Upload
jocelyn-stanley
View
224
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Why do we measure Usage? Usage statistics provide essential evidence:
• for extent of usage of e-resources
• to showcase the trends in usage over a period of time, Patterns of usage can be helpful guide for future collection development decisions
• to take informed decisions regarding renewal / cancellation of resources
• to demonstrate value for money / return on investment
Why Collect Usage Statistics?
• To make best and justified use of financial resources
• Calculating Return on Investment (RoI)
• Accountability
• To find out emerging subject disciplines
• Reporting usage to administration, funding agencies, etc.
• Strategic planning
• Comparison with other libraries / institutions
Why Collect Usage Statistics?
• Justifications for change in document format– From print to electronics– Lesser number of users visiting library physically– Lesser no. of books being issued / Less re-shelving– Increase in usage of e-resources
• Bench Marking– Top-cited journals available in e-format as compare to other libraries
– Results of usage of e-resources by existing libraries can serve as a bench mark for other libraries
Why Collect Usage Statistics?:
Additional Information
• Journals that are used heavily
• Journals not being used at all
• Number of denials in case of limit of simultaneous usage
• Preference for formats: PDF, HTML
• Breach of license agreement: Heady downloads or
systematic downloads; How to handle it?
Acquiring Usage Statistics• Content Provider (Publishers / Database Vendors)
– Some publisher do not provide usage data (eg.
MathSciNet, ISID, etc.)
– Data inadequate and inconsistent
– Data retained on the publisher’s web site only
– Inconsistency in usage not reflected
– Server caching not reflected
What do libraries want from usage data?• Reliable usage Report in consistent format
• Usage at journals titles level
• Usage by subject area
• Analyse trends over time
• Ready access for reporting
• Evidence of value for money
• Benchmarking (comparative usage)
Adding More Value
• Cost-benefit analysis and RoI
• Impact of usage on research output
• Benchmarking
Why Evaluate at the Consortia Level?
Evaluation is Necessary
• Negotiation for renewal• Cost / Benefit analysis
Evaluation is Possible
• Relativity• Comparability• Generalizibility
Why Evaluate Why Evaluate at the Consortia Level ? ?
Review of current & prospective contracts
• Continuing price escalation not sustainable
• Evaluate prices to consortia and members
• Review contracts with additional criteria
• Promote models for quality not just quantity
• Plan for future
Problems with Manual Collection of Usage Statistics• The usage statistics has to be gathered manually from different
publishers
• Each publisher has
– Different formats for data and delivery– Different access methods– Different availability dates
• Cost has to be calculated separately
• Data needs to be cleaned up and aggregated manually
• It is a labor-intensive and cumbersome process prone to data loss and errors
Harvesting Usage Statistics using SUSHI• Automated import of consortia stats
• Consortium can track statistics for each member
• Data can be retrieved across a series of dates, e.g. period of months
• Member logins are pre-populated
• The library can access all COUNTER compliant usage stats across their serials holdings
• The library can obtain a top level view of their most and least-viewed publishers and titles
Negotiate More Effectively
• With COUNTER-compliant costs-per-view in hand, negotiate with publishers to realize more realistic cost models
• Uncover previously hidden cost information
• Utilize consortium-wide data to negotiate optimal terms for the group as a whole
• Obtain a better understanding of our consortium members’ usage patterns and collection needs
Benefits of Portal for Usage• Usage statistics for every e-journal package for
every member institutions is automatically collected
• Consortia-wide data readily available to the whole group for analysis and reporting
• The usage data can be exposed completely or partially to member institutions / consortium Administrators
3153
628
4687
776
6093
511
7479
060
1276
5817
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
No
of
Do
wn
load
s
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Increase in Number of Fulltext Downlaoads
Cost Incurred Vs Downloads
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
2011 2010 2009 2008
Th
ou
sa
nd
s
Year
No
of
Do
wn
load
s
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Mill
ion
sE
xp
en
dit
ure
on
Su
bscri
pti
on
in
Rs.
No of Downloads
Cost Incurred
Cost Incurred vs Cost Recovered (2008 - 2011)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
2011 2010 2009 2008
Millio
ns
Year
Am
ou
nt
in R
s.
Cost Recovered
Cost Incurred
Average Cost per Download (Year wise)
2.061.81
1.351.19 1.14
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Cost
in U
SD
Year-wise Download for ACS (2007 - 2012)
5605
06
5949
60
1031
237
1196
487
1398
741
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
No
of D
ownl
oads
Top Ten Journals of ACS in 2011
Sl. No.Journal Name
Number of Downloads
1 Journal of the American Chemical Society 194693
2 The Journal of Organic Chemistry 149561
3 Organic Letters 90272
4 Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 84866
5 Inorganic Chemistry 83202
6 Chemical Reviews 65255
7 Langmuir 58367
8 The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 57635
9 The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 56186
10 Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 49706
Measuring Research OutputThe Science Citation Index (SCI), Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and Arts and Humanities Index (A&HI) are internationally recognized database that works as a filtering mechanism as it indexes qualitative research output from selected journals.
The source articles appeared in three indices for 50 first-phase universities of the Consortium was searched in blocks of five years from 1975 to 20010 with an aim to compare the research output in the last block year, i.e. 2005 – 2009.
A un-precedental increase in research productivity in terms of number of research articles is evident during 2005-2009 as compared to previous block of five years, i.e. 1975-1979 to 2000-2004.
Correlation Usage Vs. Publishing Output
Banaras Hind University
Pearson’s Ranks order Coefficient Correlation = 0.98
Banaras Hindu University
Contribution of BHU as Compared to the World and India’s Total Publications