How do we keep track of what we do? COUNTER now and in the
future?
Peter Shepherd
DirectorCOUNTERFebruary
2008
Background
Understanding usage Different approaches Role of usage statistics
Usage statistics Should enlighten rather than obscure Should be practical Should be reliable Are only part of the story Should be used in context
COUNTER Achievements Current status Future challenges
So how are we getting there?
ICOLC Guidelines for statistical measurement of usage of web-based information resources
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) Electronic access and use-related measures
NISO – Z39.7 (Library Statistics) ISO – 2789 (library statistics) and 11563
(library performance measures) MESUR – investigate metrics derived from the
network-based usage of scholarly information COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of
NeTworked Electronic Resources)
Why COUNTER?
Goal: credible, compatible, consistent publisher/vendor-generated statistics for the global information community
Libraries and consortia need online usage statistics
To assess the value of different online products/services To support collection development To plan infrastructure
Publishers need online usage statistics To experiment with new pricing models To assess the relative importance of the different
channels by which information reaches the market To provide editorial support To plan infrastructure
COUNTERCodes of Practice
Definitions of terms used Specifications for Usage Reports
What they should include What they should look like How and when they should be delivered
Data processing guidelines Auditing Compliance Maintenance and development of the
Code of Practice Governance of COUNTER
COUNTER: current Codes of Practice
1) Journals and databases
Release 1 Code of Practice launched January 2003 Release 2 published April 2005 replacing Release 1 in
January 2006 Now a widely adopted standard by publishers and librarians 80+ vendors now compliant 10000+ journals now covered Librarians use it in collection development decisions Publishers use it in marketing to prove ‘value’
2) Books and reference works
Release 1 Code of Practice launched March 2006 10 vendors now compliant Relevant usage metrics less clear than for journals Different issues than for journals
Direct comparisons between books less relevant Understanding how different categories of book are used is
more relevant
Journal and Database Code of Practice
Usage Reports
Journal Report 1 Full text article requests by month and journal
Journal Report 2 Turnaways by month and journal
Database Report 1 Total searches and sessions by month and database
Database Report 2 Turnaways by month and database
Database Report 3 Searches and sessions by month and service
Code of Practice for books
Book Report 1 Number of successful requests by month and title
Book Report 2 Number of successful section requests by month and
title Book Report 3
Turnaways by month and title Book Report 4
Turnaways by month and service Book Report 5
Total searches and sessions by month and title Book Report 6
Total searches and sessions by month and service
Journal Report 1Full text article requests by journal
Html and PDF totals reported separately
COUNTER Audit
Independent audit required within 18 months of compliance, and annually thereafter
Audit is online, using scripts provided in the Code of Practice Auditor can be:
Any Chartered Accountant Another COUNTER-approved auditor
ABCE is the first COUNTER-approved auditor Industry-owned Not-for-profit Independent and impartial Part of ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulations) Providing website traffic audits for over 150 companies and
certifying over 1400 domains Have successfully completed test audits on COUNTER usage
reports
COUNTER: deriving metrics from Journal Report 1
Local metrics For libraries and library consortia At journal, collection and publisher level To compare the cost-effectiveness of journal
subscriptions To assess the value of Big Deals
Global metrics For authors, funding agencies, libraries and
publishers At journal, collection and publisher level To compare quality and value
COUNTER: ‘local’ metrics
JISC (UK Joint Information Systems Committee) Funded by UK higher education funding councils Supports higher education in the use of information and
communications technologies Access to information and communication resources Advice on creation and preservation of digital archives Implications of using ICT Network services and support Research to develop innovative solutions
National overview of online journal usage Develop a reliable, widely applicable methodology Use COUNTER Journal Report 1 ‘article full-text requests’
Local metrics: an example
COUNTER data was analysed in relation to: usage range Price band Subject category
Metrics derived from this analysis Trend in number of full-text article downloads Full text article requests per title Full text article requests per publisher package Full text article requests per FTE user Most requested titles Usage of subscribed vs.. unsubscribed titles Cost per full-text article downloads Cost per FTE user
Summary report available at:www.ebase.uce.ac.uk/projects/NESLi2.htm
Local metrics: an example
Growth in full-text article downloads Publisher A: 12%- 208% Publisher B: 12%- 59% Publisher C: 23%- 154% Publisher D: 22%- 81%
Cost per full-text article download Publisher A: £0.97- £5.26 Publisher B: £0.70 - £2.91 Publisher C: £0.80 - £3.29 Publisher D: £0.45 - £2.26
COUNTER: ‘global’ metrics
Impact Factor Well-established, easily understood and accepted Endorsed by funding agencies and researchers Does not cover all fields of scholarship Reflects value of journals to researchers Over-emphasis on IF distorts the behaviour of authors Over-used, mis-used and over-interpreted
Usage Factor Usage-based alternative perspective Would cover all online journals Would reflect value of journals to all categories of user Would be easy to understood
Global metrics: UKSG Project
Objective: Assess the feasibility of developing and implementing journal Usage Factors
Stage 1 Level of support from author, librarian and publisher communities Data from which UF would be derived
COUNTER Journal Report 1? Article numbers Process for consolidation, calculation and reporting of UFs
Factors in the calculation Level of reporting Total usage Articles?
