COUNTER stats: applying JR1
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

COUNTER stats: applying JR1

on

  • 1,052 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,052
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
1,051
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.visualcv.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 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
  • Haven’t cancelled yet…
  • The ScienceDirect article link leads to a page that downloads the html (for those with access rights) and presents a link to the pdf on the sciencedirect site, showing that anyone who accesses sciencedirect content triggers two downloads to get to the PDF (at least with in the Claremont IP range).

COUNTER stats: applying JR1 COUNTER stats: applying JR1 Presentation Transcript

  • COUNTER statistics: Three applications of Journal Report 1 Jason S. Price, PhD Libraries of the Claremont Colleges NISO: Managing Electronic Collections: Strategies from Content to User September 28-30, 2006 Magnolia Hotel – Denver, Colorado Caviat Emptor: formatting & animations may barely approximate reality: Download for original content
  • 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?
  • 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
  • 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
  • Example of Cumulative Use
  • 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
  • Q1. Which titles should we share? A: not the Unique Title List… For more detail see: http://bit.ly/chsproc2005
  • Q2. Which titles should we cancel?
  • Q2. Which titles should we cancel?
  • Q2. Which titles should we cancel?
  • Q2. Which to cancel? A: highest cost per use 7 subs in 10 most used 10 subs in 20 most used 19 subs in 48 most used Subs 37% Lease 63% Lease 24% Subs 76%
  • (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
  • Q4. Is this collection a good value? A: No for 3? Based on JR1a: ‘ Full text article requests’
  • Price per article use? html to pdf ratios vary widely For more info see: http://bit.ly/alL059 (pdf); JASIST 57(9):1243
  • Package value revisited
    • pdf requests only: a different story!
  • 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
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2005.12.008