Shepherd pirus april 2013

16,054 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
16,054
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Shepherd pirus april 2013

  1. 1. PIRUS - a new COUNTER standardfor article level and Institutional RepositoryUsage Statistics Peter Shepherd COUNTER The PIRUS project has been funded by JISC. the UK Joint Information Systems Committee
  2. 2. PIRUS: why now?A number of developments have meant that it would now be appropriate to publish a COUNTERstandard for the recording, reporting and consolidation of usage statistics at the individual articlelevel. Most important among these developments are:Growth in the number of journal articles hosted by institutional and other repositories, for which nowidely accepted standards for recording and reporting usage statistics have been developedA Usage Statistics Review, sponsored by JISC ( UK Joint Information Systems Committee) underits Digital Repositories programme 2007-8, which, following a workshop in Berlin in July 2008,proposed an approach to providing item-level usage statistics for electronic documents held in digitalrepositoriesEmergence of online usage as an alternative, accepted measure of article and journal value andusage-based metrics being considered as a tool to assess the impact of journal articles.Authors and funding agencies are increasingly interested in a reliable, global overview of usage ofindividual articlesImplementation by COUNTER of XML-based usage reports makes more granular reporting ofusage a practical propositionImplementation by COUNTER of the SUSHI (Standardised Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative)protocol facilitates the automated consolidation of large volumes of usage data from differentsources.The outputs of the PIRUS project (the XML schema for the individual article usage reports, thetracker code and the associated protocols) are already being implemented by publishers andrepositories (e.g. PLoS and SURF). It is important that these outputs are fully tested and, ifnecessary, refined, before they are too widely adopted.
  3. 3. PIRUS: benefits Reliable usage data will be available for journal articles and other content items, wherever they are held Repositories will have access to new functionality from open source software that will allow them to produce standardised usage reports from their data Publishers will be able to provide their authors with more reliable usage statistics The authoritative status of PIRUS usage statistics will enhance the status of article-level usage reports The standard can be extended to cover other categories of content stored by repositories
  4. 4. PIRUS: mission and project aimsMissionTo 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 entitiesProject aims Develop COUNTER-compliant usage reports at the individual article level Create guidelines which, if implemented, would enable any entity that hosts online journal articles to produce these reports Propose a model for a Central Clearing House (CCH) in which these reports might be consolidated at a global level in a standard way.
  5. 5. PIRUS: project outcomes Technical: a workable technical model for the collection, processing and consolidation of individual article usage statistics, which forms the basis of the PIRUS Code of Practice. 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. 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 .For full report on the PIRUS project go to: http://www.projectcounter.org/News/Pirus2_oct2011.pdf
  6. 6. The draft PIRUS Code ofPractice The PIRUS Code of Practice has been established as an outcome of the JISC- funded PIRUS (Publisher and Institutional Repository Usage Statistics) project. The primary aims and objectives of PIRUS were to assess the feasibility of and develop the technical, organizational and economic models for the recording, reporting and consolidation of usage of Journal Articles hosted by Publishers, Aggregators, Institutional Repositories and Subject Repositories. The PIRUS Code of Practice builds on the work undertaken by PIRUS, and the work of the JISC Usage Statistics Review and the Knowledge Exchange Institutional Repositories Workshop Strand on Usage Statistics. This PIRUS Code of Practice has been developed by COUNTER, which is also responsible for its on-going management and implementation. PIRUS is consistent with the COUNTER Code of Practice. To have their usage statistics and reports designated PIRUS-compliant vendors and other services must provide usage statistics that conform to this Code of Practice.
  7. 7. PIRUS:- the draft PIRUS Code of PracticeThe Code of Practice covers the following areas:article types to be counted;article versions to be counted;data elements to be measured;definitions of these data elements;content and format of usage reports;requirements for data processing;requirements for auditing;guidelines to avoid duplicate counting when intermediary gateways and aggregatorsare used.
