Application of “Thermodynamic” approach to evaluate author productivity in Malaysia

Research proposal

  

Introduction

Is h-index really fair in assessing scientific performance? It was developed by Hirsch to characterize, by means of a single number, both the productivity and the impact or influence of scholar. Being practically simple, and easy in obtaining and calculation, h-index was eagerly accepted by scientists. This measure is used in making decision process for awarding grants and allocation research funds, predicting potential candidates for Nobel Prize. So far, there is no other substitutes were approved by scientific community.

But there are still some disadvantages which were summarized by Bornmann, Mutz, et al. (2011) as follows - it is field-dependent, it may be influenced by self-citations, it does not consider multi-authorship, it is dependent on the scientific age of a scientist, it can never decrease, and it is only weakly sensitive to the highly cited papers.

Attempts to improve existing h-index or to discover a substitutes are being undertaken till now. One of the recently proposed approaches is taken to be tested in this research.

Literature review

Currently scientists are seeking for scalar single number measure or indicator to assess scientist’s contribution. Scalar means the number which can be easily subjected to arithmetical operations such as addition, subtraction and multiplication, without distortion of results’ meaning. In contrast to vector which has not only meaning but direction as well. So we cannot easily add meanings of two vectors. In bibliometrics this can be illustrated by case, when author A cited author B in a critical way, but author B still gets additional citation count, hence his citation indicator is growing up.

Yet Costas & Bordons (2007) found that h-index is highly correlated with the absolute number of publications and citations, which one more time proves its field dependence, also they pointed out that there is a need to include the other dimensions in the analysis of research performance of scientists and the risks of relying only on the h-index take place. Bornmann, Mutz, et al. (2011) have conducted the first meta-analysis of studies that computed correlations between the h index and 37 different variants of the h-index that have been proposed and discussed in the literature by 2010. A high correlation between the h-index and its variants indicated that the h index variants hardly provide added information to the h-index.

Despite this meta analysis results I would like to test the thermodynamic approach which is proposed by Prathap Gangan. It is the latest theory and it is not covered by Bornmann’s analysis. Although, there is no any single researcher who supports Prathap’s theory, it seems for me to be sensible, and Prathap does not give up and he is still trying to prove its significance.

The theory states that each paper has Energy, let e be its denotation, which calculated as e=c², where c is number of citation, received by this particular paper. Full Energy of author can be calculated as a sum , X=iC, where i=C/P, where C – total number of citations and P - total number of publications.  p=X^1/3 is the performance indicator, where X=iC, i=C/P, where C – total number of citations and P - total number of publications.

He has been criticized by number of scientists such as Leydersdorf, Waltman and Franceschini who assert that analogy with thermodynamic is just a consilience, and that there are many more special conditional factors in thermodynamic, and their equivalents cannot be found in bibliometrics, such as temperature, pressure, mass and others. Some other indicators were proposed instead such as Integarted Impact Indicator (I3)  and Crown indicator.

Leydesdorff & Opthof (2011) tells that unlike Prathap’s scalar measures (Energy, Exergy, and Entropy or EEE), the Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) is based on non-parametric statistics using the percentiles of the distribution. This different approach take into account not only ratio and scale of the sample, but the shape of distribution as well. Crown Indicator was introduced by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden, and it was actually the first attempt of practicing normalization mechanism, and hence known as the CWTS approach. Prathap gives a comprehensive overview of all indicators development in his paper, where he says that ‘‘crown indicator’’ is a variation of Schubert and Braun’s (1986) RCR = MOCR/MECR. The other general name for this approach among researchers is “add-divide” method, because calculation sequence is like this: Count all citations to the unit’s publications and add them together. Then add together all the world citation averages that correspond to the selected publications with respect to document type, publication year and research area. Then divide the sum of citations with the sum of world averages. This was challenged by Opthof and Leydesdorff (2010), who proposed an alternative “divide-add” approach. In response to this, a new crown indicator was introduced by CWTS: the mean normalized citation score (MNCS) (Waltman et al.2011b). Bornmann and Mutz (2011) summed this up very neatly that both old and new crown indicators suffer from the weakness that all the operations are based on arithmetic averages of ratios or ratios of arithmetic averages (Bornmann and Mutz 2011). As citation data is highly skewed, this will not lead to robust measures. Instead, Bornmann and Mutz (2011) extend an earlier idea (Bornmann 2010) to calculate a single number measure for the citation impact that is not based on the arithmetic average but uses reference distributions based on the calculation of percentiles. An expected value (EV) is then proposed but as we shall show later, this is a overall quality proxy and not a proxy for total performance. Leydesdorff et al. (2011) make the same observation.

