Usage data in the publishing world and an update on COUNTER

Peter ShepherdDirectorCOUNTERJune 2007

If I may be so bold as to inquire, to what degree do you wish to interact with Franz Kafka?

Average Time Spent and Number of Articles Read Per Year Per Scientist(Tenopir et al)

Scholarly Article Reading

Browsing SearchingCore titlesCurrent issuesBackgroundCurrent awarenessNew topicsOld articlesPrimary researchFor writing

Sources of Reading

Publishers need usage statisticsTo demonstrate that reduced usage of print issues has been compensated by increased online usageTo assess the relative importance of the various channels via which its content reaches the marketTo experiment with new pricing modelsTo support editorial policyTo obtain improved market analysis/demographicsTo inform authors where and how articles are usedTo improve site design and navigationTo plan infrastructure, e.g. mirror sites/caches

So how are we getting there?ICOLC Guidelines for statistical measurement of usage of web-based information resourcesNational Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) Electronic access and use-related measuresNISO Z39.7 (Library Statistics)ISO 2789 (library statistics) and 11563 (library performance measures)MESUR investigate metrics derived from the network-based usage of scholarly informationCOUNTER (Counting Online Usage of NeTworked Electronic Resources)

BackgroundUnderstanding usageDifferent approachesRole of usage statistics

Usage statisticsShould enlighten rather than obscureShould be practicalShould be reliableAre only part of the storyShould be used in context

COUNTERAchievementsCurrent statusFuture challenges

COUNTERCodes of PracticeDefinitions of terms usedSpecifications for Usage ReportsWhat they should includeWhat they should look likeHow and when they should be deliveredData processing guidelinesAuditingComplianceMaintenance and development of the Code of PracticeGovernance of COUNTER

COUNTER: current Codes of Practice1) Journals and databases

Release 1 Code of Practice launched January 2003Release 2 published April 2005 replacing Release 1 in January 2006Now a widely adopted standard by publishers and librarians60 vendors now compliant10000+ journals now coveredLibrarians use it in collection development decisionsPublishers use it in marketing to prove value

2) Books and reference works

Release 1 Code of Practice launched March 20066 vendors now compliant Relevant usage metrics less clear than for journalsDifferent issues than for journalsDirect comparisons between books less relevantUnderstanding how different categories of book are used is more relevant

Journal and Database Code of PracticeUsage Reports

Journal Report 1Full text article requests by month and journalJournal Report 2Turnaways by month and journalDatabase Report 1Total searches and sessions by month and databaseDatabase Report 2Turnaways by month and databaseDatabase Report 3Searches and sessions by month and service

Code of Practice for booksBook Report 1Number of successful requests by month and titleBook Report 2Number of successful section requests by month and titleBook Report 3Turnaways by month and titleBook Report 4Turnaways by month and serviceBook Report 5Total searches and sessions by month and titleBook Report 6Total searches and sessions by month and service

Journal Report 1Full text article requests by journalHtml and PDF totals reported separately

COUNTER AuditIndependent audit required within 18 months of compliance, and annually thereafterAudit is online, using scripts provided in the Code of PracticeAuditor can be:Any Chartered AccountantAnother COUNTER-approved auditor ABCE is the first COUNTER-approved auditorIndustry-ownedNot-for-profitIndependent and impartialPart of ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulations)Providing website traffic audits for over 150 companies and certifying over 1400 domainsHave successfully completed test audits on COUNTER usage reports

ABCE Audit fees

ABCE audit feesYear 1 (first audit)2,500Includes 1.5 man-days pre audit consultancy as well as 1.5 man-days auditMax 20 million records (add 0.5 man-days per 10 million or part thereof)Max 50 reports (add 0.5 man-days per 50 reports or part thereof)Assumes 1 data source for all reported numbers, in correct format, delivered to agreed timescaleOngoing support (technical, administrative & marketing)Reduced by 250 for COUNTER membersYear 2 (and ongoing per audit) 1,500 Includes 1.5 man-days auditMax 20 million records (add 0.5 man-days per 10 million or part thereof)Max 50 reports (add 0.5 man-days per 50 reports or part thereof)Assumes 1 data source for all reported numbers, in correct format, delivered to agreed timescaleOngoing support (technical, administrative & marketing)At ABCEs normal daily consultancy rate

COUNTER: deriving metrics from Journal Report 1Local metricsFor libraries and library consortiaAt journal, collection and publisher levelTo compare the cost-effectiveness of journal subscriptionsTo assess the value of Big DealsGlobal metricsFor authors, funding agencies, libraries and publishersAt journal, collection and publisher levelTo compare quality and value

COUNTER: local metrics JISC (UK Joint Information Systems Committee)Funded by UK higher education funding councilsSupports higher education in the use of information and communications technologiesAccess to information and communication resourcesAdvice on creation and preservation of digital archivesImplications of using ICTNetwork services and supportResearch to develop innovative solutionsNational overview of online journal usageDevelop a reliable, widely applicable methodologyUse COUNTER Journal Report 1 article full-text requests

