JUSP - The JISC Journal Usage Statistics Portal

1
JUSP - The JISC Journal Usage Statistics Portal

• Ross MacIntyre, Mimas
• The University of Manchester
• ross.macintyre_at_manchester.ac.uk

2
Timeline

• 1998 Nesli
• 2002 COUNTER
• 2003 JDbR1
• 2004 Evidence Base report
• Nesli2 Analysis of Usage Statistics
• 2005 JDbR2
• 2006 Key Perspectives report
• Usage Statistics Service Feasibility Study
• 2007 Content Complete report JUSP Scoping
  Study
• 2008 JISC ITT JUSP Scoping Study 2 JDbR3
• 2009 JUSP Report
• 2010 April JISC fund JUSP to service

3
Mission

• to assist and support libraries in the analysis
  of NESLi2 usage statistics and the management of
  their e-journals collections.
• 20 NESLi2 e-journal deals/Publishers
• 132 HEIs taking up NESLi2 deals
• 3 Intermediaries (gateway/host)

4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
DEMO of JUSP Link to JUSP Prototype
7
1. Single point of access to all JR1 and JR1A
usage statistics as currently downloaded
individually from publisher websites

• User informational text
• From this page, you can download JR1 and JR1A
  (archive) reports.
• You can select data from to
• Interface shows
• Report drop down list (JR1 (all), JR1A (archive
  only)
• Publisher drop down list
• Date Span from Month Year to Month Year

8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
2. Addition of host/gateway JR1 statistics where
relevant

• User informational text
• To get a full picture of usage you may need to
  add usage statistics provided by other services
  such as Swetswise. This will depend on the
  publisher.
• Select publisher and date range to download JR1
  reports with Ingenta, Swetswise, Ebsco EJS etc
  included where appropriate.
• Interface shows
• Report drop down list (JR1 (all))
• Publisher drop down list
• Date From (m/y) To (m/y)

11
(No Transcript)
12
3. Excluding usage of backfile collections

• User informational text
• JR1 reports include all usage. Some publishers
  also produce JR1A reports which give only usage
  of their archive or backfile collections. If you
  have access to these, you can download here
  reports that exclude backfile use and show only
  usage of current titles.
• Interface shows
• Publisher drop down list
• Date From (m/y) To (m/y)
• Data processing notes
• Titles in JR1 and JR1A matched by ISSN.
• JR1A usage subtracted from JR1.

13
(No Transcript)
14
4. SCONUL Return (Society of College, National
and University Libraries)

• User informational text
• Use this data for SCONUL return, which requires
  total use by Publishers by Academic Year.
• These tables are used to look at usage trends
  over time, and to compare usage of the various
  publisher deals.
• Interface shows
• Publisher drop down list
• Academic year

15
(No Transcript)
16
5. Summary table to show use of host/gateways

• User informational text
• Use this table to see how much of your total
  usage goes through intermediaries, e.g. Ingenta
  and Swetswise
• Interface shows
• Publisher drop down list
• Calendar Year(s)
• Data processing notes
• Separate columns for publisher, gateway, host and
  total.
• JR1 usage shown in each.
• Percentage use from each source calculated.

17
(No Transcript)
18
6. Summary table to show use of backfiles

• User informational text
• Use this table to see how much of your total
  usage comes from backfiles
• Interface shows
• Publisher drop down list
• Calendar Year(s)
• Data processing notes
• JR1 total including intermediaries.
• Shows percentage of total JR1 usage that comes
  from JR1A.

19
(No Transcript)
20
7. Some more figures sic

• User informational text
• Find the average, median, (monthly) maximum
  number of requests, standard deviation and
  variance.
• Interface shows
• Publisher drop down list
• Calendar year(s)

21
(No Transcript)
22
8. Which titles have the highest use?

• User informational text
• Find the (20) titles which have the highest use
• Interface shows
• Publisher drop down list
• Calendar year(s)
• Display (20) titles with the highest usage,
  including publisher, title, issn, no. of requests
  (descending order).

23
(No Transcript)
24
9. Tables and graphs

• User informational text
• See your monthly or annual usage over time as a
  chart
• Interface shows
• Publisher drop down list
• Calendar years
• Data processing notes
• Show table of monthly totals for each year
• Draw line graph

25
(No Transcript)
26
10. Benchmarking

• User informational text
• Compare usage with others in the same JISC band
• Interface shows
• Publisher drop down list
• Calendar year(s)
• JISC Band (A-J All)
• Data processing notes
• Give total for all libraries in the JISC band and
  average.