But Prathap is still insisting on the successful application of Exergy approach in bibliometrics. He came up with this theory through number of other suggested indicators such as mock h-index, p-index, composite indicator and Expected Value. It was found that “where the sample size is large (e.g., the scientific performance of 233 countries) and the values of citations and papers are also very large, the mock h-index and the original h-index are virtually indistinguishable” Prathap (2010).

Another example is given by Prathap where he analyzed author productivity for six fellows elected in 2006 to the Royal Society. It was shown that p-index or Exergy was differ from h-index in favor of scientists who got much more citations than the number of paper he has published.

According to Bornmann & Marx, (2011) further studies are needed to examine the significance of the h index in different fields of application. According to Mingers (Mingers J. Measuring the research contribution of management academics using the Hirsch-index. Journal of the Operational Research Society 2009;60(9):1143-1153. doi:10.1057/jors.2008.94), some priorities for future related studies are:

• Validity of the h index in large and diverse groups of researchers;

• Comparability of the h index across and within social sciences;

• Validation of the h index by more sophisticated bibliographic analyses.”

Problem statement

Up to now h-index remains the only indicator of the extent of scientific performance. Furthermore, it is no longer being used as a measure of scientific achievement only for single researchers (Glänzel, 2006). The index is also being used to measure the scientific output of research groups (van Raan, 2006), scientific facilities (Kinney, 2007), and countries (Csajbók, Berhidi, Vasas, & Schubert, 2007). This measure is used in making decision process for awarding grants and allocation research funds, predicting potential candidates for Nobel Prize.

So far, there is no other substitutes were approved by scientific community.

But h-index is yet not perfect, in case when citation count of one paper significantly exceeds the total number of paper. Another potential distortion factor could be found in a high self-citation rate. And h-index can never be more than number of papers. And once high mean of h-index is reached, researcher can leave all his or her worry because h-index will never decrease. Like other bibliometric measures, the h index depends on the length of an academic career, and it should be used for comparing researchers of similar age (Bornmann & Marx, 2011). But Exergy is showing current state of author activity and it allows to represent scientist’s activity in many ways – including chronologically.

Objectives of the Study

The main purpose of the present study is to apply bibliometric analysis, such as newly proposed Thermodynamic approach to count Xergy which substitute of h-index to indicate author productivity in area of science, who have been publishing since 1945 till 2011 years.

The 66-year data to be harvested from a databases such as Web of Science, Google scholar and Scopus, which provided the necessary data to support a bibliometric study. Hence, the objectives of this study are to determine the following:

(1)               To find out top productive authors in Malaysian by counting their h-index and Exergy index.

(2)               To test the Thermodynamic approach.

(3)               To comparing the rank by Exergy index and h-index.

(4)               To find out the significance of the difference in rank by Xeregy index and h-index, if there is any.

(5)               To compare results of Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Knowledge in terms of completeness of available data.

Research Questions

The research questions follow the objectives of the study:

(1)               What is the significance of newly proposed Thermodynamic approach in bibliometrics?

(2)               What is the difference between author productivity rank built up by Exergy and h-index?

(3)               Who are the productive authors publishing in Malaysia?

(4)               What are the differences among databases Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Knowledge providing bibliographic data for calculating author productivity?

Significance of the Study

Scientific dispute is going on about significance of the approach which was newly proposed by Prathap. Majority of authors consider his discover as a consilience. But at the same time they are not so strict towards cons of h-index. Test of this thermodynamic approach will reveal the practical results of its application. Moreover, there was not done before research in the area of author productivity pattern in Malaysia.