Local metrics: an exampleCOUNTER data was analysed in relation to:usage rangePrice bandSubject categoryMetrics derived from this analysisTrend in number of full-text article downloadsFull text article requests per titleFull text article requests per publisher packageFull text article requests per FTE userMost requested titlesUsage of subscribed vs.. unsubscribed titlesCost per full-text article downloadsCost per FTE userSummary report available at:www.ebase.uce.ac.uk/projects/NESLi2.htm

Local metrics: an exampleGrowth in full-text article downloadsPublisher A: 12%- 208%Publisher B: 12%- 59%Publisher C: 23%- 154%Publisher D: 22%- 81%Cost per full-text article downloadPublisher A: 0.97- 5.26Publisher B: 0.70 - 2.91Publisher C: 0.80 - 3.29Publisher D: 0.45 - 2.26

COUNTER: global metricsImpact FactorWell-established, easily understood and acceptedEndorsed by funding agencies and researchersDoes not cover all fields of scholarshipReflects value of journals to researchersOver-emphasis on IF distorts the behaviour of authorsOver-used, mis-used and over-interpretedUsage FactorUsage-based alternative perspectiveWould cover all online journalsWould reflect value of journals to all categories of userWould be easy to understood

Global metrics: UKSG ProjectAssess the feasibility of developing and implementing journal Usage FactorsLevel of support from author, librarian and publisher communitiesData from which UF would be derivedCOUNTER Journal Report 1?Article numbersProcess for consolidation, calculation and reporting of UFsFactors in the calculationLevel of reportingTotal usageArticlesReport in April 2007Just completed set of 29 interviews with industry leadersWider online survey will take place in February 2007

UKSG Project: feedbackAre the COUNTER usage statistics sufficiently robust?Frustration at lack of comparable, quantitative data on journalsShould items covered by restricted to articles?Many journals still have significant usage in printDiversity of views on the factors in the calculationSpecified usage periodSpecified publication period Usage data is more susceptible to manipulationWill 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 dataUsage data will be used as a measure of value, whether publishers like it or not

Current issuesInterface effects on usage statisticsE.g. downloading HTML and PDF of the same article in one sessionCOUNTER has tested data filter solutions, but what does the duplicate downloading signify?Reporting separately purchasable digital archive usageCurrently all usage for a journal is usually reported togetherSeparately purchasable archives mean we need separate reports for archival content, or a year of publication breakdown of usage Usage in Institutional RepositoriesGrowth in Institutional Repository (IR) contentNeed for credible IR usage statisticsIR usage statistics already being collected, but no standardsSUSHIImproving consortial usage reportsCurrent usage reports inadequateNew reports in XML format

Reporting separately purchasable digital archive usageIncreasingly requested by librariansInterim solutionJournal Report 1a:Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests from an Archive by Month and JournalOptional additional usage report Longer-term solutionJournals Report 1a?Include year-of-publication data in JR1?

SUSHIStandardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)

No mechanism yet for automatically retrieving, combining, and storing COUNTER usage data from different sources

NISO-sponsored XML-based SUSHI aims to provide a means to do just this, via a standard model for machine to machine automation of statistics harvesting.

COUNTER and NISO have signed an agreement to work together on the development of SUSHI. More details of SUSHI can be found at:-

http://www.niso.org/committees/SUSHI/SUSHI_comm.html

Future challengesImproving/extending the Codes of PracticeReliability ( 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 (Institutional Repository content)

Deriving metrics from the Codes of PracticeJournals (cost per use, Usage Factor)Databases?Books?

Next steps..Release 3 of Code of Practice for Journals/DatabasesFeatures: prioritisation on basis of demand and practicalityProcess: consultation via focus groups,etc; publication of draft CoPRelease 2 of Code of Practice for BooksReview R1 in practiceOther categories of content ( eg Institutional Repositories)Metrics derived from the COUNTER usage statisticsCost per useUsage Factor

COUNTER MembershipMember Categories and Annual Fees (2007)Publishers/intermediaries: 530Library Consortia: 355Libraries: 265Industry organization: 265Library affiliate: 106 (non-voting member)

Benefits of full membershipOwner of COUNTER with voting rights at annual general meeting, etc.Regular bulletins on progressOpportunity to receive advice on implementation

Apply for COUNTER membership

For more information.http://www.projectcounter.org

Thank you!

Peter Shepherd, COUNTERpshepherd@projectcounter.org

2001-2002 # read = ~230; Time spent = ~147Another feature to simplify the work of the institution in merging reports is the introduction of the platform column. Even though this will typically be the same on every row from a given vendor, when merging contents of files between vendors (e.g. aggregators and publishers), the activity for a given journal can then be easily broken down by platform

Here is a quick view of their Web site The URL is

And the relevant information you can find are.