COUNTER: background, Codes of Practice, current activities, future developments Peter Shepherd Director COUNTER January 2008

Background Understanding usage 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

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 (library performance measures) MESUR – investigate metrics derived from the network-based usage of scholarly information COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of NeTworked Electronic Resources)

Why COUNTER? Goal: credible, compatible, consistent publisher/vendor-generated statistics for the global information community Libraries and consortia need online usage statistics To assess the value of different online products/services To support collection development 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

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 80+ vendors now compliant 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 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

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

ABCE Audit fees FEES CHARGEABLEStandard FeeCOUNTER Members Year 1Year 2Year 1Year 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£740 Database Report 3£370 Total cost of Journal Report 1 audit£3,888£2,332£2,713£2,101

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 At journal, collection and publisher level 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:

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: £ £2.91 Publisher C: £ £3.29 Publisher D: £ £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 submitted in May 2007 Find at Next steps Test approach and methodology on real publisher usage data

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 Metasearch Potential inflationary effect on search counts Pre-fetching Potential inflationary effect on full-text download counts 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 Click-based searches New report? Usage reports for Consortia 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 existed for automatically retrieving, combining, and storing COUNTER usage data from different sources NISO-sponsored XML-based SUSHI provides a means to do just this, via a standard model for machine to machine automation of statistics harvesting. COUNTER and NISO have worked together to develop the SUSHI protocol. More details of SUSHI can be found at:-

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 Timetable: focus groups November/December 2007; draft R3 in early 2008; final R3 in mid-2008; implementation of R3 in 2009 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 (2008) Publishers/intermediaries: $825 Library Consortia: $545 Libraries: $412 Industry organization: $412 Library affiliate: $165 (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 Vendors: no compliance fee; reduced price audit fees

Apply for COUNTER membership

For more information………. Thank you! Peter Shepherd, COUNTER