Methodology

Sample of authors will be chosen in a particular scientific area. All available bibliographic details such as number of publications, citation count, h-index for each author will be harvested from Scopus, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar. As Glanzel (2003) noticed that publication activity in longer observation periods is greater than in short periods since publication activity is cumulative process, data will be taken starting from the earliest period till now.

To count Exergy for each author according to the thermodynamic paradigm. To find out how much significant is the difference between the meaning is, if there is any. And to find out if there is any change in author ranking.

Full Energy of author can be calculated as a sum , X=iC, where i=C/P, where C – total number of citations and P - total number of publications.  p=X^1/3 is the performance indicator.

References

Bornmann, L., R. Mutz, et al. (2011). "A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants." Journal of Informetrics.   

Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2011). The h index as a research performance indicator. European Science Editing, 37(3), 77-80.

Bornmann, L. and H. D. Daniel (2009). "The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance?" EMBO reports 10(1): 2.

Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 193-203.

Glanzel, W. (2003). Bibliometrics as a research field: a course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators.

Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2011) A rejoinder on energy versus impact indicators. Scientometrics, 1-4.

Leydesdorff, L. (2009). How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology.

Opthof, T., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). A comment to the paper by Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011. Scientometrics, 88(3), 1011-1016.

Opthof, T., & Wilde, A. (2009). The Hirsch-index: a simple, new tool for the assessment of scientific output of individual scientists. Netherlands Heart Journal, 17(4), 145-154.

Opthof, T., & Wilde, A. (2011). One more time: bibliometric analysis of scientific output remains complicated. Netherlands Heart Journal, 19(7), 359-360.

Park, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Knowledge linkage structures in communication studies using citation analysis among communication journals. Scientometrics, 81(1), 157-175.

Prathap, G. (2011). A comment to the papers by Opthof and Leydesdorff, Scientometrics, 88, 1011–1016, 2011 and Waltman et al., Scientometrics, 88, 1017–1022, 2011. Scientometrics, 1-7.

Prathap, G. (2010a). The 100 most prolific economists using the p-index. Scientometrics, 84(1), 167-172.

Prathap, G. (2010b). Going much beyond the Durfee square: enhancing the h T index. Scientometrics, 84(1), 149-152.

Prathap, G. (2010c). The iCE approach for journal evaluation. Scientometrics, 85(2), 561-565.

Prathap, G. (2010d). An iCE map approach to evaluate performance and efficiency of scientific production of countries. Scientometrics, 85(1), 185-191.

Prathap, G. (2010e). Is there a place for a mock h-index? Scientometrics, 84(1), 153-165.

Prathap, G. (2011a). The Energy–Exergy–Entropy (or EEE) sequences in bibliometric assessment. Scientometrics, 87(3), 515-524.

Prathap, G. (2011b). The fractional and harmonic p-indices for multiple authorship. Scientometrics, 86(2), 239-244.

Prathap, G. (2011c). Letter to the Editor: Comments on the paper of Franceschini and Maisano: Proposals for evaluating the regularity of a scientist’s research output. Scientometrics, 88(3), 1005-1010.

Prathap, G. (2011d). The quality-quantity-quasity and energy-exergy-entropy exegesis of expected value calculation of citation performance. Scientometrics, 1-7.

Prathap, G. (2011e). Quasity, when quantity has a quality all of its own—toward a theory of performance. Scientometrics, 88(2), 555-562.

Shi, A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). What do the cited and citing environments reveal about Advances in Atmospheric Physics? Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 28(1), 238-244.

Vinkler, P. (2010a). The π-index: a new indicator to characterize the impact of journals. Scientometrics, 82(3), 461-475.

Vinkler, P. (2010b). The Evaluation of Research by Scientometric Indicators. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited.

Waltman, L., van Eck, N., van Leeuwen, T., Visser, M., & van Raan, A. (2011a). On the correlation between bibliometric indicators and peer review: reply to Opthof and Leydesdorff. Scientometrics, 88(3), 1017-1022.