Report submitted in May 2007 Find at http://www.uksg.org/usagefactors
Stage 2: Test approach and methodology on real publisher usage data RFP to be circulated in March 2008
UKSG Project: Stage 1 feedback
Are the COUNTER usage statistics sufficiently robust? Frustration at lack of comparable, quantitative data on journals Should items covered by restricted to articles? Many journals still have significant usage in print Diversity of views on the factors in the calculation
Specified usage period Specified publication period
Usage data is more susceptible to manipulation Will the journal be a meaningful concept in the future? Two measures with different limitations are better than one,
and UF will be derived from a set of credible, understandable data
Usage data will be used as a measure of value, whether publishers like it or not
Current issues Internet robots, etc.
Potential inflationary effect on usage statistics Federated searches
Potential inflationary effect on usage statistics Pre-fetching
Potential inflationary effect on full-text download counts Reporting separately purchasable digital archive
usage Currently all usage for a journal is usually reported together Separately purchasable archives mean we need separate
reports for archival content, or a year of publication breakdown of usage
Usage in Institutional Repositories Growth in Institutional Repository (IR) content Need for credible IR usage statistics IR usage statistics already being collected, but no standards
SUSHI Automated collection and consolidation of usage reports
Usage reports for Consortia Current usage reports inadequate New reports in XML format
SUSHI
Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)
No mechanism existed for automatically retrieving, combining, and storing COUNTER usage data from different sources
NISO-sponsored XML-based SUSHI provides a means to do just this, via a standard model for machine to machine automation of statistics harvesting.
COUNTER and NISO have worked together to develop the SUSHI protocol. More details of SUSHI can be found at:-
http://www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html
Future challenges
Improving/extending the Codes of Practice Reliability ( audit, federated searches, prefetching) Usability (number of compliant vendors, XML format,
additional usage reports) Additional data (year of publication, article level
reports) Categories of content/activity
Online publications are more than collections of articles How to reflect the value provided by other features
Deriving metrics from the Codes of Practice Journals (cost per use, Usage Factor) Databases? Books?
Next steps…..
Release 3 of Code of Practice for Journals/Databases Features: prioritisation on basis of demand and practicality Process: consultation via focus groups,etc; publication of
draft CoP Timetable: focus groups Nov/Dec 2007; draft R3 in Spring
2008; final R3 in mid-2008; implementation of R3 in 2009 Release 2 of Code of Practice for Books
Review R1 in practice Other categories of content
Supplementary data, video; IR content Metrics derived from the COUNTER usage statistics
Cost per use Usage Factor
COUNTER Membership
Member Categories and Annual Fees (2008)
Publishers/intermediaries: £545 Library Consortia: £365 Libraries: £273 Industry organization: £273 Library affiliate: £110 (non-voting member)
Benefits of full membership Owner of COUNTER with voting rights at
annual general meeting, etc. Regular bulletins on progress Opportunity to receive advice on
implementation Vendors: no compliance fee; reduced price
audit fees
http://www.projectcounter.orghttp://www.projectcounter.org
Apply for COUNTER membership
Apply for COUNTER membership
