COUNTER Update (2011 CrossRef Workshops)

1,472 views
1,355 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,472
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

COUNTER Update (2011 CrossRef Workshops)

  1. 1. COUNTER Update - November 2011 Peter Shepherd COUNTER November 2011
  2. 2. COUNTER - three new developments <ul><li>Release 4 of the Code of Practice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Draft Release 4 now available for public comment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Usage Factor </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a new usage based measure of journal impact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>detailed statistical analysis completed </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Draft Code of Practice for journal Usage Factor now being reviewed by International Advisory Board </li></ul></ul><ul><li>PIRUS – Publisher and Institutional Repository Usage Statistics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>recording and reporting usage at the individual article level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Final project report now available; provides a promising basis for implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>technical issues largely resolved; organizational and business model proposed but not yet finalised </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Growing publisher interest in implementation </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. COUNTER Release 4 - objectives <ul><li>A single, unified Code covering all e-resources, including journals, databases, books, reference works, multimedia content, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Improve the database reports </li></ul><ul><li>Expand the categories of ‘ Access Denied ’ covered </li></ul><ul><li>Improve the application of XML and SUSHI in the design of the usage reports </li></ul><ul><li>Collect metadata that facilitates the linking of usage statistics to other datasets, such as subscription information </li></ul><ul><li>Take into account the outcomes of the Journal Usage Factor and PIRUS projects </li></ul>
  4. 4. Release 4: timetable and development process <ul><li>April 2011 : announcement of objectives, process and timetable for the development of Release 4; open invitation to submit suggestions </li></ul><ul><li>April-June 2011 : evaluation of submitted suggestions by COUNTER Executive Committee </li></ul><ul><li>June 2011- September 2011 : development of Draft Release 4 </li></ul><ul><li>October 2011 : publication of Draft Release 4 </li></ul><ul><li>October 2011 - January 2012: comments received on Draft Release 4 </li></ul><ul><li>March 2012 : publication of Release 4 </li></ul><ul><li>December 2013 : deadline for implementation by vendors of Release 4 </li></ul>
  5. 5. Release 4: main features <ul><li>A single, integrated Code of Practice covering journals, databases, books, reference works and multimedia content </li></ul><ul><li>An expanded list of Definitions, including terms such as ‘ gold open access ’ , ‘ multimedia full content unit ’ , ‘ record view ’ , ‘ result click ’ , as well as different categories of ‘ access denied ’ , etc. that are used for the first time in Release 4 </li></ul>
  6. 6. Release 4: main features <ul><li>Enhancements of the SUSHI ( S tandardised U sage S tatistics H arvesting I nitiative) protocol designed to facilitate its implementation by vendors and its use by librarians </li></ul><ul><li>A requirement that Institutional Identifiers, Journal DOI and Book DOI be included in the usage reports, to facilitate not only the management of usage data, but also the linking of usage data to other data relevant to collections of online content. </li></ul><ul><li>A requirement, in Journal Report 1 and Journal Report 1a, that usage of Gold Open Access articles within journals be reported separately </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>Draft Release 4 now available in the COUNTER website for comments until mid-January 2012 </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.projectcounter.org/code_practice.html </li></ul>COUNTER Code of Practice -Release 4
  8. 8. Usage Factor: background <ul><li>Usage Factor: providing a new perspective </li></ul><ul><li>UF is a complementary measure that will compensate for the weaknesses of Impact Factors in several important ways: </li></ul><ul><li>UFs will be available for a much larger number of journals </li></ul><ul><li>coverage of all fields of scholarship that have online journals </li></ul><ul><li>impact of practitioner-oriented journals is better reflected in usage </li></ul><ul><li>usage is recorded and reported immediately upon publication of an article </li></ul><ul><li>availability of UF will reduce the current over-emphasis of IFs </li></ul><ul><li>authors would welcome a usage-based measure for journals </li></ul>