Waltman, L., van Eck, N., van Leeuwen, T., Visser, M., & van Raan, A. (2011b). Towards a new crown indicator: an empirical analysis. Scientometrics, 87(3), 467-481.

Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2011c). Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 37-47.

Waltman, L., Yan, E., & van Eck, N. (2011). A recursive field-normalized bibliometric performance indicator: an application to the field of library and information science. Scientometrics, 89(1), 301-314.

Wikipedia. (2011). h-index. Retrieved 20 October, 2001, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index

Jacsó, P. (2008). The plausibility of computing the h-index of scholarly productivity and impact using reference-enhanced databases. Online Information Review, 32(2), 266-283.

Open Access Software: lack of use in developing countries

Introduction

Open Access (OA) movement is attracting more and more attention of people who have something to do with information technologies in general, and automation in libraries in particular. Activities of research community, which focus on OA solutions, are taking place more often and often, what can be proved by Mullen’s (2010) report. The most active countries in Asia in this movement according to Rafiq and Kanwal (2009) are India, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand, followed by Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal; In Latin America: Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina, followed by Colombia, Venezuela, and Peru; in Africa: South Africa, Kenya, Namibia, and Nigeria, followed by Ethiopia, Ghana, and Zambia.

My interest is even stronger because, perhaps, such OA Integrated Library Systems (ILS) as KOHA or Evegreen can be applicable and adoptable in developing countries of Central Asia or post Soviet Union area from where I am. Perhaps, they are ideal solutions of practical problem of library automations in countries where human and time resources are enough and funding is lack.

This reaction paper aims to reflect the current state of open access technologies, the tendency of its development, the best practices of others countries, the problems that are staying on the way to apply the OA ILS, and finally the suggestions will be proposed which can contribute to the process of accelerating of OA ILS use.

The paper endeavoured to stress on KOHA and post Soviet Union area.

Literature review and some reflections

The articles were retrieved from databases such as ProQuest, EBSCOHOST, Emerald, Web of Science; Google scholar was not missed as well. Research papers, opinions of authoritative people, reports published within 2010 and 2011 years were preferred.

Chudnov (2010) has yet predicted a year ago that “the maturing of the library software marketplace for “open source” vendors” will take place in 2010. The benefits from Open Source Software (OSS) use are obvious and they were repeated enormous times from paper to paper. Somebody like Bill Schickling can argue that OSS demands almost as much expenditures as proprietary one, but number of OSS users is increasing and, in many cases, not because of free availability but because of high quality. The quality can be easily explained by participation of OA users in process of developing and improving OSS applications all over the world. Hundreds of forums, communities are established in order to support and maintenance OSS users, where you can get a response within five minutes. Furthermore, even if library cannot do without external support, in case if library is not satisfied with user support service of a particular company, it can easily go for another. By other words, absence of dependence on a particular proprietary ILS is one more great advantage of OA solutions.

Breeding (2008) deploys comparison of expenditures in implementing of OSS and proprietary LMS. Fialkoff (2010) has interviewed Bill Schickling, Polaris’ vendor, who believes that a set of task to implement OA ILS is still the same as at proprietary one, and he is against consolidation with OA niche; he believes that both types of products can successfully coexist in the library automation market. But Dimant (2010) claims that despite the similarity of tasks such as initial launch and adoption, retrospective conversion, staff training and annual support, OA ILS is still much more economical.

Poulter (2010), whose target audience is non-technical people, once again provides us with general information about what OSS concept is, as well as Fagan and Keach (2010), where they give list of advantages, which can be summarised by Dimant (2010). Payne (2010) gives a wide overview of OSS products which are used by libraries, proving one more time that libraries can find a lot of obvious benefits to fulfil their needs and that OA movement in general is increasing trend. Furthermore, the author stressed that KOHA is a good choice as a software for automation solution due to its friendly interface, ease to learn, flexibility and adoptability to a special environment, with minimum technical and system requirements.

