How "Next Generation" Are We? A Snapshot of the Current State of OPACs in U.S. and Canadian Academic Libraries Melissa A. Hofmann and Sharon Yang, Moore Library, Rider University, NJ To measure the progress made in modeling current OPACs after the next generation catalog (NGC) in academic libraries in the United States and Canada. Design/Methodology/Approach A random sample of 260 colleges and universities was selected (about 10% of the population). The libraries’ OPACs—both ILS-integrated and discovery tools (add-ons or overlays)—were evaluated against a checklist of the 12 features of the next generation catalog based on the literature. Accounting for consortial catalogs, multiple interfaces used simultaneously, and missing data (n=40), a total of 233 unique OPACs were analyzed. Data was collected from September 2009 through July Findings can be extrapolated to the population at the 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of ±3. Institutions in the Sample Purpose 1. Single point of entry for all library resources YesNoMissingTotal Journal articles 10 (4%)223 (81%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Full-text journals 133 (48%)100 (37%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Ebooks185 (67%)48 (18%)40 (15%)273 (100%) All three9 (3%)224 (82%)40 (15%)273 (100%) 2. State-of-the-art web interface PoorOKGoodExcellentMissingTotal 10 (3%)89 (32%)83 (31%)51 (19%)40 (15%)273 (100%) 3. Enriched Content YesNoMissingTotal Cover Images126 (46%)107 (39%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Reviews93 (34%)140 (51%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Summary/ Annotation 82 (30%)151 (55%)40 (15%)273 (100%) TOC82 (30%)151 (55%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Excerpts82 (30%)151 (55%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Tags34 (12%)199 (73%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Rating /ranking 27 (10%)206 (75%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Descriptions8 (3%)225 (82%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Comments6 (2%)227 (83%)40 (15%)273 (100%) 4. Faceted navigation 6. Relevancy. Circulation statistics and multiple copies should join the relevancy results criteria. Originality/Value This is the first and only study on a large scale conducted thus far that evaluates the progress towards the next generation catalog. 5. Simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search on every page. Search box looks like that of Google or Amazon.  No OPACs or discovery tools incorporated these into the search results.  Only 26 OPACs (9%) started with a Google-like search box and maintained it throughout.  “Other options” includes catalogs starting with a basic or advanced search, dropping the search box on later screens, and/or providing other choices next to the search box. The 12 NGC Characteristics

10. Persistent links / 11. RSS feeds / 12. Integration with social networking sites. 9. User contribution. Allow users to add data to records. m Yang, S.Q. & Hofmann, M.A. (2011). Next generation or current generation? A study of the OPACs of 260 academic libraries in the United States and Canada. Library Hi Tech (forthcoming) Further information No OPAC or discovery tool possessed all 12 features. Only 3% of the OPACs in the sample had 7 or more features of the NGC—and these were all discovery tools. WorldCat Local and Summon were the top runners. Comprehensive federated search is still largely missing (only 4% of OPACs included articles). Only 13% of OPACs offered faceted browsing, 83% of which were discovery tools. ILS-integrated OPACs that offered faceted browsing were Koha, Auto-Graphics, and Polaris. 16% of libraries used a discovery tool; 85% of these used them in conjunction with their legacy or “classic” catalog. 14% of libraries offered a choice of catalog interfaces (discovery tools and classic catalog) Number of NGC features Number of OPACs Percentage Cumulative Percentage 04416%16.0% 15420%36.0% 24818%54.0% 33513%67.0% 4155%72.0% 5145%77.0% 6155%82.0% 710.5%82.5% 831%83.5% 931%84.5% %85.0% 1100%85.0% 1200%85.0% Missing4015%100.0% Total273100% Summary of Findings 8. Recommendations/related materials. Recommend books for readers based on transaction logs. YesNoMissingTotal Persistent links 63 (23%)170 (62%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Integration with social networking sites 21 (8%)212 (77%)40 (15%)273 (100%) RSS feeds9 (3%)224 (82%)40 (15%)273 (100%) YesNoMissingTotal Tags30 (11%)203 (74%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Reviews18 (7%)215 (78%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Rating/ ranking 11 (4%)222 (81%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Comments3 (1%)230 (84%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Descriptions0 (0%)233 (85%)40 (15%)273 (100%) Summary/ annotation 0 (0%)233 (85%)40 (15%)273 (100%)  *The OPACs labeled “Other” used language to explain dropping a user into list of headings or titles to browse, such as: “Item not found—perhaps the following list will help” / “Keyword not found. The closest subject match appears below”/ “No matches found; nearby titles are…” / 7. Did you mean…? Spell-checking and suggestion of terms.  No OPACs were found to have this feature.  However, 34% use patron-friendly language with existing functionalities, such as hyperlinked name and subject headings in records (searches and browses) and call number browses:  “Browse similar items” / “Find more about this author or topic”/ “Show similar items” / “Nearby items on shelf” / “More like this” Conclusions NGC features in legacy catalogs are cosmetic and minor. The majority of catalogs displaying the most NGC features are discovery tools. Many proprietary vendors seem to be abandoning their ILS-integrated OPACs in favor of discovery tools. Most libraries using a discovery tool still provide access to their “classic” catalog. For some discovery tools, the legacy OPAC is necessary to perform advanced searches. Summary Data: Distribution of NGC features