The COUNTER Code of Practice

Peter ShepherdProject Director

COUNTER

Background: 1

Libraries need online usage statistics To assess the value of different online products/services To make better-informed purchasing decisions 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, site design, etc

STM publishing is global

Online usage statistics need to be…….

CredibleConsistentCompatible

“We conclude that it is largely impossible to compare data across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendorsWe believe that the comprehensive standardisation of usage statistics and data delivery methods cannot be easily achieved in the short term”

ARL E-Metrics Phase II Report, Oct 2001

... the answer is…...

COUNTER - 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

2002 Objectives

Gain industry support for COUNTER Increase awareness of COUNTERDeliver Release 1 of the Code of

Practice: Focus on journals and databases Will be published on the COUNTER

website

The COUNTER Code of Practice- Strategy

Responsive to requirements of the international librarian, publishing and intermediary communities An open, inclusive and interactive process Representation of all three communities on COUNTER Comments welcome on the Code of Practice

Limit scope of Release 1 to journals and databases Systematically extend scope of Code of Practice

Horizontally, to cover other content types, such as e-books Vertically, to provide, e.g., usage statistics for individual

articles Only one valid version of the Code of Practice at any time A cost-effective process for all parties involved

The COUNTER Code of Practice- main features

Definitions of terms used Specifications for usage reports Data processing guidelines Auditing Compliance Maintenance and development of the Code of

Practice Governance of COUNTER

Definitions of terms used

Data elements to be collected Page views

Bibliographic data, e.g. ‘Online ISSN’ Page type, e.g. ‘full-text article’ Source of page, e.g. ‘referred from an aggregator or

gateway’ Authentication of user, e.g. ‘IP address Access rights, e.g. ‘Turnaway’

Session data, e.g. ‘End time’ Market elements, e.g. ‘Consortium member’

Specifications for usage reports

Content Journal report 1: number of full-text article requests by month

and journal (Level 1) Journal Report 2: turnaways by month and journal (Level 1) Journal Report 3: number of item requests by month, journal and

page-type (Level 2) Journal Report 4: total searches by month and collection (Level

2) Database Report 1: total searches and sessions by month and

database (Level 1) Database Report 2: turnaways by month and database (Level 1) Database Report 3; Referrals by aggregator or gateway (Level

1) Format Delivery

Data processing guidelines

Only intended usage is covered Impractical to describe all possible filters for all

possible ways of generating usage records COP specifies the criteria to be met by the data

to be used in building the reports Only successful requests will be counted

For web server logs successful requests are those with a specific return code (200, 301, 302, 304 in 2002)

Records generated by the server together with the requested page should be ignored

All users’ double clicks within 10 seconds on an http-link should be counted as only one request (30 seconds for a pdf)

Auditing

Auditing will be required from 2004 Auditing processes are still being developed A list of COUNTER-approved auditors will be

made available in 2003

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

Maintenance and development of the Code of Practice

Full text of the Code of practice will be freely available on the COUNTER website

Code of Practice will be systematically extended Feedback on Release 1 actively sought

Via test sites involving publishers and libraries Via feedback to COUNTER via the website, committees,

etc

Governance of COUNTER

Executive Committee Chaired by Richard Gedye (OUP)

International Advisory Board 30+ members Technical Advisory Group Marketing Committee

Project Director Peter Shepherd

2003 and beyond

Objectives for 2003 Promote and gain acceptance for the COUNTER Code of

Practice Obtain feedback on Release 1 Complete list of approved auditors Define and set up permanent administrative structure Full implementation of Code of Practice by Vendors for 2004

Beyond 2003 Extend and deepen Code of Practice

Cover e-books, etc Reporting at article level

Monitor usage and user behaviour?

COUNTER Founding Sponsors

AAP/PSP ALPSP ARL ASA Blackwell Publishing EBSCO Elsevier Science Ingenta Institute of Physics

Publishing JISC

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins

Nature Publishing Group Oxford University Press The Publishers Association ProQuest Taylor & Francis STM UKSG

For more information……..

www.projectCounter.org

Online Librarian Survey

650 librarians responded 49 corporate librarians Responses of corporate librarians did not deviate from the whole

Focus on journals & databases Need for a small number of reliable reports Reports should be made available on a password-controlled

website, with email alerts Reports must be provided at least monthly Data must be updated within two weeks of the end of the

reporting period All of last year’s data and this year’s to date must be supplied

Vital factors for a successful implementation and uptake

‘Start small, test often’….develop a modest core Code and build out incrementally

Build continuous development capability into the support structure

Pool our collective wisdom and work together

One Code - parallel codes will attract minimal buy-in