology | Thailand | http://library.sut.ac.th/clremsite/?m=homepage |
| 32 | 131-140 | Anadolu University | Turkey | http://kdm.anadolu.edu.tr |
| 33 | 111-120 | Keio University | Japan | www.lib.keio.ac.jp/en |
| 34 | 30 | Osaka University | Japan | www.library.osaka-u.ac.jp/index_eng.php |
| 35 | 84 | Pusan National University | South Korea | https://lib.pusan.ac.kr/en |
| 36 | 59 | Tokyo Medical and Dental University (TMDU) | Japan | www.tmd.ac.jp/english/lib |
| 37 | 66 | King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals | Saudi Arabia | www.kfupm.edu.sa/deanships/library/Pages/Default.aspx |
| 38 | 141-150 | Ajou University | South Korea | http://englib.ajou.ac.kr/en/index.ax |
| 39 | 10 | Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) | South Korea | https://library.kaist.ac.kr/main.do# |
| 40 | 4 | University of Hong Kong | Hong Kong | http://lib.hku.hk |
| 41 | 5 | Tsinghua University | China | http://eng.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/default.html |
| 42 | 11 | Kyoto University | Japan | www.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/?ml&lang=en |
| 43 | 101-110 | Chang Gung University | Taiwan | http://library.cgu.edu.tw/bin/home.php?Lang=en |
| 44 | 22 | Hong Kong Polytechnic University | Hong Kong | www.lib.polyu.edu.hk |
| 45 | 94 | National Central University | Taiwan | www.lib.ncu.edu.tw/en |
| 46 | 68 | National Taiwan Normal University | Taiwan | www.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/english |
| 47 | 16 | City University of Hong Kong | Hong Kong | www.cityu.edu.hk/lib |
| 48 | 181-190 | Jordan University of Science and Technology | Jordan | http://just.edu.jo/library/Pages/default.aspx |
| 49 | 151-160 | Chonnam National University | South Korea | http://lib.jnu.ac.kr |
| 50 | 37 | Yonsei University | South Korea | http://library.yonsei.ac.kr |
| 51 | 8 | Pohang University of Science and Technology | South Korea | http://library.postech.ac.kr/?language=en |
| 52 | 121-130 | Qatar University | Qatar | http://library.qu.edu.qa/en/#.WOIx0fmGPIU |
| 53 | 15 | National Taiwan University | Taiwan | www.lib.ntu.edu.tw/en |
| 54 | 35 | National Tsing Hua University | Taiwan | www.lib.nthu.edu.tw/en |
| 55 | 64 | Boğaziçi University | Turkey | www.library.boun.edu.tr/en |
| 56 | 21 | Koç University | Turkey | http://library.ku.edu.tr/en |
| 57 | 6 | Hong Kong University of Science and Technology | Hong Kong | http://library.ust.hk |
| 58 | 2 | Nanyang Technological University | Singapore | www.ntu.edu.sg/Library/Pages/default.aspx |
| 59 | 1 | National University of Singapore | Singapore | http://libportal.nus.edu.sg/frontend/index |
| 60 | 91 | Istanbul Technical University | Turkey | www.library.itu.edu.tr/en/home |
| 61 | 44 | Hong Kong Baptist University | Hong Kong | http://library.hkbu.edu.hk/main/index.php |
| 62 | 87 | University of Haifa | Israel | http://lib.haifa.ac.il/index.php/en |
| 63 | 26 | King Abdulaziz University | Saudi Arabia | http://library.kau.edu.sa/Default.aspx?Site_ID=212&Lng=EN |
| 64 | 121-130 | Yuan Ze University | Taiwan | www.yzu.edu.tw/index.php/en-us |
| 65 | 90 | Mahidol University | Thailand | https://library.mahidol.ac.th |
| 66 | 45 | Bilkent University | Turkey | http://library.bilkent.edu.tr |
| 67 | 181-190 | Southwest Jiaotong University | China | www.lib.swjtu.edu.cn/ArticleChannel.aspx?ChannelID=56 |
| 68 | 13 | Chinese University of Hong Kong | Hong Kong | www.lib.cuhk.edu.hk/en |
| 69 | 191-200 | Erciyes University | Turkey | http://kutuphane.erciyes.edu.tr |
| 70 | 171-180 | Hacettepe University | Turkey | http://library.hacettepe.edu.tr/page/GeneralInformation |
| 71 | 99 | Istanbul University | Turkey | http://kutuphane.istanbul.edu.tr/en/?p=6714 |
| 72 | 94 | Middle East Technical University | Turkey | https://lib.metu.edu.tr |
| 73 | 38 | Sabancı University | Turkey | www.sabanciuniv.edu/bm |
| 74 | 101-110 | United Arab Emirates University | United Arab Emirates | www.library.uaeu.ac.ae/en |
| 75 | 161-170 | American University of Sharjah | United Arab Emirates | http://library.aus.edu |
Library web service index
| S. No. | Group | Indicator | Sub-indicator | Sub-indicator weight | Group weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Resource discovery tools | OPAC | Web OPAC | 3 | 20 |
| Web OPAC in English | 4 | ||||
| LMS/WSDS | Integrated | 6 | |||
| Standalone | 4 | ||||
| Search engines | Website search | 3 | |||
| 2 | Web 2.0 | Blog | blogs | 3 | 20 |
| RSS | RSS | 4 | |||
| SNSs | 2 | ||||
| 2 | |||||
| 2 | |||||
| Photo and video tools | YouTube | 2 | |||
| Podcast | 2 | ||||
| Vodcast | 2 | ||||
| Other social media | Weibo, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Google+, Flickr and Tumblr | 1 | |||
| 3 | E-resources | E-books, e-journals and databases | 5 | 20 | |
| E-learning/personalised system | 3 | ||||
| Electronic gateways | 3 | ||||
| Digital repository - ETDs | 5 | ||||
| Arts/heritage/gallery/museum digital collections | 4 | ||||
| 4 | Mobile apps | 3.5 | 15 | ||
| 3.5 | |||||
| SMS | 3 | ||||
| QR code | 1 | ||||
| Library apps (others) | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Library guides | Subject guides | 2.5 | 10 | |
| FAQs/Q&A sites | 2.5 | ||||
| Content marketing | 2.5 | ||||
| Site maps/site index | 2.5 | ||||
| 6 | Digital reference services | 3 | 10 | ||
| Web form | 2 | ||||
| IMs/chat boxes | 3 | ||||
| Skype | 2 | ||||
| 7 | Digital inclusion | Colour-disabled | 2.5 | 5 | |
| Physically challenged | 2.5 | ||||
| Total | 100 | ||||
Notes:For each sub-indicator that is available on the site being evaluated, place a checkmark, the weight is given. Within each indicator, add the sub-indicator weights of all the universities, divide the total by the total number of universities (n = 75), and multiply by the sub-indicator weight. The sub-indicator and group weights sum to 100
© Emerald Publishing Limited 2019