Presentation on theme: "1 How reliable user statistics are about to transform our profession David Goodman Palmer School of Library & Information Science."— Presentation transcript:
1 How reliable user statistics are about to transform our profession David Goodman Palmer School of Library & Information Science Long Island University and Princeton University Library InfoToday New York May 7, 2003
2 Some of this is work in progress These are preliminary results, with only partial data & incomplete analysis; please do not cite the numbers, if any.
3 USES OF STATISTICS 1. Intelligent purchasing What to subscribe to What to buy per-item What to get on demand What not to get at all
4 USES OF STATISTICS 2. Knowledge of users Planning the collection Planning services Planning instruction Planning access
5 USES OF STATISTICS 3. Inter-institutional Understanding ones' own library Comparative data for local advocacy Joint advocacy Cooperation with publishers Development of alternatives alternative payment basis alternative distribution alternative publication
6 Statistics (at present) use by publisher/distributor (use by title) (use by time period) (use by IP) all not standardized not comparable not analyzable ? trustworthy
The COUNTER Project: new standards for publishers on usage statistics
8 COUNTER Code of Practice, Release 1: uDefinitions of terms used uSpecifications for Usage Reports uData processing guidelines uAuditing uCompliance uCompatable superset of IOCLC
9 COUNTER Sponsors & Endorsers (partial list) uAAP/PSP uAIP uALPSP uARL uASA uBlackwell Publishing uBMJ Publishing Group uEBSCO uElsevier uIngenta uIOPP uISI uJSTOR u Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins u Nature Publishing Group u New England J. of Medicine u NCLIS u NISO u OCLC u Oxford University Press u The Publishers Association u ProQuest u Taylor & Francis Group u STM u Swets Blackwell u UKSG
10 COUNTER RELEASE I: 2003/4 Journal and Database use by publisher by title by time period (by IP) if wanted ALL standardized comparable trustworthy (analyzable)
11 COUNTER RELEASE II (2005, probably) Use, by page type (html, pdf) Use, by time period published Use, by access route extensions for e-books, reference works, other media, servers,... xml driven analysis
12 COUNTER RELEASE II (2005, possibly) Use, by journal section Use, by individual article Use, by previous link followed Use, by special features are used (use, by manner of use -- printed, saved, ed) Interfaces with linking programs
13 (additional capacities) correlations between journal & database use use & publication use & citation capability for unintrusive individual analysis (with permission)
14 What shall we see? S ome hints, from Princeton and elsewhere (using current basic data)
15 Princeton Citations 95/20 80/5
16 Range of journals used uVery intensive use of an exceptionally limited number of journals uMuch lighter occasional use of an essentially unlimited range of journals note: most studies elsewhere show smaller differences. Alternative interpretations: >Princeton people concentrate on their real work >Princeton people show little intellectual curiosity
17 Use vs. Citation vs. I.F. u Electronic use, Print use, Articles cited, Articles published u All show similar results u Predictable differences: è Non-research titles è Preliminary publication u Relation to Impact Factor varies è Depends on academic program Local knowledge is needed to interpret data
18 Effect of quality/relevance uCentral fields: low quality journals show very little use uPeripheral fields: less effect of quality uVariation with time u Major titles in central fields: little variation between years u Minor titles in central fields: considerable variation between years u All titles in peripheral fields: Great variation between years note: some other studies show less effect of quality or relevance. Does it depend on academic level?
19 Electronic vs. Print u Almost all fields strongly prefer electronic u current issues u & earlier years u Some fields still use print almost equally è organic chemistry u Some fields never use print è molecular biology u Use of E-print servers where available very high, but use of corresponding journal titles remains substantial. Increased electronic use in past year; but same patterns!
20 Some Electronic vs. Bound & Unbound Print Data
21 Use of Print holdings u Little actual use è Exception: main awareness journals u Major remaining deficiency of electronic: è Scanning and current awareness u Continuing present need for print: Archiving u Critical developing problem with electronic-only: è Stability & censorship
22 Effect of journal availability u Much higher use if immediately available u Low ILL use: increases with speed u Increased expectations for "immediate" u High informal use
23 How are e-journal formats used? uMajor journals in field Users access almost every article that they access. (Mostly by printing them) uMinor journals in field Users scan more journal abstracts and titles than they read or print note: controversial result--apparently users can tell quality in their subject
24 How many journals do people use? uMost people Read articles from a very few journals uSome people Read a moderate number of journals note: this is the "Gatekeeper Effect"
25 What will we see from ADVANCED data ( such as COUNTER Level II) ? Will it confirm our intuitions? Will it be compatible with our traditions? Will it vary widely by discipline? Will it vary widely by institution Will it lead to major changes?