Managing e-resources
Briefing and Update
Parallel Projects/Shared Services
JUSP
Entitlement
Registry
ELCAT
JOURNALS USAGE STATISTICS
PORTAL
Aims
• Supports UK academic
libraries by providing a
single point of access to
e-journal usage data
• Assists management of
e-journals collections,
evaluation and decisionmaking
• Collaborative,
community based
development
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/3137422976/
Who?
Libraries in JUSP
• 125 libraries in JUSP
• All UK higher
education
institutions have
been invited to
participate (160+)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellf/3910635234/
Publishers and Intermediaries in JUSP
15 publishers
• American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS)
• American Institute of Physics (AIP)
• Annual Reviews
• British Medical Journal Publishing
Group (BMJ)
• Edinburgh University Press (EUP)
• Elsevier
• Emerald
• IOP Publishing
• Nature Publishing Group
• Oxford University Press
• Project MUSE
• Royal Society of Chemistry
• SAGE
• Springer
• Wiley-Blackwell
3 intermediaries
• Ebsco EJS
• Publishing Technology
(ingentaconnect)
• Swets
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27205670@N00/543219767/
Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative
(SUSHI)
• M2M way of
gathering statistics
• Replaces the usermediated collection of
usage reports
• 16 JUSP SUSHI clients
available
• SUSHI server to
gather data from JUSP
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ragingwire/3395161474/
JUSP Usage Reports
JUSP report type
JUSP report title
Journal level reports
•
•
•
JR1 and JR1A reports
JR1 reports inc gateways and intermediaries
JR1 reports excluding backfile usage
Summary reports
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SCONUL return
Summary of publisher usage
Summary use of gateway and host intermediaries
Summary use of backfiles
Number of titles and requests in usage ranges
Tables and graphs –trends over time
Which titles have highest use
Experimental reports
•
•
•
•
•
NESLi2 deals
Titles vs NESLi2 deals
Individual journal search and usage
Breakdown of publisher usage (title and year)
Breakdown of publisher usage (title and date
range)
Benchmarking
• Calendar and academic year (available to
consortium)
Community engagement
• Community resource
responding to what
people want
• Working closely with
libraries to understand
how JUSP is being used
and how it can help
decision-making
• Developing new reports
and features from user
feedback
• Working with publishers
to provide benefits to the
community
http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_approximate_photographer/5543746890/
Next Steps
• Invitations to more
publishers
• Value-added
enhancements
• Subscribed titles
• Publisher deals
• Knowledge sharing
within the UK and with
overseas consortia
• SUSHI client available as
free, open source
software
JUSP and KB+
• Common approach to
development
•
•
•
•
Standards
Interoperability
Collaboration
Understand user
workflows
• Deliver benefits to
the user and
supplier
communities
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcemarc/5123623219/
ENTITLEMENT REGISTRY SCOPING
PROJECT
Entitlement Registry Scoping Project
Aims:
• To gather, normalise and verify the entitlement
records of all UK higher education institutions to the
titles in the NESLi2 deals with two sample publishers.
• To scope the cost and work flows for gathering,
normalisation and verification of entitlement records
of all UK higher education institutions across all of the
NESLi2 publishers.
• To scope the cost and work flow for updating the
entitlement records for all UK higher education
institutions to all NESLi2 publishers on an annual
basis.
• The project is closely
aligned with a
separate and parallel
strand of activity led
by EDINA.
• Prototype designed by
EDINA.
Entitlement registry: part of KB+
Data
Accurate
Authoritative
Publication Information
Link
Resolvers
Knowledge
Bases
Structured
Usage Statistics
JUSP
Analysis
Tools
Validated
Timely
Entitlements
Licences
Entitlement
Registry
Licence
Comparison
Tool
KB+ and Entitlement Registry
• NESLI2
PUBLICATION
INFORMATION
SUBSCRIBED
TITLES
PCA
ENTITLEMENT
• VERIFICATION
• LICENCE
INFORMATION
AGREEMENT
Data Model
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Journal Descriptive Metadata
Entitlement Metadata
Access Management Metadata
Publisher Related Metadata
Agent Metadata
Service Provider Related Metadata
Institution Related Metadata
Verification Metadata
Other Metadata
Institutional Processes
• When do the libraries verify their PCA
entitlement?
