1. The Journal Usage Statistics Portal (JUSP)

2. Who?

3. JISC Collections
National initiative for licensing online journals on behalf of the higher and further education and research communities in the UK
SHEDL aims through collaboration and combined purchasing power to achieve a shared digital library in Scotland
WHELF's mission is to promote library and information services co-operation and to encourage the exchange of ideas among University and Higher Education libraries in Wales

4. Background and aims
Supports UK academic libraries by providing a single point of access to e-journal usage data
Assists management of e-journals collections, evaluation and decision-making
Provides statistics to ensure the best deals for the academic community

5. Purpose and benefits
Single point of access to usage data from multiple publishers
No need to visit separate publisher sites to download usage statistics
Usage comparison across publishers and years
Establishing value for money

6. Libraries in JUSP 100 libraries in JUSP
All UK higher education institutions are welcome to participate (160+)
10 new libraries per month

7. Publishers and intermediaries in JUSP
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
Annual Reviews
Edinburgh University Press (EUP)
Elsevier
Institute of Physics (IOP)
Nature Publishing Group
Oxford University Press
Project MUSE
Royal Society of Chemistry
SAGE
Springer
3 intermediaries
Ebsco EJS
Publishing Technology (ingentaconnect)
Swets

8. How do we collect data?
Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)
M2M way of gathering statistics
Replaces the user-mediated collection of usage reports
12 JUSP SUSHI clients available
SUSHI server to gather data from JUSP

9. What data are we collecting?
COUNTER usage reports
JR1
Journal Report 1: Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests by Month and Journal
JR1a
Journal Report 1a: Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests from an Archive by Month and Journal
Slide 2
Without COUNTER of course none of this would be possible because for the portal to succeed it must offer reliable data. All our reports are based on the main COUNTER reports the JR1 and the JR1a.

10. What data are we presenting?
JUSP report type
JUSP report title
Journal level reports
JR1 and JR1A reports
JR1 reports inc gateways and intermediaries
JR1 reports excluding backfile usage
Summary reports
SCONUL return
Summary of publisher usage
Summary use of gateway and host intermediaries
Summary use of backfiles
Tables and graphs
Which titles have highest use
Number of titles and requests in usage ranges
Experimental reports
NESLi2 deals
Titles vs NESLi2 deals
Individual journal search and usage
Breakdown of publisher usage (title and year)
Benchmarking
Calendar and academic year (available to JISC)

11. You can see from this screen shot that:
You can choose any time period
You can sort by title or by total number of requests.
You can download the report as a csv file
You can see a chart showing your top 5 titles with this publisher

12. Here you can see the usage reported by the publisher (in this case Springer) and the usage reported through IngentaConnect, EbscoEJS and Swetwise, then a total which includes all usage.
Often libraries are not sure when to add this usage, but where a library is making heavy use of one of these intermediaries it will make quite a difference to their total.
Again, you can choose your time period, download as csv file, and sort by title, total or by publisher or intermediary – so you can highlight the titles that users are getting at through intermediary – here the screen shot is sorted by Swets so the titles most accessed through swets appear first.

13. Here we’re subtracting rather than adding, as the JR1 includes all usage, including backfiles. If you take away the JR1a figure from the JR1 you can see usage of the current deal separately. In this screenshot, its sorted by the JR1a figures, so you can see which archive figures have the heaviest use
And there’s a pie chart which shows you at a glance how much usage is coming from the archive and how much from the current deal.

14. User feedback Gathering feedback and monitoring use Surveys Visits
Ongoing dialogue

15. What do users want? More publishers More trend analysis
More sort options
Integration with other statistics packages

16. What do users like about JUSP?
"Evidence-based library decisions rely on the timely analysis of usage statistics. JUSP has quickly matured into a highly valued service largely due to the team's skill in solving problems and presenting complex data within a clear and well-structured user interface.”
“The project has a real community feel to it, in that it actively responds to user input and I think it is a really good example of collaborative working - something we should be striving towards to avoid us needing to reinvent the wheel! I think the team has worked very well with libraries in seeking their input.”
"The more publishers you can get on board the better! The JUSP portal is already proving to be invaluable to us."

17. Impact on libraries Single point of access to data
Automation provided by SUSHI offers time saving benefits
COUNTER compliant usage data available for SCONUL returns
Report comparisons across publishers, years and platforms
Flexible methods of viewing data through tables, charts or graphs
Inclusion of intermediary stats
Data checked and quality assured

18. Implications for the community
Providing support and guidance to the community
Knowledge sharing
SUSHI client available as free, open source software
Ongoing consultation with libraries and publishers

19. Information and contact details