Re: Usage reporting (was: Seven ARL Libraries)

[Mark Funk <mefunk@med.cornell.edu>]

i have a far simpler explanation than Phil Davis' concentration 
model
vs. rare-and-infrequent events model. Note that the RIN study was 
"a
range of university libraries." These would presumably include
undergraduate students doing "research." Have you ever seen an
undergraduate student do bibliographic searching? Most likely 
they
started with Google, and clicked on about anything that looked
remotely relevant (at least on the first few pages of results). 
They
have little concept of journal quality, and they don't know the 
cited
authors. Given enough undergraduates, of course 99% of titles in 
a
bundle get some sort of usage.

Contrast this with Rockefeller University, home of Nobel prize
winners and other outstanding scientists. When they search, they
recognize the high quality journals. They recognize the authors. 
They
only click on articles they know are relevant to their needs. 
That's
why over 40% of the journals in a bundle get no hits.

When bundle publishers tout the "value" of previously 
unsubscribed
journals, I always keep the undergraduates and their nearly 
random
clicks in mind.

Monkeys / typewriters / infinity / Shakespeare.

Mark Funk
Head, Resource Management - Collections
Weill Cornell Medical Library


Chris Beckett said:
> Its is interesting that the RLIN study cited in the RUP
> editorial showed that:
>
> "Far more importantly, these big deals give university
> researchers access to unprecedented numbers of titles. And the
> evidence shows that they are making good use of this: studies
> for JISC and others have shown heavy use of journals to which
> libraries did not formerly subscribe. A recent study for the
> Research Information Network found that articles from 99% of
> the titles available in a range of university libraries were
> downloaded over a four-month period."
>
> While at the same time the evidence cited in the editorial from
> the Rockefeller University Library showed that:
>
> "For one of the bundles, the top 10% of journals garner over
> 85% of the hits to the bundle from users at the University.
> Over 40% of the journals in the bundle had no hits at all from
> the University in 2008!"
>
> It would be interesting to understand how these two contrasting
> positions can be reconciled.