Rafiq and Kanwal (2009) share with their experience of Koha implementation in Provincial Assembly Libraries of Pakistan under Pakistan Legislative Strengthen Project of United States Agency for International Development. By this Koha is one more time proved as a solution that is ideal option for automation to be chosen. Example given in this paper is the project of adoption OA software which was launched at the government the whole republic scale, meaning that support is necessary. It is also mentioned there that Chinese government sees a good economical opportunity in OA movement and provides strong support.

It perhaps would be difficult to execute such kind of project based only on librarians’ initiatives. Like me, if I am a fresh graduate library employee, I am full of energy to put some innovations and bring ideas, but I am too small to make it comes true. After reading the beginning of this article I have realized the scale of such kind of projects. They established the Open Source Resource Centre (OSRC), a project of Pakistan Software Export Board, Ministry of Information Technology in 2003 to promote OA and help people with OA solutions.

But at the same time, I didn’t feel that all those established organizations have achieved any success in adoption of OSS in Pakistan. It seemed like a lot of people were involved, a lot of words were said, even maybe a lot of money were allocate, but there is no any report article about results like Bessels has. Bessels, librarian from the Complementary and Alternative Medicine Library and Information Service, Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital, London, he has published two papers, in 2008 and 2010, which showed the progress and results of success implementing and using of KOHA. He praises KOHA as a system which is easy in use, complete in functionality and flexible in adoption in a particular environment. In 2008 he wrote that “he was confident that they had chosen a truly future-proof LMS” and in 2010 he said that “Koha has delivered what they had expected from it and more. Where Koha hadn’t not met their needs, they just had it modified. They were not only happy with the system they had, but also confident that Koha would continue to meet their needs, however they might change over the years.”

Returning back to the Pakistan case, which reminded the possibility of problems of bureaucracy and corruption, which are the ones of the main obstacles in implementing any projects in post-Soviet Union countries. It is often happened that money don’t simply reach the destination where direct implementers and executers are sitting, but they are merely stolen on the way by numbers of chiefs of project.

Otunla and Akanmu-Adeyemo (2010) described the case of success experience in implementing library automation project using KOHA in academic library in Nigeria. Library suggested to the University to use universal ID card with barcode on it, which can be acceptable everywhere in the campus, thereby they have positively influenced the entire atmosphere in the university. The library became more visible in the community. Furthermore, “the automation at Bowen University Library has also influenced other academic and research libraries in Nigeria to go into automation project. Some of this libraries visited Bowen University Library to ensure that it is actually working before they embark on the automation project. Among the libraries are Osun state University Library, Osogbo; Salem University Library, Lokoja; Joseph Ayo Babalola University Library, Ikeji Arakeji; Federal Polytechnic Library, Ado Ekiti; Osun state Polytechnic Library, Ire; National Mathematical Centre, Abuja; Cocoa Research Institute, Ibadan; and recently Baptist Theological Seminary Ogbomoso”, (Otunla and Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010).

Chang, Tsai, and Hopkinson (2010) say that Koha is widely used in Asian region, and there is a well based community established in Taiwan with 58 members, which means the continuous growth of OA movement. Keast (2011) has conducted a survey of Koha in Australian special libraries, where he found that “the main reasons given for conversion to Koha were practical economic grounds, coupled with dissatisfaction with conventional library systems. Libraries found the conversion to Koha reasonably trouble-free. Satisfaction ratings on most aspects of Koha performance were “above average” to “good”. Library expectations of value for money and overall cost savings appear to have been realised.

Another reason why I like OA idea in general that it is about collaboration but not competition. The example of migration to KOHA of French colleagues can be a wonderful inspiration for other libraries to start the automation project. This very good effort, which is described by Espiau-Bechetoille, Bernon, Bruley, and Mousin (2011) was undertaken by three French universities to achieve the migration from proprietary system to KOHA implementation, where they have collaborated to work with only one external support company. Of course, collaboration caused the minimization of costs. Firstly, this paper one more time proves the fact that KOHA possess features which can fulfil library needs. Before to choose KOHA, the analysis of four OA ILS was undertaken. Secondly, the fact, that it was migration from proprietary ILS to OSS, does one more time prove the growth of OA movement. Another cases of migration from proprietary to OSS are described by Dykhuis (2009) in Michigan Library Consortium & the Grand Rapids Public Library and by Walls (2010) in New York by the University Health Sciences Library.

