Are they any use? Price per use comparisons...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Are they any use? Price per use comparisons...

  • 861 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
861
On Slideshare
852
From Embeds
9
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 9

http://www.visualcv.com 9

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • If you get the reference of this poster to the car named the ‘General’ Lee, then the US has had a worse affect on UK culture than I thought possible… Another haz attending a talk by a guy Commercial vs Society Broad verus narrow China Academic Journals LOTS of content, but as in Chinese expect low demand
  • IP-based—Delivered by
  • Google Scholar
  • On the theme of negative impacts of the US on the UK… I’d say this one is very specific, though Glad don’t have to put into words… Outline of rest of talk
  • But first, a definition and the magic number… March 2002 Release 2 Without it we couldn’t even discuss this Collaborative effort of librarians publishers & intermediaries founded on well respected industry initiatives
  • Big deal Lock-ins & Combined Subscriptions
  • For the same publisher pkg in the same year…
  • Not exactly red herrings…
  • Significantly different? What metric for use?
  • An option…
  • Elsevier (22%) and Ebsco (28%) partnered with COUNTER ( Publisher/package? Journal? Journal year? Article? Ignoring or Overemphasizing PPU by journal Should depend on question
  • Scholar – browsing may require use
  • At least among academic libraries… Two reasons not to give up: Swapping Cooperative vendors
  • 80-20 Rule
  • Based on title by title use stats
  • Kakorams
  • Majority of collection comprised of added titles (at small fraction of list price) Simple answer: if not all of them, then the ones we use the most Pre-packed – Bad with the good, problem of breadth, OR you can have all these titles that other institutions subscribed to as of 5 years ago
  • According to counter Post-analysis pending
  • Gorey Details Switch gears to individual library Within a package & only subscribed titles (by definition) Those that have the highest price per use Use multiple years of Data
  • Gorey Details Switch gears to individual library Within a package & only subscribed titles (by definition) Those that have the highest price per use Use multiple years of Data
  • Gorey Details Switch gears to individual library Within a package & only subscribed titles (by definition) Those that have the highest price per use Use multiple years of Data

