1 / 33

Working to make online usage statistics more meaningful

Working to make online usage statistics more meaningful. Richard Gedye Chair COUNTER UKSG March 2003. Today’s agenda. Why was COUNTER formed? Who are we? Who is supporting and funding us? COUNTER Code of Practice Principles Features Compliance and Commitment Auditing Future Plans.

sugar
Download Presentation

Working to make online usage statistics more meaningful

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Working to make online usage statistics more meaningful Richard Gedye Chair COUNTER UKSG March 2003

  2. Today’s agenda • Why was COUNTER formed? • Who are we? • Who is supporting and funding us? • COUNTER Code of Practice • Principles • Features • Compliance and Commitment • Auditing • Future Plans

  3. Why was COUNTER formed? • Libraries and consortia need online usage statistics • Publishers need online usage statistics • Usage statistics need to be • credible • compatible • consistent

  4. Why libraries need usage statistics - 1 • Collection Development Tool • Provide a more accurate match of information resources to patron needs for learning, teaching, and research • Provide the right materials, at the right time, in the right format, via an appropriate method of delivery • “Usage of this journal on the shelf has declined. Should we drop the journal or just its print version?”

  5. Why libraries need usage statistics -2 • To lobby for increased funding • To allocate expenditure more accurately • Benchmarking • Within institutions • Within consortia • To inform internal marketing and promotion strategy • To develop new purchasing models, especially at the consortial level

  6. Why publishers need usage statistics -1 • To support library efforts to procure funding • To demonstrate that reduced usage of print issues has been compensated for by increased online usage • To assess the relative importance of the various routes via which information reaches its market • To experiment with new pricing models

  7. Why publishers need usage statistics - 2 • To provide editorial policy support • To obtain improved market analysis and demographics • To improve site design and navigation • To help plan infrastructure e.g. mirror sites/caches

  8. Who are we? An organisation with cross community support………

  9. Endorsed by… • AAP, Association of American Publishers • ALPSP, The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers • ARL, Association of Research Libraries • ASA, Association of Subscription Agents and Intermediaries • EDItEUR • JISC, Joint Information Systems Committee • NCLIS, National Commission on Libraries and Information Science • NISO, National Information Standards Organization • PA, The Publishers Association • STM, International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers • UKSG, United Kingdom Serials Group

  10. AAP/PSP AIP ALPSP ARL ASA Atypon Blackwell Publishing BMJ Publishing EBSCO Elsevier Science Ingenta IOPP ICSTI ISI Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Nature Publishing Group NEJM OCLC Oxford University Press The Publishers Association ProQuest Taylor & Francis Group STM UKSG Founding Sponsors

  11. Governance: Executive Committee Consortia • Arnold Hirshon NELINET USA • Hazel Woodward Cranfield University UK Libraries • Christine Fyfe University of Leicester UK • David Goodman Princeton University USA • Phil Davis Cornell University USA Publishers, Aggregators, etc. • Richard Gedye Oxford University Press UK (Chair) • Marthyn Borghuis Elsevier Science Netherlands • Roger Brown GlaxoSmithKline UK • Timo Hannay Nature Publishing Group UK • Terry Hulbert Institute of Physics UK • Tony Kidd  University of Glasgow UK • Jack Ochs American Chemical Society USA • Oliver Pesch  EBSCO USA Project Director • Peter Shepherd  UK

  12. Consortia Diane Costello CAUL, Australia Lorraine Estelle, JISC, UK Syun Tutiya, ANUL, Japan Alicia Wise, JISC/DNER, UK Libraries Frances Boyle, Oxford U., UK Andrew Braid, British Library, UK Denise Davis, Oregon State U., USA Ross MacIntyre, U. of Manchester, UK Alison McNab, U. of Nottingham, UK James Mouw, University of Chicago, USA Henning Nielsen, Novo Nordisk, Denmark Sherrie Schmidt, ARL, USA Jill Taylor-Roe, U. of Newcastle, UK Publishers, Aggregators, et al Christine Baldwin, Information Design & Management, UK Michael Butterfield, BMJ Group, UK Jill Cousins, Blackwell Publishing, UK Mary Fugle, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, USA Kristen Garlock, JSTOR, USA Brian Green, BIC/EDItEUR, UK Tony Hammond, Harcourt Publishers, UK Pat Harris, NISO, USA Mike Hoover, ProQuest, USA Heather Joseph, BioOne, USA Kornelia Junge, Wiley, USA Barbara Lange, AAP/PSP, USA Judy Luther, Informed Strategies, USA Lex Lefebvre, STM, The Netherlands Liz McNaughton, Divine/ICEDIS, UK Tim Martin, OCLC, USA Kirsty Meddings, Ingenta, UK Robert Molyneux, NCLIS, USA Sally Morris, ALPSP, UK Lynn Norris, EduServ, UK Jill O'Neill, NFAIS, USA Chris Parker, CABI, UK Norman Paskin, DOI, UK John Sack, HighWire Press, USA Graham Taylor, Publishers' Association, UK Rollo Turner, ASA, UK Governance: International Advisory Board

