1. Usage data in the publishing world and an update on COUNTER
Peter Shepherd
Director
COUNTER
June 2007

2. If I may be so bold as to inquire, to what degree do you wish to interact with Franz Kafka?

3. Average Time Spent and Number of Articles Read Per Year Per Scientist (Tenopir et al)
# read = ~230; Time spent = ~147

4. Scholarly Article Reading
Work Field
Articles Reading (Per Year)
Time Spent (Hours)
Time Per Article (Min)
University Medical Faculty
~322
118 22
Chemists
~276
198 43
Physicists
~204
153 45
Engineers
~72 97 81

5. Browsing Searching Core titles Current issues Background
Current awareness
New topics
Old articles
Primary research
For writing

6. Sources of Reading

7. 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

8. So how are we getting there?
ICOLC Guidelines for statistical measurement of usage of web-based information resources
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) Electronic access and use-related measures
NISO – Z39.7 (Library Statistics)
ISO – (library statistics) and (library performance measures)
MESUR – investigate metrics derived from the network-based usage of scholarly information
COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of NeTworked Electronic Resources)

9. Background Understanding usage Usage statistics COUNTER
Different approaches
Role of usage statistics
Usage statistics
Should enlighten rather than obscure
Should be practical
Should be reliable
Are only part of the story
Should be used in context
COUNTER
Achievements
Current status
Future challenges

10. COUNTER Codes of Practice
Definitions of terms used
Specifications for Usage Reports
What they should include
What they should look like
How and when they should be delivered
Data processing guidelines
Auditing
Compliance
Maintenance and development of the Code of Practice
Governance of COUNTER

11. COUNTER: current Codes of Practice
1) Journals and databases
Release 1 Code of Practice launched January 2003
Release 2 published April 2005 replacing Release 1 in January 2006
Now a widely adopted standard by publishers and librarians
60 vendors now compliant
journals now covered
Librarians use it in collection development decisions
Publishers use it in marketing to prove ‘value’
2) Books and reference works
Release 1 Code of Practice launched March 2006
6 vendors now compliant
Relevant usage metrics less clear than for journals
Different issues than for journals
Direct comparisons between books less relevant
Understanding how different categories of book are used is more relevant

12. Journal and Database Code of Practice
Usage Reports
Journal Report 1
Full text article requests by month and journal
Journal Report 2
Turnaways by month and journal
Database Report 1
Total searches and sessions by month and database
Database Report 2
Turnaways by month and database
Database Report 3
Searches and sessions by month and service

13. Code of Practice for books
Book Report 1
Number of successful requests by month and title
Book Report 2
Number of successful section requests by month and title
Book Report 3
Turnaways by month and title
Book Report 4
Turnaways by month and service
Book Report 5
Total searches and sessions by month and title
Book Report 6
Total searches and sessions by month and service

14. Journal Report 1 Full text article requests by journal
Html and PDF totals reported separately
Another feature to simplify the work of the institution in merging reports is the introduction of the “platform” column. Even though this will typically be the same on every row from a given vendor, when merging contents of files between vendors (e.g. aggregators and publishers), the activity for a given journal can then be easily broken down by platform…

15. COUNTER Audit
Independent audit required within 18 months of compliance, and annually thereafter
Audit is online, using scripts provided in the Code of Practice
Auditor can be:
Any Chartered Accountant
Another COUNTER-approved auditor
ABCE is the first COUNTER-approved auditor
Industry-owned
Not-for-profit
Independent and impartial
Part of ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulations)
Providing website traffic audits for over 150 companies and certifying over 1400 domains
Have successfully completed test audits on COUNTER usage reports

16. [B] Annual Subscription Total cost of Journal Report 1 audit
ABCE Audit fees
FEES CHARGEABLE
Standard Fee
COUNTER Members
Year 1
Year 2
[A] Registration Fee
£1,556
£612
[B] Annual Subscription
£852
£621
Journal Report 1
£1,480
Journal Report 2
£740
Database Report 1
£1,110
Database Report 2
Database Report 3
£370
Total cost of Journal Report 1 audit
£3,888
£2,332
£2,713
£2,101

17. ABCE audit fees Year 1 (first audit) £2,500
Includes 1.5 man-days pre audit consultancy as well as 1.5 man-days audit
Max 20 million records (add 0.5 man-days per 10 million or part thereof)
Max 50 reports (add 0.5 man-days per 50 reports or part thereof)
Assumes 1 data source for all reported numbers, in correct format, delivered to agreed timescale
Ongoing support (technical, administrative & marketing)
Reduced by £250 for COUNTER members
Year 2 (and ongoing per audit)
£1,500
Includes 1.5 man-days audit
At ABCE’s normal daily consultancy rate

18. COUNTER: deriving metrics from Journal Report 1
Local metrics
For libraries and library consortia
At journal, collection and publisher level
To compare the cost-effectiveness of journal subscriptions
To assess the value of Big Deals
Global metrics
For authors, funding agencies, libraries and publishers
To compare quality and value

