1. COUNTER Code of Practice - an introduction to Release 4
Peter Shepherd
COUNTER
May 2011

2. Release 4 - objectives
A single, unified Code covering all e-resources, including journals, databases, books, reference works, multimedia content, etc.
Improve the application of XML and SUSHI in the design of the usage reports
Take into account the outcomes of the Journal Usage Factor and PIRUS projects

3. Release 4: timetable and development process
April 2011: announcement of objectives, process and timetable for the development of Release 4; open invitation to submit suggestions
April-June 2011: evaluation of submitted suggestions by COUNTER Executive
June September 2011: development of Draft Release 4
October 2011: publication of Draft Release 4
October January 2012: comments received on Draft Release 4
March 2012: publication of Release 4
December 2013: deadline for implementation by vendors of Release 4

4. SUSHI Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)
No mechanism existed for automatically retrieving, combining, and storing COUNTER usage data from different sources
NISO-sponsored XML-based SUSHI provides a means to do just this, via a standard model for machine to machine automation of statistics harvesting.
COUNTER and NISO have worked together to develop the SUSHI protocol. More details of SUSHI can be found at:-

5. COUNTER and SUSHI For libraries and publishers
Usage statistics are being used to inform decisions
They need to be consistent, credible and comparable =
And, easy to obtain = SUSHI

6. COUNTER and SUSHI COUNTER provides the consistency and credibility
ERM Systems/Usage Consolidation service provide the tools for more effective consolidation and reporting of usage data
SUSHI acts as an enabling technology by allowing Usage Consolidation modules to automate the harvesting of COUNTER reports
Release 3 of COUNTER Codes of Practice, has turned the theory and promise of these systems into reality by making make SUSHI support a requirement for compliance. Release 4 will take this further.

7. Journal Usage Factor: overview
ISI's Impact Factor compensates for the fact that larger journals will tend to be cited more than smaller ones
Can we do something similar for usage?
In other words, should we seek to develop a “Usage Factor” as an additional measure of journal quality/value?

8. Journal Usage Factor: overview
Journal Usage Factor (JUF)=
Total usage over period ‘x’ of articles published during period ‘y’
Total articles published during period ‘y’

9. Journal Usage Factor: overview
A useful counterweight to Impact Factors
Especially helpful for journals and fields not covered by ISI
Especially helpful for journals with high undergraduate or practitioner use
Especially helpful for journals publishing relatively few articles
Data available potentially sooner than with Impact Factors
Further information:

10. Journal Usage Factor: some initial results

11. PIRUS: why now? Increasing interest in article-level usage
More journal articles hosted by Institutional and other Repositories
Authors and funding agencies are increasingly interested in a reliable, global overview of usage of individual articles
Online usage becoming an alternative, accepted measure of article and journal value
Knowledge Exchange report recommends developing standards for usage reporting at the individual article level
Usage-based metrics being considered as a tool for use in the UK Research Excellence Framework and elsewhere.

12. PIRUS: why now? Article-level usage metrics now more practical
Implementation by COUNTER of XML-based usage reports makes more granular reporting of usage a practical proposition
Implementation by COUNTER of the SUSHI protocol facilitates the automated consolidation of usage data from different sources.

13. PIRUS: the challenge An article may be available from:-
The main journal web site
Ovid
ProQuest
PubMed Central
Authors’ local Institutional Repositories
If we want to assess article impact by counting usage, how can we maximise the actual usage that we capture?

14. PIRUS: mission and project aims
To 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 entities
Project 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 ways in which these reports might be consolidated at a global level in a standard way.

15. PIRUS: benefits
Reliable usage data will be available for journal articles, 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
Digital repository systems will be more integral to research and closely aligned to research workflows and environments
The authoritative status of PIRUS2 usage statistics will enhance the status of repository data and content
The standard can be extended to cover other categories of content stored by repositories

16. PIRUS: outcomes Further information:
Technical: a workable technical model for the collection, processing and consolidation of individual article usage statistics has been developed.
Organizational: an organizational model for a Central Clearing House that would be responsible for the collection, processing and consolidation of usage statistic 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 Political: the broad support of all the major stakeholder groups (repositories, publishers, authors, etc) is being sought.
Further information:

17. Release 4: requested changes
Publisher interfaces:
Mitigating the effects of forcing users to access PDF via html
Open Access articles: count separately
Librarians do not want to pay for OA content in ‘hybrid’ journals
Journal title DOI: ISSN an inadequate identifier
A unique, permanent identifier needed
Extend scope of ‘turnaways’ to cover other categories of ‘access denied’
New database report that counts ‘search clicks’
searches and sessions reports inadequate

18. Release 4: requested changes
Policy on automated and semi-automated downloading of articles
Which should be counted?
Identify and count usage on mobile devices
Smart phones, tablet computers, etc
Apply time filters to requests for different formats of the same article
Guidelines for flagging abnormal spikes in usage
Report the number of unique articles by session
More granular reports by organization- or user-category
COUNTER and KBART
Dialogue on linkage

19. Caveat: usage statistics are only part of a toolkit for understanding online usage