1. Managing e-resources Briefing and Update

2. Parallel Projects/Shared Services JUSP Entitlement Registry ELCAT

3. JOURNALS USAGE STATISTICS PORTAL

4. Aims Supports UK academic libraries by providing a single point of access to e-journal usage data Assists management of e-journals collections, evaluation and decision- making Collaborative, community based development http://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/3137422976/

5. Who?

6. 125 libraries in JUSP All UK higher education institutions have been invited to participate (160+) http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellf/3910635234/ Libraries in JUSP

7. 15 publishers American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) American Institute of Physics (AIP) Annual Reviews British Medical Journal Publishing Group (BMJ) Edinburgh University Press (EUP) Elsevier Emerald IOP Publishing Nature Publishing Group Oxford University Press Project MUSE Royal Society of Chemistry SAGE Springer Wiley-Blackwell 3 intermediaries Ebsco EJS Publishing Technology (ingentaconnect) Swets http://www.flickr.com/photos/27205670@N00/543219767/ Publishers and Intermediaries in JUSP

8. M2M way of gathering statistics Replaces the user- mediated collection of usage reports 16 JUSP SUSHI clients available SUSHI server to gather data from JUSP http://www.flickr.com/photos/ragingwire/3395161474/ Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)

9. JUSP report typeJUSP report title Journal level reports JR1 and JR1A reports JR1 reports inc gateways and intermediaries JR1 reports excluding backfile usage Summary reports SCONUL return Summary of publisher usage Summary use of gateway and host intermediaries Summary use of backfiles Number of titles and requests in usage ranges Tables and graphs –trends over time Which titles have highest use Experimental reports NESLi2 deals Titles vs NESLi2 deals Individual journal search and usage Breakdown of publisher usage (title and year) Breakdown of publisher usage (title and date range) Benchmarking Calendar and academic year (available to consortium) JUSP Usage Reports

10. Community resource responding to what people want Working closely with libraries to understand how JUSP is being used and how it can help decision-making Developing new reports and features from user feedback Working with publishers to provide benefits to the community http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_approximate_photographer/5543746890/ Community engagement

11. Invitations to more publishers Value-added enhancements Subscribed titles Publisher deals Knowledge sharing within the UK and with overseas consortia SUSHI client available as free, open source software Next Steps

12. Common approach to development Standards Interoperability Collaboration Understand user workflows Deliver benefits to the user and supplier communities http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcemarc/5123623219/ JUSP and KB+

13. ENTITLEMENT REGISTRY SCOPING PROJECT

14. Aims: To gather, normalise and verify the entitlement records of all UK higher education institutions to the titles in the NESLi2 deals with two sample publishers. To scope the cost and work flows for gathering, normalisation and verification of entitlement records of all UK higher education institutions across all of the NESLi2 publishers. To scope the cost and work flow for updating the entitlement records for all UK higher education institutions to all NESLi2 publishers on an annual basis. Entitlement Registry Scoping Project

15. The project is closely aligned with a separate and parallel strand of activity led by EDINA.EDINA Prototype designed by EDINA.

16. Data AccurateAuthoritativeStructuredValidatedTimely Publication Information Link Resolvers Knowledge Bases Usage Statistics JUSP Analysis Tools Entitlements Entitlement Registry Licences Licence Comparison Tool Entitlement registry: part of KB+

17. NESLI2 PUBLICATION INFORMATION SUBSCRIBED TITLES LICENCE INFORMATION PCA ENTITLEMENT VERIFICATION AGREEMENT KB+ and Entitlement Registry

18. Data Model Journal Descriptive Metadata Entitlement Metadata Access Management Metadata Publisher Related Metadata Agent Metadata Service Provider Related Metadata Institution Related Metadata Verification Metadata Other Metadata

19. Institutional Processes When do the libraries verify their PCA entitlement? As part of the subscription or renewal process As part of the cancellation process As part of the general management of the collection How do libraries source entitlement information? How is entitlement information stored?

20. Verification workflows

21. Data normalisation Data received: – Publishers journal title identifiers – Bibliographic information – PCA entitlement – Publisher – Title changes – Open access (oa)

22. We have sent data to be verified by institutions Fields: Jnl Code Subscription Code Print ISSN Online ISSN Frequency (2011 Journal Title Journal Pack PCA entitlement Start Year PCA entitlement End Year Former Publisher Transfered? Year of first publication by (where known) Last Year of Publication Published/Ceased/Moved Previous Title (1) Old EISSN Old ISSNs Last Year of Previous Titles Previous Title (2) Old EISSN Old ISSNs Last Year of Previous Titles Month OA Option Started Year OA Option Started Month Stopped Year OA Option Stopped

23. Preliminary findings The publishers were unable to provide the data in a timely and systematic manner Some institutions found it very difficult to verify their entitlements. In general, the time factor has been and is one of the main reasons why it is so difficult for publishers and institutions to deal with the PCA entitlement data.

24. A developing approach Issues above demonstrate importance of Entitlement Registry Balance costs of collecting historical data vs practicality of starting with current data The Entitlement Registry likely to be based on a two-pronged strategy – continue working to find the best workflow regarding the historical data 2011-backwards – start keeping records of the data from 2012-forward

25. KNOWLEDGE BASE+

26. Addressing issues with ERM Data Accuracy Availability Interoperability Data silos and flows Implementation of standards Workflows Generality vs granularity Duplication of effort Population of knowledge bases Maintenance of link resolvers

27. Leverage investment Improve quality of data for all Openness Technology Data Relationships –UK, international, suppliers Prioritise existing issues Save time and money from the outset Cohesive activity, tools and services JISC services Commercial and non-commercial suppliers Academic institutions Approach

28. Data AccurateAuthoritativeStructuredValidatedTimely Publication Information Link Resolvers Knowledge Bases Usage Statistics JUSP Analysis Tools Entitlements Entitlement Registry Licences Licence Comparison Tool

29. Standards Usage SUSHICOUNTER Publication Information ONIX for Serials KBART Licence Management ONIX-PLIdentifiers Authority files

30. Interoperability Data Exchange Data Exchange Data Maintenance Data Maintenance JISC Services JISC Services Supplier Systems Supplier Systems Local Systems Local Systems Open Source Open Source Investing in the enhancement and improvement of existing services whilst supporting the needs and viability of local systems

31. ERM as Co-ordination of Effort Shared Community Activity Prioritisation Data Maintenance Data Verification Workflows and Allocation How do we ensure that benefits outweigh the investment of staff time?

32. KB+ Title listsHoldingsLicences Usage statistics AlertsWorkflow Publisher Information Publisher Information JUSP Subscription Agents LMS & ERM Suppliers Entitlement Registry Authority Files Data Sources Shared Community Activity Standards Adoption Business & Legal Model Academic Institutions Phase One Deliverables

33. THANK YOU