27
(No Transcript)
28
JISC Collections Benchmarking Survey March 2010
Usage Statistics Portal Benchmarking
functionality 76 Institutions responded to our
short survey in reference to the usage statistics
portal (benchmarking functionality). Our
findings are as detailed below. Question 1
How useful would it be for you to benchmark your
institutions journal usage for each individual
NESLi2 publisher against that of other HE
institutions? (76 responses)
38 / 76 (50) Very useful 36 / 76 (47.4)
Somewhat useful 2 / 76 (2.6) Not useful
29
Question 5. Regarding questions 2-4 above, please
indicate which would be your preferred choice
regarding benchmarking (74 responses)
37 / 74 (50) Named institution 23 / 74 (31.1)
Listed anonymously (same JISC band) 14 / 74
(18.9) Average usage by institutions in the
same JISC Band
30
Questions 10 Regarding questions 7-9 above,
which would be your preferred choice? (74
responses)
37 / 74 (50) Being anonymised within my JISC
Band 30 / 74 (40.5) Other institutions being
able to see my institution's name 7 / 74 (9.5)
Being part of an average figure for the Band I am
in
31
Question 6. Is there any other benchmarking
criteria you would like to see?

• Same mission group Select our own particular
  subset of named institutions
• Similar size and structure
• Usage, spend and budget for resources
• Cost per download cost per FTE - Student and
  Staff at department / subject level
• SCONUL divisions (RLUK, old, new, collHE) and by
  area Scotland / Wales would also be useful
• Trend over a period of years

32
Question 11 Please add any additional comments
you would like to make

• If OK with the licence then comparing named
  institutions would be best/ Happy to be named if
  all institutions are named
• Averages are not helpful unless accompanied by
  other institutional data. Anonymised usage
  figures would be more useful
• Institutions within the same JISC Band can vary
  widely (e.g. do they have a medical school, do
  they still have a chemistry dept) so you really
  need the institution name to give any sort of
  useful benchmarking.
• Pulling data like FTE and RAE would save us all
  from having to do that ourselves.
• Would be useful for NESLi2, however the majority
  of our deals are outside NESLi2

33
Participation Agreement - Library

• 3. PERMITTED USES/ACTIVITIES
• 3.1 The Institution hereby agrees to
• 3.1.1 permit the Consortium to include its
  COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics in the
  database created for the Journal Usage Statistics
  Portal Service
• 3.1.2 permit the Consortium to display the
  COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics via the
  Journal Statistics Portal Service
• 3.1.2 permit the Consortium to show the
  COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics to other
  participating libraries in the Journal Usage
  Statistics Portal Service for benchmarking
  purposes and
• 3.1.3 be identified in the Journal Usage
  Statistics Portal Service by (1) institutional
  name (2) JISC Band and (3) institutional group.

34
Participation Agreement - Library

• 4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSORTIUM
• 4.1 The Consortium agrees to
• 4.1.1 only provide access to any
  COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics collected by
  the Consortium to authorized users from other
  participating institutions in the Journal Usage
  Statistics Portal Service and the Consortium
  partners
• 4.1.2 use authentication for access to the
  Journal Usage Statistics Portal Service and
• 4.1.3 permit JISC Collections to use the
  COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics in the Journal
  Usage Statistics Portal Service database for
  negotiation purposes with publishers within the
  framework of NESLi2.

35
Participation Agreement Publisher/Intermediary

• 3. PERMITTED USES/ACTIVITIES
• 3.1 The Publisher hereby agrees to
• 3.1.1 provide the Consortium with the COUNTER
  Usage Statistics of the Institutions, including
  by using the SUSHI Protocol
• 3.1.2 permit the Consortium to include the
  collected COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics in
  the database created for the JISC Journals
  Statistics Portal Project
• 3.1.4 permit the Consortium to show all
  COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics to any
  NESLi2-eligible Institutions for their own usage
  assessment and for benchmarking their own usage
  against that of other Institutions
• 3.1.5 permit the Institutions to use the
  information in the JISC Journals Statistics
  Portal for their SCONUL returns and any other
  uses agreed between the Publisher and the
  Consortium
• 3.1.6 provide the Consortium with usage
  statistics which are in compliance with the
  latest COUNTER guidelines and
• 3.1.7 implement the SUSHI Protocol.

36
Additional Identified Requirements

• Getting price information for journals.
• Download list price of journals as supplied on
  the publishers website
• Adding price information for journal lists.
• See your annual usage with information on list
  price for each journal
• What titles are in the deal?
• Adding deal information to journal lists.
• Showing usage/non-usage of titles listed in the
  deal and titles not listed.
• Summary table showing usage/non-usage of titles
  listed in the deal and not listed in the deal.
• Summary table showing average and median use of
  titles listed in the deal and titles not listed.
• Download area 1. Cost per request.
• Download area 2. Usage of subscribed titles
  (tabular data)
• Download area 3. Charts and graphs.

37
Issues

• SUSHI rare indeed!
• Upload of publisher price lists lack of
  machine-readable sources (maybe ONIX Serials
  SPS?)
• Authority files to populate the Journal and
  Supplier tables
• Subject categorisation of journals

38
To Do List

• Production service
• Scaling up, more libraries, more publishers
• Further development of database
• Further exploration of added value services
  e.g. adding price, subject information, dealing
  with title changes, publisher transfers etc
• Further assistance to libraries in analysing own
  usage
• Benchmarking
• COUNTER for eBooks

39
Final Observations

• Open Source available to institutions or other
  consortia
• Complementary not in competition with licensed
  software offerings

40
QA
This artwork by ADANeagoe, originally published
in Omagiu Magazine.