Back in early December, Google made a significant announcement that may have been overlooked by many librarians. Certainly I didn’t hear about it at the time; in fact, I didn’t learn about it until a week or two ago. What was the announcement? Here’s a brief excerpt:

Today, we’re announcing an initiative to help bring more magazine archives and current magazines online, partnering with publishers to begin digitizing millions of articles from titles as diverse as New York Magazine, Popular Mechanics, and Ebony.

And another excerpt:

Over time, as we scan more articles, you’ll see more and more magazines appear in Google Book Search results. Eventually, we’ll also begin blending magazine results into our main Google.com search results, so you may begin finding magazines you didn’t even know you were looking for. For now you can restrict your search to magazines we’ve scanned by trying an advanced search.

So what’s the significance of this development for libraries? For years, people have cried wolf, suggesting the imminent demise of libraries, touting the idea that “it’s all on the web.” This misguided view is largely due to the ubiquity of search engines, among which Google remains preeminent. Of course, libraries continue to thrive and prosper, and librarians know that it (whatever “it” is) most certainly is NOT all on the web.

But then came Google Book Search, which is quite literally scanning millions of books, and making them keyword searchable and to various degrees, accessible via the Web. What happens when many (most or all?) of the world’s books are scanned and available online? And now this—Google is expanding into digitizing magazines. Libraries have touted their research databases as superior to Internet search engines, since they contain information that has been “vetted” through some type of editorial process, ranging from less formal popular publications and news magazines, to fully peer reviewed scholarly journals.

Are these library databases in danger of being replaced and made irrelevant through Google’s digitization efforts? Of course, this is not Google’s first foray into providing access to periodical literature. Google Scholar has been around since November of 2004, providing access to scholarly literature, including most of the available “peer-reviewed online journals of the world’s largest scientific publishers,” according to its Wikipedia article.

But now Google is launching into the arena of popular magazines and journals as well. What does this mean for libraries? Will the big aggregator databases like ProQuest’s Discovery/Research Library, Gale’s OneFile (the old InfoTrac), or EBSCO’s MasterFILE become obsolete? Of the major aggregators, Gale, at least, has attempted to remain relevant by allowing Google and other search engines to crawl at least some of its periodical metadata through its AccessMyLibrary program. I have been waiting in vain for the other periodical aggregators to follow suit.

The Washington State Library’s SDL (Statewide Database Licensing) program has been providing both a general periodical database and a collection of Washington and national newspapers to Washington Libraries for over 10 years now. eLibrary and CultureGrams are included in an attempt to serve the K-12 audience as well as public, academic, and special libraries. Our current contract with ProQuest runs through June 30, 2011. Which means that during calendar year 2010, a big portion of my time will probably be spent in developing, releasing, and evaluating responses to an RFP (Request for Proposals) so as to have a new contract for Washington libraries in place by the time the old one expires.

Or will it? What do libraries need in these days of troubled economies and expanded search engines? Over the past year or two, there has been increasing rumbling, especially from public library directors, about the need to either increase database usage, or cut database budgets, or both. And now, in response to the current economic downturn, a number of public libraries have reduced the amount they are spending on database purchases, especially as 2009 renewals came due.

What is the future of the traditional periodical database in libraries as we approach the second decade of the twenty-first century? Have needs changed? Are library realities changing? Should SDL continue to plug along as it has for the past decade? Or is it time for a change?

These are some of the questions that we would like to explore in the near future, during 2009, so as to prepare for the procurement process and contract renewal work that must be completed in 2010. This seems like an opportune time to step back and consider the needs of Washington libraries in regards to research databases in the light of the environment in which libraries currently find themselves.

As a result, we have suggested holding a library database summit of some kind, or if you prefer, a strategic planning and thinking event, devoted to considering the questions I have outlined above, with the goal of informing the formal SDL procurement process that would follow in 2010. This idea of a database summit or “futuring” event is very unformed at this point. We need to decide on almost everything about such an event, including:

· What form or format would it take?

· What would be the desired outcomes?

· Who would participate?

· When and where would it be held?

If you are interested in this topic and this endeavor, and have ideas, thoughts, suggestions, or other input, or would like to be involved in some way, please contact Will Stuivenga at [email protected] or 360.704.5217 or toll free 866.538.499. I welcome your input, since I need your help; I can’t do this alone!

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.