1. Journal Usage Statistics Portal (JUSP): a simpler way to measure use and impact

2. 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

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. Benefits for libraries and publishers
No need to visit multiple publisher sites to download usage statistics
Usage comparison across publishers and years
Establishing value for money
Publishers and intermediaries
- Added value for customers
Libraries have accurate figures to help assess value
Includes usage through intermediaries

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

6. Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)
M2M way of gathering statistics
Replaces the user-mediated collection of usage reports
10 JUSP SUSHI clients available
SUSHI server to gather data from JUSP

7. Libraries in JUSP 75 libraries in JUSP
All UK higher education institutions are invited to participate (160+)
10 new libraries per month

8. 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.

9. 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

10. How does JUSP show true usage figures?
+ we ADD the gateway and intermediary figures where necessary
_ we SUBTRACT the backfile usage (JR1a report) from the JR1 report

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Summary reports Reports SCONUL return Publisher usage
Use of gateways and host intermediaries
Use of backfiles
Tables and graphs
Titles with the highest use

14. Here we’re looking at one publisher over a 4 year period so you can see from the graph how usage has gone up each year and which months show the heaviest use.
We are now collecting data back to 2009, so for new libraries and publishers joining JUSP we shall have 2 full years plus ongoing current year to look at trends. This can all be done through SUSHI

15. Here we’re looking at the 100 titles with the highest use – you can choose one publisher or all, and all years or selected year.

16. Community engagement Community resource responding to what people want
Working closely with libraries to understand how JUSP is being used and how it can help decision-making
Developing new reports and features from user feedback
Quick response rates encourage active user participation

17. Recent and current developments
Trends over time
Journal, keyword and ISSN search
Breakdown of publisher usage by title and year
Usage ranges
Enhanced graphics

18. Here I’ve searched for the keyword finance and got 23 matching titles.

19. On this screen I’ve selected 4 of the titles listed and here you can see their usage over the years.

20. This screen shot shows the number of titles that fall into nil, low, medium or high usage ranges – it’s an at a glance way of seeing usage patterns, which will vary with different deals. The pie chart shows this up well – in this case we have a deal where about half the titles are in the medium usage range.

21. User feedback mechanisms
Gathering feedback and monitoring use
, discussions, surveys and interviews
Wishlist of features
Agile development process

22. User feedback Successful aspects User interface SUSHI harvesting
Report comparisons
Limitations
Needs to include more publishers
Enhancements following user feedback

23. Planned developments More libraries More publishers
More formats – e-books, databases
More features
Titles v deals
Subscribed or core titles
Benchmarking
More help and guidance to libraries in using JUSP

24. Conclusion Providing support and guidance to the community
Ongoing consultation with libraries and publishers
Knowledge sharing
SUSHI client available as free, open source software
Inviting collaboration

25. Information and contact details
These slides are available at
Online demo at

26. Questions Questions re: data
aggregation process involves a check on the data
good example of the impact JUSP can have