1. JUSP - The JISC Journal Usage Statistics Portal
Ross MacIntyre, Mimas
The University of Manchester
Lecture: "The process by which the notes of the lecturer become the notes of the student without passing through the mind of either"

2. Consistent, Credible & Compatible Usage Statistics
Code of Practice for:
Data elements to be measured
Definitions of these data elements
Output report formats/delivery/frequency/granularity
Methods for measurement and use
AAP, ALPSP, ARL, ASA, EDItEUR, JISC, NCLIS, NISO, PA, STM, UKSG

3. > 225 member organisations Code of Practice Journals & Databases
Release 3 from September 2009
100 vendors/products compliant (in part)
Auditing standards & procedures
XML DTD for Usage Reports
Code of Practice eBooks & eReference
Published March 2006
10 vendors/products compliant (in part)
JR1 = Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests by Month and Journal
JR1a = Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests by Month and Journal for a Journal Archive
JR2 = Turnaways by Month and Journal
JR3 = Number of Successful Item Requests and Turnaways by Month, Journal and Page Type
JR4 = Total Searches Run by Month and Service
JR5 = Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests by Year and Journal
DB1 = Total Searches and Sessions by Month and Database
DB2 = Turnaways by Month and Database
DB3 = Total Searches and Sessions by Month and Service
R3 published August 2008
- Emphasis on accounting for robot/federated searching.
All COUNTER compliant vendors must be independently audited within 18 months of being designated compliant, and annually thereafter.

4. Timeline 1998 Nesli 2002 COUNTER* 2003 *J&Db[R1]
2004 Evidence Base report:
‘Nesli2 Analysis of Usage Statistics’
2005 *J&Db[R2]
2006 Key Perspectives report:
’Usage Statistics Service Feasibility Study’
2007 Content Complete report: ‘JUSP Scoping Study’
2008 JISC ITT: ‘JUSP Scoping Study 2’ *J&Db[R3]
2009 JUSP Report
2010 April JISC fund JUSP to service

5. Mission
to assist and support libraries in the analysis of NESLi2 usage statistics and the management of their e-journals collections.
20 NESLi2 e-journal deals/Publishers
132 HEIs taking up NESLi2 deals
3 Intermediaries (gateway/host)

6. Accesses statistics directly from the publisher admin interfaces
OUP
Institutional admin logs into an administration page, and is then offered a selection of years to choose from
A selection of reports are offered, including the COUNTER reports in Tabular (HTML), xls, and csv.
Terry downloads the reports, compiles into one spreadsheet and then imports into an Access database.

7. Springer
Very similar process. Terry logs into a Springer admin page (institutional login)
Then goes to the University of Liverpool pages
On the institutional page, there is an option for usage data
Then have option for JR1 reports to download in either xls or csv

8. Technical – entity relationships
Publisher
Has Agreement
Aggregator
Publishes
Supplies
Has Agreement
Journal
ISSN
Has Agreement
Access
'hits'
Institution
Users

9. The database v0.4 Suppliers Deals Platforms Journals Statistics
Institutions
Relationships key:
One to many
Many to many

10. The database v0.4 mySQL PHP & Perl Journal Table Journal ID Title
AltTitle
ISSN
eISSN
Subjects
Source
Deal_Details
Deal ID
YYYY
Journal ID
Statistics Table
Journal ID
Institution ID
Publisher ID
Supplier ID
Platform ID
Type
YYYYMM
Accesses
Institution Table
Institution ID
Name
Type
LoginID
ContactName
JobTitle
Address
Postcode
Phone
Fax
JISCBand
Platform Table
Platform ID
Name
Supplier Table
Supplier ID
Name
Type
ContactName
JobTitle
Address
Postcode
Phone
Fax
mySQL
PHP & Perl
Deals_Summary
Deal ID
Publisher ID
Title
Relationships key:
One to many
Many to many

11. Technical – conversion from .xls
Converting csv files from partners to xml files
Script to load xml files into Statistics table in database and create links to other tables

12. Technical – conversion to .xml

13. DEMO of JUSP Link to JUSP Prototype
Manchester
Mimas pmeehan/naheemp
Guest/guest
jisc/??????????
DEMO of JUSP Link to JUSP Prototype

14. 1. Single point of access to all JR1 and JR1A usage statistics as currently downloaded individually from publisher websites
User informational text
From this page, you can download JR1 and JR1A (archive) reports.
You can select data ‘from’ & ‘to’
Interface shows
Report – drop down list (JR1 (all), JR1A (archive only)
Publisher – drop down list
Date Span – from Month & Year – to Month & Year

