[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On metrics



Members of this list may be interested in a recent announcement by Berkeley Electronic Press, which can be found here:

http://www.bepress.com/download_counts.html

BEPress did a careful study of the downloads of its articles and discovered that usage figures were highly inflated by Internet robots that come to a site for any number of reasons, from search-engine indexing to laying the groundwork for spam attacks. BEPress has "come clean," but their example poses the very important question of how reliable some of the usage reports from other publishers are. (Although I have consulted with BEPress, I had no involvement with this project.)

I am no expert on the metrics for journals; someone who is may want to take a look at this. My hypothesis is that many publishers are reporting inflated figures--and that acquisition librarians may be making purchasing decisions in part based on faulty data. Of course, downloads are far from the only metric.

One tidbit that emerged from the BEPress data is that open access publications were more susceptible to inflated download counts than toll-access articles. Thus this analysis whittles away a bit at the alleged "open access advantage."

I would be interested to know whether this kind of situation has been previously identified and whether the current measurements for downloads take this matter into account.

Joe Esposito