In reality, where two modes of library automation products are trying to exist, we started to talk about SaaS, which means Software as a service. KOHA as well as other OSS ILS right teh example of SaaS. The software itself is free, but the service which is suggested along with software is supposed to be paid. Maybe, SaaS, being a relatively new trend, is a new way to gain for IT businessmen. The other option of my future vision is a not a big office where me and other programmer are offering service of planning, installation an setting up of OSS ILS for any types of libraries, from special till academic and public.

OSS is ideal for cases where libraries have staff which could become an internal expert, have time and don’t have money. Exactly this case is with developing countries of post-Soviet Union area. Cases where libraries don’t have staff, don’t have time, but have money to hire external support companies are not rare in developed European countries.

Also there are many benefits could be found for developing countries in a global perspective such as international visibility. In fact, going for OA ILS causes inevitable participation in worldwide communities’ discussions. Forums and wikis are alive channel for interaction between library professionals. Sharing with their practical problems and their solutions which is based on positive free of wildlings to make money is a totally different concept and can be called even new IT philosophy.

As a summary, why it would be good for these countries from many diverse sides, see the list below:

-          Economically good solutions;

-          Opportunity for developing new business based on SaaS;

-          Country itself will become more visible on the International arena.

Why does this issue exist?

It is very doubtful to define the issue of lack of use OA ILS in developing countries of post-Soviet Union area as obvious issue. Perhaps, it is not even raised because some people are still not aware of existence such software, which is specialized in a particular niche area like librarianship. Also we can say that it is a problem because it is not so easy to solve. It is more issue which is just trying to make its first steps.

But anyway the common problems, which are discussed in many articles and repeated from paper to paper, will be mentioned below.

Misunderstanding of the whole concept

In some cases the OSS software or OA by other word, are not understood properly. Some people think that to go for OSS it is one of condition to be able to develop by yourself. The alternative where you have only two choices like either to go for proprietary and pay for external support, or to go for OSS and tying to fix it by yourself, is not true and not the ultimate. Even after hiring outsource supporters it still more economically effective.

Lack of IT literate staff

Entering to a digital age we still have librarians with traditional education. The new time requires librarians not just computer literate but librarians with the new way of thinking, extraordinary, full of energy and initiative. The perception about librarians are still as an middle aged ladies with spectacles, which is asking to be silent only and whose responsibility is to put books on the shelves. For sure, the presence of internal expert is necessary in project of library automation.

Lack of finance

The problem of finance as a one of the major obstacle in adoption of OSS in Pakistan as Rafiq (2010) mentioned. For sure, this problem is common in majority of developing countries. And because of lack of funding these countries came up to OSS. There is no need to automate library processes if librarians don’t even have high performance personal computers. Hence, it is necessary to identify “need list” instead of “wish list” first.

After this point I have start to think whether it is appropriate to launch such projects in some post-Soviet Union countries or not. Perhaps firstly we need to equip our libraries technically. Enough number of computers, unlimited broad band Internet connection, WiFi access spots. It seems like without information infrastructure it is not sensible to try to do KOHA.

Cultural obstacle

Another problem staying on the way of adoption of OSS in libraries which is mentioned by Rafiq (2008) and which can be given by post-Soviet Union area is working culture. People are ready to work as least as they are paid and no longer and no more. OA movement, the nature of this path is based on volunteer initiatives. So people are not ready to make extra efforts which they are probably will not be paid for.

Not enough level of support

The market is not rich with companies which are ready to provide support for OSS, if there is at least one.

The reasons that will be mentioned below are subjective and based on guesses and experience of author.

Not sufficient technical infrastructure

There are some libraries which are still working on old computers with slow processors, especially small ones. But this problem closely relates to the problem of identifying “needs list” first.