17. 2. Addition of host/gateway JR1 statistics where relevant
User informational text
To get a full picture of usage you may need to add usage statistics provided by other services such as Swetswise. This will depend on the publisher.
Select publisher and date range to download JR1 reports with Ingenta, Swetswise, Ebsco EJS etc included where appropriate.
Interface shows
Report – drop down list (JR1 (all))
Publisher – drop down list
Date From (m/y) & To (m/y)
Jan 2008 – Dec 2008 OUP

19. 3. Excluding usage of backfile collections
User informational text
JR1 reports include all usage. Some publishers also produce JR1A reports which give only usage of their archive or backfile collections. If you have access to these, you can download here reports that exclude backfile use and show only usage of current titles.
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Date From (m/y) & To (m/y)
Data processing notes
Titles in JR1 and JR1A matched by ISSN.
JR1A usage subtracted from JR1.
OUP Jan 2008 – Dec 2008 – sorted desc usage of current

21. 4. SCONUL Return (Society of College, National and University Libraries)
User informational text
Use this data for SCONUL return, which requires total use by Publishers by Academic Year.
These tables are used to look at usage trends over time, and to compare usage of the various publisher deals.
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Academic year

23. 5. Summary table to show use of host/gateways
User informational text
Use this table to see how much of your total usage goes through intermediaries, e.g. Ingenta and Swetswise
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Calendar Year(s)
Data processing notes
Separate columns for publisher, gateway, host and total.
JR1 usage shown in each.
Percentage use from each source calculated.
Note that “( )” indicates that any use reported is NOT to be included, as it is from an intermediary acting as a gateway.

24. NB ‘Aggregator’ is being used as a fictional name for an intermediary that can act as either host or gateway – hence “( )”.

25. 6. Summary table to show use of backfiles
User informational text
Use this table to see how much of your total usage comes from backfiles
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Calendar Year(s)
Data processing notes
JR1 total including intermediaries.
Shows percentage of total JR1 usage that comes from JR1A.

26. Springer don’t produce JR1A

27. 7. ‘Some more figures’ [sic]
User informational text
Find the average, median, (monthly) maximum number of requests, standard deviation and variance.
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Calendar year(s)

29. 8. Which titles have the highest use?
User informational text
Find the (20) titles which have the highest use
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Calendar year(s)
Display (20) titles with the highest usage, including publisher, title, issn, no. of requests (descending order).

31. User informational text
9. Tables and graphs
User informational text
See your monthly or annual usage over time as a chart
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Calendar years
Data processing notes
Show table of monthly totals for each year
Draw line graph
Requires FLASH.

33. 10. Benchmarking
User informational text
Compare usage with others in the same JISC band
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Calendar year(s)
JISC Band (‘A’-’J’ & ‘All’)
Data processing notes
Give total for all libraries in the JISC band and average.

35. JISC Collections Benchmarking Survey – March 2010
Usage Statistics Portal: Benchmarking functionality
76 Institutions responded to our short survey in reference to the usage statistics portal (benchmarking functionality). Our findings are as detailed below.
Question 1: How useful would it be for you to benchmark your institution’s journal usage for each individual NESLi2 publisher against that of other HE institutions?
(76 responses)
Vicky Legge – Licensing Manager, JColl.
38 / 76 (50%) = Very useful
36 / 76 (47.4%) = Somewhat useful
2 / 76 (2.6%) = Not useful

36. Question 5. Regarding questions 2-4 above, please indicate which would be your preferred choice regarding benchmarking (74 responses)
37 / 74 (50%) = Named institution
23 / 74 (31.1%) = Listed anonymously (same JISC band)
14 / 74 (18.9%) = Average usage by institutions in the same JISC Band

37. Questions 10: Regarding questions 7-9 above, which would be your preferred choice? (74 responses)
37 / 74 (50%) = Being anonymised within my JISC Band
30 / 74 (40.5%) = Other institutions being able to see my institution's name
7 / 74 (9.5%) = Being part of an average figure for the Band I am in

38. Similar size and structure Usage, spend and budget for resources
Question 6. Is there any other benchmarking criteria you would like to see?
Same ‘mission group’ Select our own particular subset of named institutions
Similar size and structure
Usage, spend and budget for resources
Cost per download & cost per FTE - Student and Staff at department / subject level
SCONUL divisions (RLUK, old, new, collHE) and by area Scotland / Wales would also be useful
Trend over a period of years
Mission group - - Russell group / by type of institution / pre and post ’92 / 94 group

