Re: Ejournal use data, was: Elsevier and cancellations

[Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>]

For a good attempt to begin to set standards for usage data, see:

ICOLC (International Coalition of Library Consortia):  Guidelines for
Statistical Measures of Usage of Web-based Indexed, Abstracted, and Full
Text Resources (November 1998)

at:  www.library.yale.edu

>From the introduction:

Looking to increase the understanding of information usage, the
International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) announces its
"Guidelines for Statistical Measures of Usage of Web-Based Indexed,
Abstracted, and Full Text Resources". This is the se cond statement issued
by the ICOLC to provide an international perspective on preferred
practices in the licensing and purchasing of electronic information. This
ICOLC document is based on the work of the JSTOR Web Statistics Task Force
but expands on tha t work in order to reflect the diversity of resources
licensed by the many ICOLC members.

     The Guidelines for Statistical Measures of Usage of Web-based
Indexed, Abstracted, and Full Text Resources describes the types of use
data and measurement that the ICOLC members expect from vendors of
web-based indexed, abstracted, and full-text resour ces. The ICOLC
requires statistical use information for their member libraries, "To
ensure that the value of licensed electronic resources is fully understood
in the consortium setting," according to Sue Phillips, University of Texas
System Digital Libra ry director and ICOLC representative. "Adequate
delivery of usage information is an integral and required part of any
electronic product licensed by a consortium," she said.

     Usage data gathered in the ICOLC-recommended categories will enable
consortia and vendors to analyze use and frequency of use without
violating the individual's privacy. The guidelines define information
elements the ICOLC considers vital, as well as the variety of reports
necessary for accurately analyzing use data within a consortium
membership.

     Elements covered by the guidelines include queries (searches), menu
selections, sessions or logins, turnaways due to simultaneous user limits,
and items examined. Other information-specific requirements include user,
institutional, and consortium conf identiality; comparative statistics;
and secure access to statistical reports via the WWW.

     This statement is endorsed by consortial representatives of the ICOLC
from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The
complete guidelines can be found at
     http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia.

     About the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC)

     The ICOLC first met in 1996 as the Consortium of Consortia (COC). The
Coalition is an informal, international group that currently comprises
over 100 library consortia in North America, Europe, Australia, Israel,
China, and South Africa. The coali tion membership primarily serves higher
education institutions
by facilitating discussion among consortia on issues of common
interest. 

The guidelines are recommended reading for all electronic information
providers.

Ann Okerson
Ann.Okerson@yale.edu
_____

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, David Goodman wrote:

> The availability of electronic versions of journals has, as all the
> contributors to this discussion agree, made it possible for the first time
> to get reliable statistics on what is actually used. (Why it is being used
> and whether it should be being used are fascinating questions which could
> be discussed more productively once we have some valid basic data.)
> 
> The minimum basic data which is needed is:
> 
> 1. The number of accesses for each title.
> 2. The number of different articles accessed for each title.
> 3. The number of articles in each title receiving  0, 1, etc.  access.
> It would aid interpretation if this were collected by a reasonable time period
> like each month.
> 
> Desirable additional data for bibliometric purposes would be:
> 1A. The number of accesses for each publication year of the title
> 2A. The number of different articles accessed for each year of the title.
> 3A. The number of articles receiving 0, 1, etc. access for each year of the
> title. 
> 
> I cannot see why any publisher or any library would object to making this
> data publicly available. It contains no individually identifying
> information; it contains no information that could appropriately be
> considered proprietary. A publisher does run the risk that some of its
> titles might be shown have very low use, but then it surely hopes that
> some might be shown to have very much higher use than expected. (I will,
> personally, suspect that any publisher that will not permit this data to
> be released does in fact have good reason to know that all or most of its
> titles are not much used, and I will make collection decisions
> accordingly.)
> 
> There is much additional data that might be collected. some of it may
> conceivably be held to be give to much specificity; some of it might be
> too voluminous:
> 
> 4. The number of accesses, for each individual issue. 
> 5. The number of accesses, for each individual article. 
> 6. The distribution of the accesses among the different library branches or
> service units.
> 
> Although Lance S. is concerned about user privacy, this library and I am
> sure most others take good care to ensure that anonymous access is
> available in the library; I hope we are will also specify that no data
> associating access with a specific out of library terminal be collected or
> at least be retained. (There does need to be some provision for
> investigating abuse of the licensing terms.)
> 
> I think we would all be especially interested in some of the analyses that
> Kent M. says
> 
> > are becoming common-place among OhioLINK institutions
> 
> and I suggest that the internet may be more appropriate than formal
> publication for such specialized time-sensitive and data-rich
> compilations.
> 
> David G.
> -- 
> David Goodman 
> Biology Librarian, Princeton University Library 
> dgoodman@princeton.edu         http://www.princeton.edu/~biolib/
> phone: 609-258-3235            fax: 609-258-2627
>