Transcript

  • 1. Hazards of price-per-use comparison in e-journal management Jason S. Price , Ph.D. Claremont Colleges’ Libraries Los Angeles, California Are they any use? Plenary Session 4 30 th Annual UKSG Conference, 16-18 April 2007 University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
  • 2. General hazards -- Broad Strokes
    • Defining use narrowly
    • Vagaries of user behavior
    • Different dissemination styles in teaching
    • * Ejournal-centric approach in academic institutions
  • 3. G1. A narrow definition of use
    • COUNTER JR 1: Full text article views
    • Additional use-related measures:
    • A-Z list click throughs/Web log files
    • Times cited at your Inst. in recent papers ACS Livewire 8:2
    • Impact/Usage Factor
    • # of papers published by local researchers by journal
    • Faculty/Researcher Surveys
    • Print Use?
    • Emerging measures? (Bollen & Van de Sompel 2006)
      • Page rank (vs. Impact factor) & who’s using what
      • Viewing structural patterns in usage data
  • 4. G2. Vagaries of search/use habits
    • Users may check for full-text before judging relevance from abstracts ( or even titles !)
    • The prevalence of this approach may vary among disciplines or packages
    • Google Accelerator
  • 5. G3. Dissemination style in teaching
    • Prof. A downloads 1 pdf, makes copies for students
      • ↓ under-counts 1 use for many
    • Prof. B sends link to publisher PDF to her 40 students
      • ↑ over-counts many uses of 1 article
    • Prof. C posts pdf on Electronic Reserve site
      • ↓ under-counts 1 use for many
    • Prof. D uses ‘FREE’ full text from PubMedCentral
      • ↓↓ Way under-counts 0 use for many
    • Prof. E repeatedly uses publisher site to retrieve his own article
      • ↑↑ Way over-c ounts many uses for 0
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/ygv3dbb9j8jj2vaq/
  • 6. Specific Hazards
    • Determining cost
    • Comparison to ILL cost
    • Comparison across Publishers
    • Ignoring ‘by-title’ data
    • Lack of benchmarks
  • 7. COUNTER briefing
    • Counting Online Use of NeTworked Electronic Resources
    • -A standard & code of practice that enables comparison of usage statistics from different vendors
    • Components:
    • Terminology & Definitions
    • Layout & Format of reports (for journals & databases)
    • Processing of user input
    • Delivery frequency & availability period
    • Testing & Regular audits
    • www.projectcounter.org tinyurl.com/nxqvv
    COMPLIANT
  • 8. S1. Determining Cost
    • Overall cost per view
    • =1 year’s cost / 1 year’s views
    • e.g. $58,600 publisher E-access fee
    • 35,700 article views
    • $1.64 Cost per view?
    • * $420,000 mandatory cost of subs (to agent) for
    • a subset of these same titles
    • $420K + $ 58.6K = $478,600 / 35,700 = $13.40
  • 9. Overall cost per view by Subs Type $1.64
  • 10. S2. Comparison with ILL
    • Package CPV = $13.40
    • What does this tell us?
    • Is it High? Low?
    • Better than ILL?
    • How does it compare with other packages?
  • 11. S3. Cross-package comparison
    • So Pkg 1 is a better value than Pkg 3?
    It might not be… CPV
  • 12. Variation in use by format Davis and Price, 2006
  • 13. html to pdf Ratios vary widely for these packages
    • How many pdfs in Pkg 1 are duplicates of html views?
  • 14. Live Link
  • 15. S3. Package value revisited
    • pdf requests only tell a different story!
    CPP CPV vs.
  • 16. Response: COUNTER filter
    • A unique article filter provides new metric:
    • number of successful unique article requests in a session
    Need to be applied to Specific institutions/ interface configurations Vendor % Reduction (Group 2) Publisher A 25.14% Publisher B 25.50% Publisher C 21.40% Publisher D 35.65% Publisher E 47.36%
  • 17. Reality Check
    • Should we expect cost per use to be equivalent among packages?
    • Quality
    • Business Model
      • For Profit vs Cost Recovery
    • Exposure in Google Scholar
    • Title list accuracy
    • Backfile access
    ASSUMPTIONS
  • 18. S4. Ignoring by-title data
  • 19. Cutting off the long tail…
  • 20. Before…
  • 21. After …
  • 22. Before Collaboration  After Collaboration 
  • 23. S5. Lack of Benchmarks Consortium
  • 24. S5. Lack of Benchmarks Consortium
  • 25. S5. Lack of Benchmarks Consortium
  • 26. S5. Lack of Benchmarks Consortium
  • 27. Consortial benchmarking
  • 28. Recommendations
    • Unsure you have the right cost
    • Be wary of cross-publisher comparison
      • Consider both overall and pdf use
    • For single package evaluation:
      • Look at patterns at title level
      • Benchmark vs Consortium or Peers
  • 29. Support from COUNTER
    • Indication of subs type (Subs vs Lease)
    • Unique article filter to mitigate interface & linking effects
    • Separation of backfile data
    • By title data
    • Single Password consortium access to aggregate and by-institution statistics
    • Much more…
  • 30.  
  • 31. A ‘local’ analogy
  • 32.  
  • 33.  
  • 34. S5. Lack of Benchmarks Consortium
  • 35. New ways to answer classic questions
    • Which titles should be in our collections?
    • Which titles should we cancel?
    • (Which titles should we add?)
    • Is this collection a good value?
  • 36. Q1. Which titles should be in our collection?
    • Big Deal’ E-journal package benefit: added titles
      • Pre-packaged subject collections?
      • Consortial unique title list?
      • eUsage-based consortial shared title list
        • Includes highest use unsubscribed titles from each institution
        • List can be adjusted periodically to meet changing needs and use patterns
        • Returns title-by-title control to libraries
  • 37. Which titles should be in our shared collection?
    • Building the list:
    • Compiled e-Usage by institution
    • Removed Subs title use from each institutions use data
    • Sorted by total use & calculated cumulative use
    (Road Hazard)
  • 38. Example of Cumulative Use
  • 39. Which titles should be in our shared collection?
    • Building the list:
    • Compiled e-Usage by institution
    • Removed Subs title use from each institutions use data
    • Sorted by total use & calculated cumulative use
    • For each institution, guaranteed inclusion of:
      • A set representing a big chunk of cumulative use (66-80%)
      • Every title viewed more than x / month (1-4)
    • As a group, agreed on further title cuts based on price per consortial view
    • Result: Libraries saved from 10-60% on the collection though a couple experienced price increases
  • 40. Q1. Which titles should we share? A: not the Unique Title List… For more detail see: http://tinyurl.com/lte96
  • 41. Q2. Which titles should we cancel?
  • 42. Q2. Which titles should we cancel?
  • 43. Q2. Which titles should we cancel?
  • 44. (Q3. Which titles should we add?)
    • What do turnaways mean?
    • Pay-per-view by title (not separate from licensed?)
    • Degree of ‘rights transparency’ will affect
    • Don’t know that counter can help much here –except through enabling consortial/peer benchmarking
  • 45. Thoughts on the COUNTER standard
    • Librarians manage subscribed & unsubscribed collections separately, we need to be able to divide easily
    • Usage should be reported by paid units
      • Since backfiles paid separately, require separate (or at least distinguishable) reporting
      • If split titles are subscribed as a unit, then report that way
    • Aggregation of multi-year data is a challenge
    • Caution is critical when comparing across
    • collections: linking tools may skew the statistics
  • 46. Average vs Overall vs Cost per View