Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
27 cc 1_c_p-shepherd
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply
Published

 

  • 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
59
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

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

Transcript

  • 1. COUNTER:contributing towards understanding usage Peter Shepherd Project Director COUNTER Society for Scholarly Publishing 29 May 2003
  • 2. Background Publisher-generated usage statistics need to be credible, compatible and consistent if they are contribute towards our understanding of usage of online information resources Libraries and consortia need online usage statistics  To assess the value of different online products/services  To support collection development  To plan infrastructure
  • 3. Publishers need usage statistics To demonstrate that reduced usage of print issues has been compensated by increased online usage To assess the relative importance of the various channels via which its content reaches the market To experiment with new pricing models To support editorial policy To obtain improved market analysis/demographics To inform authors where and how articles are used To improve site design and navigation To plan infrastructure, e.g. mirror sites/caches
  • 4. In October 2001 ARL concluded“….it is largely impossible to compare data across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors. We believe that the comprehensive standardisation of usage statistics and data delivery methods cannot be easily achieved in the short term.” ARL E-metrics Phase II Report, October 2001
  • 5. COUNTER is endorsed by….. AAP, Association of American Publishers ALPSP, The Association of Learned and professional Society Publishers ARL, The Association of Research Libraries ASA, Association of Subscription Agents and Intermediaries NCLIS, National Information Standards Organization PA, The Publishers Association STM, International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers
  • 6. COUNTER: objectiveTo develop a single, international, extendible Code of Practice that allows the usage of online information to be measured in a credible, consistent and compatible way using vendor-generated data.
  • 7. COUNTER: strategy Respond to the requirements of the international librarian, publisher and intermediary communities  An open, inclusive and interactive process  Representation of all three communities on COUNTER Limit scope of Release 1 to journals and databases Systematically extend scope of the Code of Practice  Horizontally, to cover other content types, such as e-books  Vertically, to provide, e.g., statistics for individual articles A cost effective-process for all parties involved Only one valid version of the Code of Practice at any time
  • 8. Code of Practice, Release 1: Main Features Definitions of terms used Specifications for Usage Reports Data processing guidelines Auditing Compliance Maintenance and development of the Code of Practice Governance of COUNTER
  • 9. Definitions of Terms Data elements to be collected Page views # Term Examples / formats Definition  Bibliographic data 3.1.2 Page type 3.1.2.1 Item Full text A uniquely identifiable piece of  Page type article, TOC, published work that may be Abstract, original or a digest or a review of  Source of page Database other published work. PDF, record Postscript and HTML formats of the same full text article (for  Authentication of user example), will be counted as separate items.  Access rights 3.1.2.2 Article An item of original written work published in a journal or other serial publication. An article is Session data complete in itself, but usually cites other relevant published works in its list of references Market elements 3.1.2.3 TOC (Table of A list of all articles published in a Contents) journal issueEvery effort was made to incorporate or reconcile the definitionswith existing ones from other groups, such as NISO and ICOLC.
  • 10. Specifications for Usage Reports Usage Reports: Level 1  Journal Report 1: # of successful full-text article requests by month and journal  Journal Report 2: Turnaways by month and journal  Database Report 1: Total searches & sessions by month & database  Database Report 2: turnaways by month & database  Database Report 3: Total searches & sessions by month & service Usage Reports: Level 2  Journal Report 3: # of successful item requests and turnaways by month, journal & page type  Journal Report 4: total searches run, by month & service Report format: CSV file, as a Microsoft Excel file
  • 11. Journal Report 1: Successful Full-Text Article Requests by Month and Journal Print ISSN Online Jan - Feb - Mar - Calendar ISSN 01 01 01 YTDTotal for all 6637 8732 7550 45897journalsJournal of AA 1212-3131 3225-3123 456 521 665 4532Journal of BB 9821-3361 2312-8751 203 251 275 3465Journal of CC 2464-2121 0154-1521 0 0 0 0Journal of DD 5355-5444 0165-5542 203 251 275 2978 Example
  • 12. Data processing guidelines Covers only intended usage Impractical to describe filters for all possible ways to generate usage records Code of Practice specifies the criteria to be met by the data used in building the Usage Reports  Only successful requests will be counted  Records generated by the server, together with the requested pages, should be ignored  All users’ double clicks within 10 seconds on an http- link should be counted as only one request (30 seconds for PDF)
  • 13. Auditing Auditing will be required beginning in 2004 A publisher or content provider will be able to state that it is “Counter Compliant” only if this can be certified through an independent audit Auditing processes are under development A list of COUNTER-approved auditors will be made available
  • 14. Compliance 1 Requirement for 2003  Level 1: basic set of journal and database reports Licence Agreements  Standard clause covering COUNTER compliance Declaration of COUNTER compliance  For 2003  Vendors sign declaration and demonstrate to COUNTER that they can provide at least Level 1 Usage Reports Register of COUNTER-compliant vendors  Available from June 2003 on the COUNTER website
  • 15. Compliance 2 Vendors already COUNTER compliant  Blackwell Publishing, ISI, OUP Vendors who have declared an intention to become COUNTER compliant during 2003  American Institute of Physics, BMJ Publishing, CABI International, Cambridge University Press, EBSCO, Elsevier Science, Extenza, HighWire Press, Ingenta, Institute of Physics Publishing, Nature Publishing Group, Portland Press, Swets Blackwell, Turpion
  • 16. Maintenance and Development of the Code of Practice Full text of the Code of Practice is freely available on the COUNTER website  html and PDF formats  Guidelines for implementation Code of Practice will be systematically extended  An Upgrade Log of proposed changes is maintained Feedback on Release 1 is actively sought  Via test sites involving publishers and libraries  Via feedback to COUNTER via the website, International Advisory Board, etc.
  • 17. COUNTER organizational structure A not-for-profit company set up in England  Any surplus is retained by the project  If wound up any funds are transferred to the organization that takes over COUNTER’s mission Board structure  Board of Directors  Executive Committee  International Advisory Board  Specific, task-oriented teams Membership  The members own the company
  • 18. COUNTER Membership Member Categories and Annual Fees  Publishers and intermediaries (aggregators): $750  Consortia: $750  Libraries: $375  Industry organization: $375  Library affiliate: $150 (non-voting member) Benefits of full membership  Owner of COUNTER with voting rights at annual general meeting, etc.  Regular bulletins on progress  Advice on implementation
  • 19. Future Developments: 2003 and beyond Objectives for 2003  Promote and gain acceptance for the Code of Practice  Obtain feedback on Release 1  Complete list of approved auditors  Define and set up a permanent administrative structure  Promote membership of COUNTER  Full implementation by vendors for 2004 subscription year Beyond 2003  Build membership of COUNTER  Extend and deepen Code of Practice  Cover e-books, etc  Journal reporting at article level
  • 20. COUNTER Founding Sponsors AAP/PSP  JSTOR AIP  Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins ALPSP  Nature Publishing Group ARL  New England Journal of ASA Medicine Atypon  OCLC Blackwell Publishing  Oxford University Press BMJ Publishing Group  The Publishers Association EBSCO  ProQuest Elsevier Science  Taylor & Francis Group ICSTI  STM Ingenta  Swets Blackwell IOPP  UKSG ISI
  • 21. For more information………. www.projectCounter.org Peter Shepherd (Project Director) pshepherd@projectCounter.org