39. Question 11: Please add any additional comments you would like to make
If OK with the licence then comparing named institutions would be best/ Happy to be named if all institutions are named
Averages are not helpful unless accompanied by other institutional data. Anonymised usage figures would be more useful
Institutions within the same JISC Band can vary widely (e.g. do they have a medical school, do they still have a chemistry dept) so you really need the institution name to give any sort of useful benchmarking.
Pulling data like FTE and RAE would save us all from having to do that ourselves.
Would be useful for NESLi2, however the majority of our deals are outside NESLi2

40. Participation Agreement - Library
3. PERMITTED USES/ACTIVITIES
3.1 The Institution hereby agrees to:
3.1.1 permit the Consortium to include its COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics in the database created for the Journal Usage Statistics Portal Service;
permit the Consortium to display the COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics via the Journal Statistics Portal Service;
permit the Consortium to show the COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics to other participating libraries in the Journal Usage Statistics Portal Service for benchmarking purposes; and
be identified in the Journal Usage Statistics Portal Service by: (1) institutional name; (2) JISC Band and (3) institutional group.

41. Participation Agreement - Library
4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSORTIUM
4.1 The Consortium agrees to:
4.1.1 only provide access to any COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics collected by the Consortium to authorized users from other participating institutions in the Journal Usage Statistics Portal Service and the Consortium partners;
use authentication for access to the Journal Usage Statistics Portal Service; and
permit JISC Collections to use the COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics in the Journal Usage Statistics Portal Service database for negotiation purposes with publishers within the framework of NESLi2.

42. Participation Agreement – Publisher/Intermediary
3. PERMITTED USES/ACTIVITIES
3.1 The Publisher hereby agrees to:
3.1.1 provide the Consortium with the COUNTER Usage Statistics of the Institutions, including by using the SUSHI Protocol;
3.1.2 permit the Consortium to include the collected COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics in the database created for the JISC Journals Statistics Portal Project;
3.1.4 permit the Consortium to show all COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics to any NESLi2-eligible Institutions for their own usage assessment and for benchmarking their own usage against that of other Institutions;
3.1.5 permit the Institutions to use the information in the JISC Journals Statistics Portal for their SCONUL returns and any other uses agreed between the Publisher and the Consortium;
3.1.6 provide the Consortium with usage statistics which are in compliance with the latest COUNTER guidelines; and
3.1.7 implement the SUSHI Protocol.

43. Additional Identified Requirements
Getting price information for journals.
Download list price of journals as supplied on the publishers website
Adding price information for journal lists.
See your annual usage with information on list price for each journal
‘What titles are in the deal?’
Adding deal information to journal lists.
Showing usage/non-usage of titles listed in the deal and titles not listed.
Summary table showing usage/non-usage of titles listed in the deal and not listed in the deal.
Summary table showing average and median use of titles listed in the deal and titles not listed.
Download area 1. Cost per request.
Download area 2. Usage of subscribed titles (tabular data)
Download area 3. Charts and graphs.

44. Issues SUSHI – rare indeed!
Upload of publisher price lists – lack of machine-readable sources (maybe ONIX Serials – SPS?)
Authority files to populate the Journal and Supplier tables
Subject categorisation of journals

45. Cooperative Statistics Server ReDI-HeBIS
September 24th, 2010
Cooperative Statistics Server ReDI-HeBIS 45

46. ‘To Do’ List Production service
Scaling up, more libraries, more publishers
Further development of database
Further exploration of ‘added value’ services e.g. adding price, subject information, dealing with title changes, publisher transfers etc
Further assistance to libraries in analysing own usage
Benchmarking
COUNTER for eBooks
Access Management Refinement

47. Nicole’s Access Recommendation
JISC Collections should define an eduPersonEntitlement, this should be in the form of a URL, and the URL should resolve to a page describing the scope of the entitlement.
So something like: with text explaining that this entitlement should be used by JISC Collections Members and Affiliate Members and applied to the accounts of users within the organisation that are authorised to sign JISC Collections sub-license forms on behalf of the organisation.
The Member organisations are responsible for effectively assigning and revocating this Entitlement to appropriate members of staff

48. JISCMail Discussion Institutions fall broadly in to three groups:
able to populate entitlements and have IDM processes to request and revocate;
able to populate but do not have well defined IDM processes to request and revocate;
not capable of managing this process at the moment.

49. Final Observations
Open Source – available to institutions or other consortia
Complementary not in competition with licensed software offerings

50. This artwork by ADA+Neagoe, originally published in Omagiu Magazine.
Q&A
This artwork by ADA+Neagoe, originally published in Omagiu Magazine.

51. Q&A Ross.MacIntyre@Manchester.ac.uk
* With Apologies to CBS TV show “How I Met Your Mother.”