• As part of the subscription or renewal process
• As part of the cancellation process
• As part of the general management of the
collection
• How do libraries source entitlement
information?
• How is entitlement information stored?
Verification workflows
Data normalisation
• Data received:
– Publishers journal title identifiers
– Bibliographic information
– PCA entitlement
– Publisher
– Title changes
– Open access (oa)
We have sent data to be verified by
institutions
Fields:
•Jnl Code
•Subscription Code
•Print ISSN
•Online ISSN
•Frequency (2011
•Journal Title
•Journal Pack
•PCA entitlement Start Year
•PCA entitlement End Year
•Former Publisher
•Transfered?
•Year of first publication by (where
known)
•Last Year of Publication
•Published/Ceased/Moved
•Previous Title (1)
•Old EISSN
•Old ISSNs
•Last Year of Previous Titles
•Previous Title (2)
•Old EISSN
•Old ISSNs
•Last Year of Previous Titles
•Month OA Option Started
•Year OA Option Started
•Month Stopped
•Year OA Option Stopped
Preliminary findings
• The publishers were unable to provide the
data in a timely and systematic manner
• Some institutions found it very difficult to
verify their entitlements.
• In general, the time factor has been and is one
of the main reasons why it is so difficult for
publishers and institutions to deal with the
PCA entitlement data.
A developing approach
• Issues above demonstrate importance of
Entitlement Registry
• Balance costs of collecting historical data vs
practicality of starting with current data
• The Entitlement Registry likely to be based on a
two-pronged strategy
– continue working to find the best workflow regarding
the historical data 2011-backwards
– start keeping records of the data from 2012-forward
KNOWLEDGE BASE+
Addressing issues with ERM
Data
• Accuracy
• Availability
Interoperability
• Data silos and flows
• Implementation of standards
Workflows
• Generality vs granularity
Duplication of effort
• Population of knowledge bases
• Maintenance of link resolvers
Approach
Leverage investment
• Improve quality of data for all
Openness
• Technology
• Data
• Relationships –UK, international, suppliers
Prioritise existing issues
• Save time and money from the outset
Cohesive activity, tools and services
• JISC services
• Commercial and non-commercial suppliers
• Academic institutions
Data
Accurate
Authoritative
Publication Information
Link
Resolvers
Knowledge
Bases
Structured
Usage Statistics
JUSP
Analysis
Tools
Validated
Timely
Entitlements
Licences
Entitlement
Registry
Licence
Comparison
Tool
Standards
Usage
SUSHI
COUNTER
Publication
Information
ONIX for
Serials
KBART
Licence
Management
Identifiers
ONIX-PL
Authority
files
Interoperability
Data
Exchange
JISC
Services
Local
Systems
Data
Maintenance
Open
Source
Supplier
Systems
Investing in the enhancement and improvement of existing services whilst
supporting
the needs and viability of local systems
ERM as Co-ordination of Effort
Shared Community Activity
Data
Data
Prioritisation
Maintenance Verification
Workflows
and
Allocation
How do we ensure that benefits outweigh the investment of staff time?
Data
Sources
Standards
Adoption
Phase One Deliverables
Publisher
Information
Authority
Files
Title lists
Workflow
Holdings
Quality
Assurance
Entitlement
Registry
KB+
JUSP
Verification
Licences
Alerts
Usage
statistics
Subscription
Agents
Shared
Community
Activity
LMS & ERM
Suppliers
Academic
Institutions
Business &
Legal Model
THANK YOU