  8. 8. PIRUS:- the draft PIRUS Code of PracticeThe PIRUS Code of Practice provides the specifications and tools that will allowCOUNTER-compliant publishers, repositories and other organizations to record andreport usage statistics at the individual article level that are credible, compatible andconsistent. COUNTER-compliant publishers may build on the existing COUNTERtools to do so, while an alternative approach is provided for non-COUNTER compliantrepositories, which is tailored to their systems and capabilities. This Code of Practicecontains the following features:A list of Definitions and other terms that are relevant to recording and reportingusage of individual itemsA methodology for the recording and reporting of usage at the individual articlelevel, including specifications for the metadata to be recorded, the content types, andthe versions whose usage may be counted.Specifications for the PIRUS Article Reports.Data processing rules to ensure that the usage data reported are credible,consistent and compatibleSpecifications for the independent auditing of the PIRUS reportsA description of the role of:  A Central Clearing House (CCH) in the calculation and consolidation of PIRUS usage data for articles.  Other Clearing Houses in relation to the CCH.
  9. 9. PIRUS:- the draft PIRUS Code of Practice Draft Release 1 of the PIRUS Code of Practice for recording and reporting usage at the individual article level  Appendix A: Glossary of Terms • Definitions of terms used in the PIRUS CoP  Appendix B: Vendor Declaration of PIRUS Compliance • To be singed following review of reports by a COUNTER test site  Appendix C: Specification for the Collection of Individual Item Usage Data • Covers usage events at COUNTER-compliant publishers, as well as non-COUNTER compliant repository usage events  Appendix D: Protocols for Repositories • Provides specifications that will allow non-COUNTER compliant repositories to record and report usage statistics at the individual item level that are consistent with COUNTER • IRUS – a PIRUS-approved model for consolidating usage data for UK institutional repositories  Appendix E: Auditing Process • To be formalised when the final version of Release 1 is ready The draft Code of Practice was published in February 2013 and will be available for public comment until 30 April 2013
  10. 10. PIRUS: article typesOrganizations must be able to record and report usage ofthe following categories of journal content at the individualarticle level:research articles ( full articles and short communications)review articlesIn addition the usage reports on the following individualitems are acceptable, provided they meet the data andmetadata requirements listed in 4.2 above:editorialsbook reviewstheses
  11. 11. PIRUS: article data and metadataPublisher/aggregator organizations should collect the usage data in the formatspecified in Article Report 1. The following data and metadata must be collected foreach article:Either Print ISSN OR Online ISSNArticle version, where availableArticle DOIOnline Publication Date OR Date of First Successful RequestMonthly count of the number of successful full-text requests - counts must remainavailable for at least 24 months from Online Publication Date OR date of FirstSuccessful RequestThe following metadata are optional, but are desirable:Journal titlePublisher namePlatform nameJournal DOIArticle titleArticle type
  12. 12. PIRUS: article versionsOnly usage of the following 5 Article Versions (of the 7 versions defined bythe ALPSP/NISO JAV Technical Working Group (http://www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf)) may be counted:Accepted Manuscript (AM)Proof (P)Version of Record (VoR)Corrected Version of Record (CVoR)Enhanced Version of Record (EVoR)Usage of the following 2 Article Versions must not be counted:Author’s Original (AO)Submitted Manuscript Under Review (SMUR)
  13. 13. Article Report 1: specification for datacollection by article
  14. 14. Article Report 2: number of successful full-text article requests, by Author, Month and DOI,consolidated from different sources
  15. 15. Article Report 3: summary of all successfulindividual article requests for an author, by month
  16. 16. PIRUS: Central Clearing HousePublishers will be able to consolidate the PIRUS individual article usage data from various sourcesthemselves, or they may use the Central Clearing House envisaged for this purpose.The main features of the Central Clearing House will be:A home page that provides summary information on:  the number of articles and journals indexed  overall totals of successful full-text article requests recorded from publishers, repositories and other organizationsA Search facility that makes it possible to find individual articles or groups of articles by:  DOI  Title/AuthorA number of reports can be generated:  Article Report 1j (AR1j) – this is a variant of the Article Report 1 (AR1), with usage events restricted to one journal at a time to reduce the report sizes. Its main purpose was to allow easy cross-checking that the data exposed from the PIRUS database matches the original data supplied by publishers  Article Report 2 (AR2) – this report is intended for article authors – showing total usage of an individual article, consolidated from publishers and repositories  Article Report 3 (AR3) – this report provides an overview of usage of a range of articles from a particular authorEach of the reports may be viewed in a web page in the portal or downloaded for use locally asMS-Excel/TSV files (See Appendix E for examples of the various reports). These reports must alsobe available via the SUSHI protocol.
  17. 17. PIRUS: next stepsDefinitive Release 1 of PIRUS Code of Practice  Following feedback on draft CoP  Publication during 2013Invitation to publishers to implement PIRUS Code of Practice  A useful service to authorsConsolidation of usage data from different sources by publishers  From IRUS and other COUNTER-compliant servicesDevelopment of the Central Clearing House
  18. 18. PIRUS: Draft Code of Practice,further information and updatesFor the draft Code of Practice, further information and updates on the PIRUS project:http://www.projectcounter.org/pirus.html

×