Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COUNTER Code of Practice: An update
ICOLC Spring MeetingApril 2007
Montreal, Canada
Presented byOliver Pesch
[email protected] Information Services
Overview
Background Quick review of COUNTER Audit SUSHI Consortia Reports Future Challenges
Background Usage seen as one measurement of value
Cost per use for collection management Search counts to measure value of databases Use counts to help measure “impact” of
faculty research Usage statistics
Should enlighten rather than obscure Should be practical Are only part of the story Should be used in context Should be reliable
Usage Statistics: The problems
Inconsistencies in counting Terminology (what is a download) What and when to count
Inconsistencies in format Each content provider has their own format Different labels, columns and rows
Inconsistencies in delivery Email, versus phone request, versus FTP Online versus paper Amount of history offered Timeliness
COUNTER: Codes 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
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 9000+ 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 4 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
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 Test audits on COUNTER usage reports successful
SUSHI
Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)
Was no mechanism yet for automatically retrieving, combining, and storing COUNTER usage data from different sources
Using COUNTER reports labour intensive for librarians
NISO-sponsored XML-based SUSHI provide a means to do just this, via a standard model for machine to machine automation of statistics harvesting.
In 2005 COUNTER and NISO signed an agreement to work together on the development of SUSHI. Draft SUSHI protocol was published in May 2006. Final protocol, which will be a NISO standard, will be published in 2007. More details of SUSHI can be found at:-
http://www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html
Consortium Reports
Current reports are inadequate Committee formed to seek input
and propose alternatives Peter Shepherd, Project COUNTER Kathy Perry, VIVA Oliver Pesch, EBSCO Information
Services New COUNTER Consortial Reports
Full text download requests Database searches
Consortium Reports
Key points addressed Usage data broken out by consortium
member Results presented in a single “report” Simplify access (via SUSHI or single
password for consortium staff to access for all members)
Provide framework for reporting on mixed genre collections (e.g. books and journals)
Consortium Reports
Only available in XML Too complex for spreadsheets Too large for spreadsheets Requires “processing” by consortium XML is most versatile option Proposed COUNTER schema update
will be support Consortium Reports as well as all other reports
Consortium Reports: Proposed structure
Report Customer
Report Items Report Item
Report Item Metric Report Item Metric
Report Item Report Item Metric Report Item Metric
Customer Report Items
Consortium Reports: Proposed structure
Report: Consortium Report 1 Customer
Report Items Report Item
Report Item Metric Report Item Metric
Report Item Report Item Metric Report Item Metric
Customer Report Items
…
Consortium Reports: Proposed structure
Report: Consortium Report 1 Customer: Institution A
Report Items Report Item
Report Item Metric Report Item Metric
Report Item Report Item Metric Report Item Metric
Customer: Institution B Report Items
…
Consortium Reports: Proposed structure
Report: Consortium Report 1 Customer: Institution A
Report Items Report Item: Journal A
Report Item Metric Report Item Metric
Report Item: Journal B Report Item Metric Report Item Metric
Customer: Institution B Report Items
…
Consortium Reports: Proposed structure
Report: Consortium Report 1 Customer: Institution A
Report Items Report Item: Journal A
Report Item Metric: PDF requests = 200 Report Item Metric: HTML request = 300
Report Item: Journal B Report Item Metric: PDF requests = 100 Report Item Metric: HTML requests =
140
Customer: Institution B Report Items
…
Consortium Reports: Proposed structure
Report: Consortium Report 1 Customer: Institution A
Report Items Report Item: Journal A
Report Item Metric: PDF requests = 200 Report Item Metric: HTML request = 300
Report Item: Journal B Report Item Metric: PDF requests = 100 Report Item Metric: HTML requests =
140
Customer: Institution B Report Items
…
Tansy Matthews of VIVA is conducting a breakout session on
working with XML later this conference.
Tansy Matthews of VIVA is conducting a breakout session on
working with XML later this conference.
Consortium Reports: Outstanding Questions
Account Structures at Vendor Sites Does the vendor’s host track relationship
between consortium’s account and member accounts?
Can vendor’s host report usage of content acquired by the consortium without reporting on other materials acquired by institution?
Data Filtering and Privacy Who limits the report to just material
provided by the consortium? If vendor over-reports, is there a privacy
concern related to the vendor providing additional usage to the consortium
Future challenges
Improving/extending the Codes of Practice Reliability ( audit, federated searches, interface effect) Usability (number of compliant vendors, XML format,
additional usage reports) Additional data (archives, year of publication, article
level reports) Categories of content (Institutional Repository
content)
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 Release 2 of Code of Practice for Books
Review R1 in practice Other categories of content ( eg Institutional
Repositories) Metrics derived from the COUNTER usage statistics
Cost per use Usage Factor
What can you do to support COUNTER?
Require online journal, database and book vendors to provide COUNTER compliant usage statistics
Clause for licence agreements is provided in the COUNTER Code of Practice (Section 7.2)
Monitor the relevant listservs on usage statistics issues [email protected]
Use the COUNTER usage reports Demonstrate the value of the COUNTER usage reports to
your management/administration Alert COUNTER to problems with vendor reports Become a member of COUNTER
Membership fees are our major source of income………..
COUNTER Membership
Member Categories and Annual Fees (2007)
Publishers/intermediaries: £530 (US$800)
Library Consortia: £355 (US$530) Libraries: £265 (US$400) Industry organization: £265 (US$400)
Benefits of full membership Owner of COUNTER with voting rights
at annual general meeting, etc. Discount on audit fee for
publishers/intermediaries Regular bulletins on progress Opportunity to receive advice on
implementation
http://www.projectcounter.orghttp://www.projectcounter.org
Apply for COUNTER membership
Apply for COUNTER membership
