Uso y aplicación de herramientas 2.0 en los servicios, producción, orgazación y difusión de la información en la biblioteca universitaria

  1. Julio Alonso Arévalo
  2. José Antonio Cordón García
  3. Raquel Gómez Díaz
  4. Belén García-Delgado Giménez
Investigación bibliotecológica

ISSN: 0187-358X

Year of publication: 2014

Volume: 28

Issue: 64

Pages: 51-74

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1016/S0187-358X(14)70909-8 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Investigación bibliotecológica


Cited by

  • Scopus Cited by: 7 (24-11-2023)
  • Dialnet Métricas Cited by: 5 (26-11-2023)
  • Dimensions Cited by: 1 (09-04-2023)

JCR (Journal Impact Factor)

  • Year 2014
  • Journal Impact Factor: 0.104
  • Journal Impact Factor without self cites: 0.104
  • Article influence score: 0.044
  • Best Quartile: Q4
  • Area: INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Quartile: Q4 Rank in area: 76/85 (Ranking edition: SSCI)

SCImago Journal Rank

  • Year 2014
  • SJR Journal Impact: 0.158
  • Best Quartile: Q3
  • Area: Library and Information Sciences Quartile: Q3 Rank in area: 167/250


  • Social Sciences: B

Scopus CiteScore

  • Year 2014
  • CiteScore of the Journal : 0.2
  • Area: Library and Information Sciences Percentile: 18


(Data updated as of 09-04-2023)
  • Total citations: 1
  • Recent citations: 0


The object of this study is to present an analysis on the use of 2.0 tools in university libraries, with the goal of grasping usage patterns of the information provided to users, while enhancing the visibility of the entity's digital brand. Based on professional experience, the analysis shows how the integration of diverse 2.0 tools can improve the information services offered by the university library, while improving communication mechanisms among users. This encourages the creation of learning communities. The integration of diverse social networking tools allows for the articulation of an information system, in which, thanks to RSS feeds channels, information is organized and standardized by social reference managers and subsequently disseminated among users through blogs, social networks, distribution lists; thereby enhancing the institution's visibility and, above all, providing better services to users. This article provides a valuable portrait of an information center, using 2.0 web tools, freeware and open code application; whose experience can be replicated and/or adapted in other centers, where similar services are offered