Not awareness of OSS

Yes. I still believe that there are some libraries which are even not aware of existence of Open Access solutions for libraries. It is not proved yet. This question is still open for me, I have sent some questions to some libraries but I didn’t receive the reply. If it is true, we need to ask first why libraries especially in small cities don’t know about this option.

People are not ready yet

This issue derived from the previous one. If people don’t use to use all the computerized facilities, if they are still afraid of to press occasionally the wrong key on the keyboard, how can they be ready for all those sophisticated from the first glance applications.

Language dependence of people just don't speak English

I believe that there is no point to try to invent something new in developing countries. All we need is just to follow the best practices of well developed countries. And one of the key to knowledge is English language. Being under the great impact of USSR, "cold war" an so on, there are still a lot of consequences of it, like lack of English speaking people and hence language dependence. These countries seem to go their own research path, which is isolated from well developed countries.

I remember the case, when I was working in the Computer Centre in the Medical University. One person, prof. or just teacher brought to us a book for scanning. She was going to give this book to internal translator to translate it. They wanted to scan it for using electronic translator first. Isn't it ridiculous? Isn’t it easier and cheaper and finally more effectively to learn English language! And it was just one book! Researchers suppose to read tens and hundreds of them! So, my suggestion to post Soviet Union countries is to do emphasis on learning English language. Some libraries of my city already have done some efforts in it. We have English clubs, where volunteers from USA, UK and Australia are working as a club moderators. They meet with any person who is wishful to take part in the club’s activities. Being a native English speakers, it is a very good opportunity to learn English language through the games and interesting discussions.

Also I believe that this can be applicable not only for library field, but medicine, IT & CS, engineering and many more.

Ideal state

Ideal situation is when all libraries are equipped nicely with technical infrastructure, and routine processes are automated. When the system is sustainable and free of collisions.

What situation is considered to be an ideal in conditions of developing countries with problems which are mentioned above?

Libraries are government budget depending organizations, they are non-profit places. So, the money is always an obstacle. Libraries with a strong government funding support have more chances for developing in terms of techniques and technologies.

In ideal situation staff is educated form the multisided

·          Educated staff

·          IT

·          English language

English speaking environment is the good atmosphere for those who are trying to get some experience from other developed countries.

Address the issue to whom

In this part of the paper, I would like to address this issue to the following re-presenters.

-          To all librarians;

Librarians should be aware of the complexity of the issue. They should play role in every area they ever can to contribute the development of the information society in general. As closer people will be to the information technologies as less fear they will feel in adoption of the next new one. There are a lot of cases when initiatives come from the bottom lines.

-          To government executers

To show the alternative way to solve the problem of library automation. OSS supposes to be cheaper. Perhaps if there is a success delivery of information about this issue to the government, the support from them can be obtained.

-          To potential IT businessmen

By this we can show indirectly a new business opportunity. Perhaps there are small groups of fresh graduate people will be found who are able to master OSS, able to settle it and modified.

-          To education sector

The language of international scholarly communication is a cruel clue. Current students should and other professional should do emphasis on English language.

In general, a lot of success stories which are presented in the literature review are a good example of inspiration and encouragement. Perhaps, researchers don’t prefer to describe unsuccessful stories, but they are not found.

What can librarians do?

There cannot be simple ways to solve the problems that hinder the development of OSS use. The background of this issue is very complex and wide. Hence, the acts which can be undertaken by librarians are very various. Librarians should play a role od information society developer in ever area they can.

As they say if you want to change the world start from yourself. Me, after coming back to my country would like to promote learning and education firstly. Continuous learning and reading of current research papers are the key for success in achievement at any practical issues.

After finishing this course, I would like to try to master the KOHA OSS and apply some modules at the small library even on volunteer base.

The last sentences of the Dimant’s (2010) article expressed all my thoughts about this issue. He said that nowadays “the question changes from ‘‘why go open source?’’ to ‘‘why on earth not go open source?’’

References

Bissels, Gerhard. "Implementation of an Open Source Library Management System: Experiences with Koha 3.0 at the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital." Program: electronic library and information systems 42, no. 3 (2008): 303-14.