  13. Code of Practice, Release 1 January 2003 • Basic principles • Main features

  14. Code of Practice, Release 1:Basic Principles • Start small • Start with the basics • Compatibility is our goal, not sophistication • Be as prescriptive as possible • Intended to supplement, not replace, existing more sophisticated or product-related reports • Provide support and advice for implementation • Auditing

  15. Code of Practice, Release 1:Main Features • Definitions of terms used • Specifications for Usage Reports • Data processing guidelines • Auditing • Compliance • Maintenance and development of the Code of Practice

  16. Definitions of Terms • Data elements to be collected • Page views • Bibliographic data • Page type • Source of page • Authentication of user • Access rights • Session data • Market elements Every effort was made to incorporate or reconcile the definitions with existing ones from other groups, such as NISO and ICOLC.

  17. Specifications for Usage Reports 1. Report content and format 2. Report delivery

  18. Specifications for Usage Reports REPORT CONTENT AND FORMAT • Level 1 Reports • Journal Report 1:Number of successful full-text article requests by month and journal • Journal Report 2:Turnaways by month and journal • Database Report 1:Total searches & sessions by month & database • Database Report 2: Turnaways by month & database • Database Report 3:Total searches & sessions by month & service • Level 2 Reports • Journal Report 3:Number of successful item requests and turnaways by month, journal & page type • Journal Report 4:total searches run, by month & service

  19. Journal Report 1: Successful Full-Text ArticleRequests by Month and Journal Example Level 1 Report

  20. Journal Report 2: Turnaways by Month and Journal Example Level 1 Report

  21. Database Report 1: Total Searches and Sessions by Month & Database Example Level 1 Report

  22. Database Report 1: Total Searches and Sessions by Month & Database Example

  23. Journal Report 3: Number of Successful Item Requests and Turnaways, by Month, Journal and Page-Type Example Level 2 Report

  24. Database Report 1: Total Searches and Sessions by Month & Database Example Level 2 Report Example

  25. Specifications for Usage Reports REPORT DELIVERY • CSV file, Microsoft Excel file, or file that can be easily exported to Microsoft Excel • Available on a password-controlled website (accompanied by an e-mail alert when data is updated) • Provided at least monthly • Updated within two weeks of the end of each reporting period • All of last calendar year’s data and this calendar year’s to date must be supplied

  26. Enhancements Under Consideration • Break down usage reports by • year of publication • type of purchase (subscribed, pay per view) • Note: a further survey of librarians may be conducted to learn which reports are preferred • Define additional terms, e.g., “article download” • Clarify how to count “full-text requests” (e.g., individual articles vs. subsets of articles)

  27. Data processing guidelines • Covers only intended usage • Code of Practice specifies the criteria to be met by the data used in building the Usage Reports • Only successful requests will be counted • Records generated by the server, together with the requested pages, should be ignored • All users’ double clicks within 10 seconds on an http-link should be counted as only one request (30 seconds for PDF) • More detailed guidelines are being compiled on data processing and will shortly appear on the COUNTER web site

  28. Compliance • More than one compliance level • Level 1: basic set of journal and database reports • Level 2: more detailed reports • Licence Agreements • Standard clause covering COUNTER compliance • Declaration of COUNTER compliance • For 2003 • Vendors sign declaration and demonstrate to COUNTER that they can provide at least Level 1 Usage Reports • Register of COUNTER-compliant vendors • Maintained on the COUNTER website

  29. Publishers who have stated they intend to comply • American Chemical Society • American Institute of Physics • Blackwell • CABI • EBSCO • Elsevier • Extenza • HighWire • Ingenta • Institute of Physics • ISI • NPG • Oxford University Press Initial List

  30. Auditing • A publisher or content provider will be able to state that it is “Counter Compliant” only if this can be certified through an independent audit • Audit scope: reports, processes & application of definitions • Auditing will be required beginning in 2004 • RFP will be issued to qualify auditors • Auditing processes are under development • A list of COUNTER-approved auditors will be made available

  31. Maintenance and Development of the Code of Practice • Full text of the Code of Practice is freely available on the COUNTER website • html and PDF formats • Code of Practice will be systematically extended • Feedback on Release 1 is actively sought • Via test sites involving publishers and libraries • Via feedback to COUNTER via the website, International Advisory Board, etc.

  32. Future Developments:2003 and beyond • Objectives for 2003 • Promote and gain acceptance for the Code of Practice • Obtain feedback on Release 1 • Complete list of approved auditors • Define and set up a permanent administrative structure • Promote membership of COUNTER • Full implementation by vendors for 2004 subscription year • Beyond 2003 • Build membership of COUNTER • Extend and deepen Code of Practice • Cover e-books, etc • Journal reporting at article level

  33. For more information………. www.projectCounter.org Peter Shepherd (Project Director) pshepherd@projectcounter.org

More Related