Bibliographic References

  • Aguillo, I.. (2009). Measuring the institution's footprint in the web. Library Hi Tech. 27. 540-556
  • Aharony, N.. (2009). Uso de la web 2.0 por los bibliotecarios. Boletín de la Asociación Andaluza de Bibliotecarios. 24. 129-160
  • Alonso Arévalo, J.. (2006). ProCite® 5.0: Guía. Biblioteca Virtual en Ciencias de la Salud. Habilidades informacionales: recursos, metodología y técnicas de trabajo científico.
  • Alonso Arévalo, J., Cordón García, J. A., Martín Rodero, H.. (2010). CiteULike y Connotea: herramientas 2.0 para el descubrimiento de la información científica. El Profesional de la Información. 19. 86-94
  • Alonso Arévalo, J., Vázquez Vázquez, M.. (2013). Las listas de distribución como servicio de información: InfoDoc. Mi Biblioteca. 9. 58-67
  • Armstrong, A.. (2011). Searching 2.0. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 37. 187
  • Baiget, T.. (2010). Profesionales de la información: un futuro de oportunidades. e-lis: E-Prints in Library and Information Science.
  • Brody, T.. (2006). Evaluating Research Impact through Open Access to Scholarly Communication. ecs EPrints Repository.
  • Burgelman, J.-C., Osimo, D., Bogdanowicz, M.. (2010). Science 2.0 (change will happen...). First Monday. 15.
  • Casey, M. E., Savastinuk, L. C.. (2006). Library 2.0. Library Journal. 131. 40-42
  • Castagné, M.. (2011). Rural Library 2.0: A Proposal to Measure the Success of Web 2.0 Technologies in Michigan's Rural Public Libraries. San José State University. San José.
  • Cooke, N. A.. (2011). Proceedings of the 77th IFLA General Conference and Assembly. IFLA. San Juan.
  • Cordón-García, J. A., Alonso-Arévalo, J., Gómez-Díaz, R., López Lucas, J.. (2012). Las nuevas fuentes de información: información y búsqueda documental en el contexto de la web 2.0. Pirámide. Madrid.
  • Cordón-García, J. A.. (2012). Libros electrónicos y contenidos digitales en la sociedad del conocimiento: Mercado, servicios y derechos. Pirámide. Madrid.
  • Cordón García, J. A., Gómez Díaz, R., Alonso Arévalo, J.. (2012). Gutenberg 2.0: la revolución de los libros electrónicos. Trea. Gijón.
  • Cordón García, J. A.. (2014). El Ecosistema del Libro Electrónico Universitario. 2. une. Madrid.
  • Chad, K., Miller, P.. (2005). Do libraries matter? The rise of Library 2.0. Talis. London.
  • Chapman, A., Russell, R.. (2009). Collecting Evidence in a Web 2.0 Context. Ariadne.
  • Daniels, J., Roth, P.. (2012). Incorporating Millennium Catalog Records into Serials Solutions' Summon. Technical Services Quarterly. 29. 193-199
  • Feng, A.. (2011). Corporate Librarian 2.0: New Core Competencies. Special Libraries Association. Alexandria^eVirginia Virginia.
  • González-Fernández Villavicencio, N.. (2007). Bibliotecas 2.0 en España (el camino recorrido). Boletín de la Asociación Andaluza de Bibliotecarios. 22. 29-46
  • Harris, L. E.. (2008). Social software in libraries: Building collaborations, communication, and community online. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59.
  • Holmberg, K., Huvila, I., Kronqvist-Berg, M., Widén-Wulff, G.. (2009). What is Library 2.0?. Journal of Documentation. 65. 668-681
  • Jacsó, P.. (2011). Traditional scholarly publishers and web 2.0. Online Information Review. 35. 301-315
  • Jiepu Jiang, D. H., Ni, C.. (2011). Social Reference: Aggregating Online Usage of Scientific Literature in CiteULike for Clustering Academic Resources. JCDL'11. 11. 401-402
  • Kim, Y.-M., Abbas, J.. (2010). Adoption of Library 2.0 Functionalities by Academic Libraries and Users: A Knowledge Management Perspective. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 36. 211-218
  • Kroski, E.. (2008). Web 2.0 for Librarians and Information Professionals. Neal-Schuman. New York.
  • Méndez González, R.. (2012). Traducción & paratraducción de videojuegos: textualidad y paratextualidad en la traducción audiovisual y multimedia. Universidad de Vigo, Facultad de Traducción e Interpretación. Vigo.
  • Miller, P.. (2005). Web 2.0: Building the New Library. Ariadne.
  • Neylon, C.. (2011). altmetrics11: Tracking scholarly impact on the social Web. acm Web Science Conference 2011 Workshop. Koblenz.
  • Nguyen, L. C., Partridge, H., Edwards, S. L.. (2012). Towards an understanding of the participatory library. Library Hi Tech. 30. 335-346
  • Noa, A.. (2012). An Analysis of American Academic Libraries Websites: 2000-2010. The Electronic Library. 30. 764-776
  • Priem, J., Hemminger, B. H.. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: Toward new metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday. 15.
  • Priem, J., Piwowar, H. A., Hemminger, B. H.. (2011). Altmetrics in the wild: An exploratory study of impact metrics based on social media. Metrics 2011: Symposium on Informetric and Scientometric Research.
  • Quinney, K., Smith, S., Galbraith, Q.. (2010). Bridging the Gap: Self-Directed Staff Technology Training. Information Technology and Libraries. 29. 205-213
  • Rasmussen, L.. (2009). Proceedings of the bobcatsss 2009. European Association for Library & Information Education and Research. Porto.
  • (2011). Science 2.0: The Use of Social Networking in Research. REBIUN.
  • Rozaklis, L., Macdonald, C. M.. (2011). A Typology of Collaborative Communication in a Digital Reference Environment. The Reference Librarian. 52. 308-319
  • Saha, N. C., De, S., Paul, N.. (2008). Proceedings of the 6th Convention planner. Nagaland University. ^eNagaland Nagaland.
  • Secker, J.. (2008). Social software and libraries: a literature review from the lassie project. Program: electronic library and information systems. 43. 215-231
  • Spring, H.. (2011). If you cannot beat them, join them! Using Health 2.0 and popular Internet applications to improve information literacy. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 28. 148-151
  • Stephens, M.. (2006). Web 2.0 and Libraries: Best Practices for Social Software. Library Technology Reports. 42.
  • Tajer, P.. (2009). Proceedings of the 7th International caliber-2009. Pondicherry University. Puducherry.
  • Thelwall, M.. (2008). Social networks, gender, and friending: An analysis of MySpace member profiles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59. 1321-1330
  • Tripathi, M., Kumar, S.. (2010). Use of Web 2.0 tools in academic libraries: A reconnaissance of the international landscape. The International Information & Library Review. 20. 195-207
  • Vállez, M., Marcos, M.-C.. (2009). Las bibliotecas en un entorno Web 2.0.
  • Wilson, T.. (2012). The Kept-Up Academic Librarian: Helping Academic Librarians 'Keep Up' With News and Developments In Higher Education - Technical Services Quarterly. 29. 246-247