Bissels, Gerhard, and Andrea Chandler. "Two Years On: Koha 3.0 in Use at the Camlis Library, Royal London Homœopathic Hospital." Program: electronic library and information systems 44, no. 3 (2010): 283-90.

Breeding, Marshall. "The Commercial Angle." Library Technology Reports 44, no. 8 (2008): 11.

Chang, Naicheng, Yuchin Tsai, and Alan Hopkinson. "An Evaluation of Implementing Koha in a Chinese Language Environment." Program: electronic library and information systems 44, no. 4 (2010): 342-56.

Chudnov, D. "Three Things to Watch for in 2010." Computers in Libraries 30, no. 1 (2010): 24.

Dimant, Nick. "Breaking the Barriers: The Role of Support Companies in Making Open Source a Reality." Library Review 59, no. 9 (2010): 662-66.

Espiau-Bechetoille, Camille, Jean Bernon, Caroline Bruley, and Sandrine Mousin. "An Example of Inter-University Cooperation for Implementing Koha in Libraries: Collective Approach and Institutional Needs." OCLC Systems & Services 27, no. 1 (2011): 40-44.

Fagan, J., and J. Keach. "Build, Buy, Open Source, or Web 2.0? Making an Informed Decision for Your Library." Computers in Libraries 30, no. 6 (2010): 9.

Fialkoff, Francine, and Josh Hadro. "Polaris's Bill Schickling." Library Journal 135, no. 8 (2010): 30.

Keast, Don. "A Survey of Koha in Australian Special Libraries: Open Source Brings New Opportunities to the Outback." OCLC Systems & Services 27, no. 1 (2011): 23-39.

Mullen, Laura Bowering. "Ifla Satellite Pre-Conference: Open Access to Science Information: Trends, Models and Strategies for Libraries." Library Hi Tech News 27, no. 6 (2010): 10-13.

Otunla, Aderonke O., and Esther A. Akanmu-Adeyemo. "Library Automation  in Nigeria: The Bowen University Experience." African Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science 20, no. 2 (2010): 10.

Payne, Alexandria, and Vandana Singh. "Open Source Software Use in Libraries." Library Review 59, no. 9 (2010): 10.

Poulter, Alan. "Open Source in Libraries: An Introduction and Overview." Library Review 59, no. 9 (2010): 655-61.

Rafiq, Muhammad, and Kanwal Ameen. "Issues and Lessons Learned in Open Source Software Adoption in Pakistani Libraries." The Electronic Library 27, no. 4 (2009): 601.

Rapp, David. "Infotech." Library Journal 135, no. 16 (2010): 16.

Scaer, P. "Invent and Reinvent (Collaboratively): My Vision for an Open Source Media Center." Knowledge Quest 37, no. 1 (2008): 54.

Silver, T. "Monitoring Network and Service Availability with Open-Source Software." Information Technology and Libraries 29, no. 1 (2010): 8.

Tajoli, Zeno, Alessandra Carassiti, Andrea Marchitelli, and Fulvia Valenti. "Oss Diffusion in Italian Libraries: The Case of Koha by the Consorzio Interuniversitario Lombardo Per L'elaborazione Automatica (Cilea)." OCLC Systems & Services 27, no. 1 (2011): 45-50.

Terlaga, A. "Fear and Trembling in Connecticut." Computers in Libraries 30, no. 1 (2010): 13.

Walls, Ian. "Migrating from Innovative Interfaces' Millennium to Koha: The Nyu Health Sciences Libraries' Experiences." OCLC Systems & Services 27, no. 1 (2011): 51-56.

Wijayaratne, Anusha. Automation of Library Functions with Special Reference to Circulation System Adopted at the Library of Open University of Sri Lanka. Vol. 9, 20092009.

Wiley, D. "Open Source Web Applications for Libraries." Online 35, no. 2 (2011): 62.

Yang, S., and M. Hofmann. "The Next Generation Library Catalog: A Comparative Study of the Opacs of Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager." Information Technology and Libraries 29, no. 3 (2010): 141.