1. California Digital Library CDL ScholarlyStats Consortial Implementation Ivy Anderson California Digital Library ICOLC – April 2007 Montreal

2. California Digital Library UC Consortial Environment  10 Campuses + CDL  CDL also licenses on behalf of Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore Laboratories  3 Licensing ‘Tiers’  Tier 1 – systemwide licensing by the CDL  Tier 2 – collaborative licensing based at the campuses (if <9 participants)  Tier 3 – locally-licensed resources  Resources from any given provider may encompass all 3 tiers

3. California Digital Library Contract Process  Began discussions March 2006  License signed January 2007  Still in implementation phase  Consider this a trial to determine overall value for UC  Why so long?  Pricing – a good deal (but one-year only)  Services – concerns about how vendor error reporting and revisions to statistics would be managed  SS wanted separate contracts for each campus – eventually agreed to campus authorization letters  Contract iterations were messy – errors kept creeping into docs  Unrelated local staffing issues

4. California Digital Library  Per ScholarlyStats Website  70,000 journals and almost 450 databases from 42 platforms  CDL Products  Supports 31 of our vendor platforms  Not currently supported  CSA, JSTOR, RLG  Sites that require ip address for access to statistics  Vendors who email statistics (Highwire)  Accounts  CDL account + 10 campus accounts Service Basics: Coverage

5. California Digital Library Service Basics: Reports  Report Types  Consolidated reports  Journals: Full-text downloads by platform & journal title  Databases: Searches & sessions by database & platform; turnaway statistics  Dashboard Reports  Top use journals by platform; low usage journals; top 50 journals across platforms, etc. (9 in all)  Reporting Periods  Latest Reports: monthly (2-month lag)  Archived Reports: annual reports and previously released monthly reports  Formats:  CSV, Excel, Zip file  A Zip file of all reports: contains all the consolidated reports and dashboard reports in a single file

6. California Digital Library

9. Service(s)  Timeliness is good thus far – reports posted by 20 th of each month  SUSHI support  Implemented: ISI Journal Use Reports and Innovative ERM  Tested: Ex Libris Verde  Promised a place on their website for vendor notices & problem reports, but not implemented thus far  Staff are helpful and responsive  Interface is clear, intuitive, and easy to use

10. California Digital Library Consortial Reporting: We’re Not There Yet  Separate accounts and passwords for CDL and individual campuses  Campus reports show individual campus stats only  CDL reports shows systemwide totals only – functions like just another library report  No combined view of campus(es) + total usage, percent of usage by campus, etc.  No separate lab stats, so campus totals and overall totals don ’ t jive  Will we have to pay additionally for each lab?

11. California Digital Library No More Tiers?  We assumed campuses would need separate ScholarlyStats licenses for their Tier 3 resources if they wanted to collect them via ScholarlyStats  SS can ’ t distinguish Tier 1, 2, & 3 statistics in all cases, even where vendors maintain separate accounts  Some Tier 3 resource statistics show up in campus reports, but inconsistently

12. California Digital Library Other Caveats  There are still several major vendor platforms that ScholarlyStats doesn’t collect. (CSA, JSTOR, etc.)  ScholarlyStats will not maintain or troubleshoot vendor account information  Limited support for identifying problems in the usage data  need a mechanism for annotating reports  Revised data – pulled down in next monthly collection cycle only  Means corrections to previous years’ reports will not be retrieved (?)  Reports by platform aren’t that useful; reporting by package (“MPS Collection Platform”) would be more useful  ScholarlyStats reserves the right to include anonymized customer data in 3 rd -party reports

13. California Digital Library Overall Assessment  Still in trial / implementation mode – more assessment needed  Service and support seem very good  Consortial functionality and pricing need work – hope to work with ScholarlyStats on this  Only joint in town with SUSHI on the menu  Ask us again next year ….