  9. 9. Usage Factor Project - aims and objectives <ul><li>The overall aim of this project was to explore how online journal usage statistics might form the basis of a new measure of journal impact and quality, the Usage Factor for journals. </li></ul><ul><li>Specific objectives were to answer the following questions: </li></ul><ul><li>Will Usage Factor be a statistically meaningful measure? </li></ul><ul><li>Will Usage Factor be accepted by researchers, publishers, librarians and research institutions? </li></ul><ul><li>Will Usage Factor be statistically credible and robust? </li></ul><ul><li>Is there an organizational and economic model for its implementation that would cost-effective and be acceptable to the major stakeholder groups. </li></ul><ul><li>The project has been carried out in two Stages : </li></ul><ul><li>Stage 1 ( 2007-2008): market research </li></ul><ul><li>Stage 2 (2009-2011): modelling and analysis </li></ul>
  10. 10. Usage Factor Project - next steps <ul><ul><li>Stage 3 Objectives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preparation of a draft Code of Practice for the Journal Usage Factor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Further testing of the recommended methodology for calculating Journal Usage Factor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Investigation of an appropriate, resilient subject taxonomy for the classification of journals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exploration of the options for an infrastructure to support the sustainable implementation of JUF </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Investigate the feasibility of applying the Usage Factor concept to </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>other categories of publication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For further information , see the full report of the Journal Usage Factor project on the COUNTER website: http://www.projectcounter.org/usage_factor.html </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. PIRUS : why now? <ul><li>Increasing interest in article-level usage </li></ul><ul><li>More journal articles hosted by Institutional and other Repositories </li></ul><ul><li>Authors and funding agencies are increasingly interested in a reliable, global overview of usage of individual articles </li></ul><ul><li>Online usage becoming an alternative, accepted measure of article and journal value </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge Exchange report recommends developing standards for usage reporting at the individual article level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Usage-based metrics being considered as a tool for use in the UK Research Excellence Framework and elsewhere. </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. PIRUS : why now? <ul><li>Article-level usage metrics now more practical </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation by COUNTER of XML-based usage reports makes more granular reporting of usage a practical proposition </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation by COUNTER of the SUSHI protocol facilitates the automated consolidation of usage data from different sources. </li></ul>
  13. 13. PIRUS : mission and project aims <ul><li>Mission </li></ul><ul><li>To develop a global standard to enable the recording, reporting and consolidation of online usage statistics for individual journal articles hosted by Institutional Repositories, Publishers and other entities </li></ul><ul><li>Project aims </li></ul><ul><li>Develop COUNTER-compliant usage reports at the individual article level </li></ul><ul><li>Create guidelines which, if implemented, would enable any entity that hosts online journal articles to produce these reports </li></ul><ul><li>Propose ways in which these reports might be consolidated at a global level in a standard way. </li></ul>
  14. 14. <ul><li>Reliable usage data will be available for journal articles, wherever they are held </li></ul><ul><li>Improved service to authors: authors are increasingly interested in knowing the level of usage of their articles (PLoS has been providing this information since 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>A PIRUS Code of Practice, based on existing COUNTER protocols, will provide publishers with a common, practical standard for delivering article-level usage data to their authors </li></ul><ul><li>The PIRUS standard can, in principle, be extended to cover other categories of content </li></ul>PIRUS: benefits
  15. 15. <ul><li>Technical: a workable technical model for the collection, processing and consolidation of individual article usage statistics has been developed. </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational : an organizational model for a Central Clearing House that would be responsible for the collection, processing and consolidation of usage statistics has been proposed. </li></ul><ul><li>Economic: the costs for repositories and publishers of generating the required usage reports, as well as the costs of any central clearing house/houses have been calculated and a model for recovering these costs has been proposed . </li></ul><ul><li>Further information and Final Report on PIRUS project: </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.projectcounter.org/News/Pirus2_oct2011.pdf </li></ul>PIRUS: project outcomes

×