1. COC 9, Newport, Rhode Island April 23-24, 2001 ICOLC Statistics Survey ARL Vendor Meeting

2. Survey on Vendor Statistics March 2001 31 responses - 20% international Predominantly academic consortia Represent 3,200 libraries.... with 530 active licenses

3. Desired Features — Tier 1 Institutional and consortia level data Easy to generate and understand reports Not confusing or counter-intuitive Data appropriately detailed Searches, articles, sessions, etc.

4. Desired Features — Tier 2 Data reported relates to pricing structure (turnaways, peak users) Easily accumulated for the desired time period Easily transferred to spreadsheet Retain data from previous time periods

5. Comments Linking (CrossRef, SFX, etc) Ease of access (password(s) or not) and Consortia vs. institutional view Separate access to stat and admin Time of day — both for and against E-books

6. “Best Statistical Information” 22 vendors mentioned as “Best” EBSCO – 9 JSTOR – 6.... ScienceDirect – 5 OCLC FirstSearch – 4 11 “Best” also mentioned as “Worst”

7. “Worst Statistical Information” 31 vendors mentioned as “Worst” Very little consensus Most frequent comments: No statistics at all !! Lack of timeliness Institutional vs.consortia views Available on request only

8. ARL Vendor Meeting, Denver Part of a larger ARL project Bell & Howell, EBSCO, Elsevier, Gale, JSTOR, Lexis-Nexis, netLibrary, OCLC, Ovid ARL to work with vendors and libraries on definitions Queries, Menu Selections, Sessions, Articles, Turnaways, Connection Time

9. ARL Vendor Meeting, Denver Vendors asked ICOLC to provide guidelines about what statistics should apply to: Citation / reference / aggregators E-Journals E-Books

10. ICOLC Statistics Committee Review survey data Consider the vendors’ request Revise document for ICOLC review before Atlanta Adopt revised guidelines at Atlanta meeting ??