19. COUNTER: ‘local’ metrics
JISC (UK Joint Information Systems Committee)
Funded by UK higher education funding councils
Supports higher education in the use of information and communications technologies
Access to information and communication resources
Advice on creation and preservation of digital archives
Implications of using ICT
Network services and support
Research to develop innovative solutions
National overview of online journal usage
Develop a reliable, widely applicable methodology
Use COUNTER Journal Report 1 ‘article full-text requests’

20. Local metrics: an example
COUNTER data was analysed in relation to:
usage range
Price band
Subject category
Metrics derived from this analysis
Trend in number of full-text article downloads
Full text article requests per title
Full text article requests per publisher package
Full text article requests per FTE user
Most requested titles
Usage of subscribed vs.. unsubscribed titles
Cost per full-text article downloads
Cost per FTE user
Summary report available at:

21. Local metrics: an example
Growth in full-text article downloads
Publisher A: 12%- 208%
Publisher B: 12%- 59%
Publisher C: 23%- 154%
Publisher D: 22%- 81%
Cost per full-text article download
Publisher A: £0.97- £5.26
Publisher B: £ £2.91
Publisher C: £ £3.29
Publisher D: £ £2.26

22. COUNTER: ‘global’ metrics
Impact Factor
Well-established, easily understood and accepted
Endorsed by funding agencies and researchers
Does not cover all fields of scholarship
Reflects value of journals to researchers
Over-emphasis on IF distorts the behaviour of authors
Over-used, mis-used and over-interpreted
Usage Factor
Usage-based alternative perspective
Would cover all online journals
Would reflect value of journals to all categories of user
Would be easy to understood

23. Global metrics: UKSG Project
Assess the feasibility of developing and implementing journal Usage Factors
Level of support from author, librarian and publisher communities
Data from which UF would be derived
COUNTER Journal Report 1?
Article numbers
Process for consolidation, calculation and reporting of UFs
Factors in the calculation
Level of reporting
Total usage
Articles
Report in April 2007
Just completed set of 29 interviews with industry leaders
Wider online survey will take place in February 2007

24. UKSG Project: feedback
Are the COUNTER usage statistics sufficiently robust?
Frustration at lack of comparable, quantitative data on journals
Should items covered by restricted to articles?
Many journals still have significant usage in print
Diversity of views on the factors in the calculation
Specified usage period
Specified publication period
Usage data is more susceptible to manipulation
Will the journal be a meaningful concept in the future?
Two measures with different limitations are better than one, and UF will be derived from a set of credible, understandable data
Usage data will be used as a measure of value, whether publishers like it or not

25. Current issues Interface effects on usage statistics
E.g. downloading HTML and PDF of the same article in one session
COUNTER has tested data filter solutions, but what does the duplicate downloading signify?
Reporting separately purchasable digital archive usage
Currently all usage for a journal is usually reported together
Separately purchasable archives mean we need separate reports for archival content, or a year of publication breakdown of usage
Usage in Institutional Repositories
Growth in Institutional Repository (IR) content
Need for credible IR usage statistics
IR usage statistics already being collected, but no standards
SUSHI
Improving consortial usage reports
Current usage reports inadequate
New reports in XML format

26. Reporting separately purchasable digital archive usage
Increasingly requested by librarians
Interim solution
Journal Report 1a:Number of Successful Full-Text Article Requests from an Archive by Month and Journal
Optional additional usage report
Longer-term solution
Journals Report 1a?
Include year-of-publication data in JR1?

27. SUSHI Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)
No mechanism yet for automatically retrieving, combining, and storing COUNTER usage data from different sources
NISO-sponsored XML-based SUSHI aims to provide a means to do just this, via a standard model for machine to machine automation of statistics harvesting.
COUNTER and NISO have signed an agreement to work together on the development of SUSHI. More details of SUSHI can be found at:-

28. Future challenges Improving/extending the Codes of Practice
Reliability ( audit, federated searches, prefetching)
Usability (number of compliant vendors, XML format, additional usage reports)
Additional data (year of publication, article level reports)
Categories of content (Institutional Repository content)
Deriving metrics from the Codes of Practice
Journals (cost per use, Usage Factor)
Databases?
Books?

29. Next steps….. Release 3 of Code of Practice for Journals/Databases
Features: prioritisation on basis of demand and practicality
Process: consultation via focus groups,etc; publication of draft CoP
Release 2 of Code of Practice for Books
Review R1 in practice
Other categories of content ( eg Institutional Repositories)
Metrics derived from the COUNTER usage statistics
Cost per use
Usage Factor

30. COUNTER Membership Member Categories and Annual Fees (2007)
Publishers/intermediaries: £530
Library Consortia: £355
Libraries: £265
Industry organization: £265
Library affiliate: £106 (non-voting member)
Benefits of full membership
Owner of COUNTER with voting rights at annual general meeting, etc.
Regular bulletins on progress
Opportunity to receive advice on implementation

31. Apply for COUNTER membership
Apply for COUNTER membership
Here is a quick view of their Web site…
The URL is…
And the relevant information you can find are….

32. For more information……….
Thank you!
Peter Shepherd, COUNTER