Usage data in the publishing world and an update on COUNTER Peter Shepherd Director COUNTER June 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) 2001-2002 # read = ~230; Time spent = ~147

Scholarly Article Reading Work Field Articles Reading (Per Year) Time Spent (Hours) Time Per Article (Min) University Medical Faculty ~322 118 22 Chemists ~276 198 43 Physicists ~204 153 45 Engineers ~72 97 81

Browsing Searching Core titles Current issues Background Current awareness New topics Old articles Primary research For writing

Sources of Reading

Publishers need usage statistics To demonstrate that reduced usage of print issues has been compensated by increased online usage To assess the relative importance of the various channels via which its content reaches the market To experiment with new pricing models To support editorial policy To obtain improved market analysis/demographics To inform authors where and how articles are used To improve site design and navigation To plan infrastructure, e.g. mirror sites/caches

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)

Background Understanding usage Usage statistics COUNTER 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

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 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 60 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 6 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 1 Full text article requests by journal Html and PDF totals reported separately Another 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…

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

[B] Annual Subscription Total cost of Journal Report 1 audit ABCE Audit fees FEES CHARGEABLE Standard Fee COUNTER Members Year 1 Year 2 [A] Registration Fee £1,556   £612 [B] Annual Subscription £852 £621 Journal Report 1 £1,480 Journal Report 2 £740 Database Report 1 £1,110 Database Report 2 Database Report 3 £370 Total cost of Journal Report 1 audit £3,888 £2,332 £2,713 £2,101

ABCE audit fees Year 1 (first audit) £2,500 Includes 1.5 man-days pre audit consultancy as well as 1.5 man-days audit Max 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 timescale Ongoing support (technical, administrative & marketing) Reduced by £250 for COUNTER members Year 2 (and ongoing per audit) £1,500 Includes 1.5 man-days audit At ABCE’s normal daily consultancy rate

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 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 Assess the feasibility of developing and implementing journal Usage Factors 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 in April 2007 Just completed set of 29 interviews with industry leaders Wider online survey will take place in February 2007

UKSG Project: 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 Interface effects on usage statistics E.g. downloading HTML and PDF of the same article in one session COUNTER has tested data filter solutions, but what does the duplicate downloading signify? 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 Improving consortial usage reports Current usage reports inadequate New reports in XML format

Reporting separately purchasable digital archive usage Increasingly requested by librarians Interim solution Journal Report 1a:Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests from an Archive by Month and Journal Optional additional usage report Longer-term solution Journals Report 1a? Include year-of-publication data in JR1?

SUSHI Standardized 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 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 (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

COUNTER Membership Member Categories and Annual Fees (2007) Publishers/intermediaries: £530 Library Consortia: £355 Libraries: £265 Industry organization: £265 Library affiliate: £106 (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

Apply for COUNTER membership http://www.projectcounter.org Apply for COUNTER membership Here is a quick view of their Web site… The URL is… And the relevant information you can find are….

For more information………. http://www.projectcounter.org Thank you! Peter Shepherd, COUNTER pshepherd@projectcounter.org