COUNTER Update
Peter Shepherd
COUNTER
May 2012
COUNTER
- three new developments

Release 4 of the Code of Practice


Usage Factor




Release 4 definitive version now published
a new usage based measure of journal impact
detailed statistical analysis completed
Draft Code of Practice for journal Usage Factor now
available for comment
PIRUS – Publisher and Institutional Repository Usage
Statistics




recording and reporting usage at the individual article
level
Final project report now available; provides a promising
basis for implementation
technical issues largely resolved; organizational and
business model proposed but not yet finalised
Growing publisher interest in implementation
COUNTER Release 4
- objectives







A single, unified Code covering all e-resources,
including journals, databases, books, reference works,
multimedia content, etc.
Improve the database reports
Improve the reporting of archive usage
Enable the reporting of mobile usage separately
Expand the categories of ‘Access Denied’ covered
Improve the application of XML and SUSHI in the
design of the usage reports
Collect metadata that facilitates the linking of usage
statistics to other datasets, such as subscription
information
Release 4: main features



A single, integrated Code of Practice covering
journals, databases, books, reference works
and multimedia content
An expanded list of Definitions, including terms
such as ‘Gold Open Access’, ‘Multimedia Full
Content Unit’, ‘Record View’, ‘Result Click’, as
well as different categories of ‘Access Denied’,
etc. that are used for the first time in Release 4
Improved database reports that include
reporting of Result Clicks and Record Views, in
addition to Searches (Sessions removed)
Release 4: main features




Enhancements of the SUSHI (Standardised Usage
Statistics Harvesting Initiative) protocol designed to
facilitate its implementation by vendors and its use by
librarians
A requirement that Institutional Identifiers, Journal DOI
and Book DOI be included in the usage reports, to
facilitate not only the management of usage data, but
also the linking of usage data to other data relevant to
collections of online content.
A requirement that usage of Gold Open Access articles
within journals be reported separately in a new report:
Journal Report 1 GOA: Number of Successful Gold Open
Access Full-text Article Requests by Month and Journal.
A requirement that Journal Report 5 must be provided
Release 4: main features





Modified Database Reports, in which the previous requirement to report
Session counts has been dropped, and new requirements, to report
Record Views and Result Clicks, have been added. (Database Report 3
has also been renamed Platform Report 1).
A new report, Multimedia Report 1, which covers the usage of nontextual multimedia resources, such as audio, video and images, by
reporting the number of successful requests for multimedia full content
units
New optional reports covering usage on mobile devices
A description of the relative advantages of logfiles and page tags as the
basis for counting online usage
Flexibility in the usage reporting period that allows customers to specify
a date range for their usage reports
Release 4: Journal Report 5
Release 4: Database Report 1
Release 4: Multimedia Report 1
Release 4: recording and reporting
usage on mobile devices




The following optional additional reports enable usage on mobile devices to be
reported separately:
Journal Report 3 Mobile: Number of Successful Item Requests by Month, Journal
and Page Type for usage on a Mobile Device
Title Report 1 Mobile: Number of Successful Requests for Journal Full-text Articles
and Book Sections by Month and Title ( formatted for normal browsers/delivered to
mobile devices AND formatted for mobile devices/delivered to mobile devices)
Title Report 3 Mobile: Number of Successful Requests by Month, Title and Page
Type (formatted for normal browsers/delivered to mobile devices AND formatted
for mobile devices/delivered to mobile devices)
COUNTER will recognize as usage on a mobile device, which may be reported in the
above reports, any usage that meets one of the following criteria:

useragents that have the word ‘mobile’ in the string

useragents that are included in the WURFL list. WURFL is the Wireless
Universal Resource FiLe, a database containing the profile of mobile devices; this
database may be found at: http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/

usage via a proprietary mobile App provided by the publisher/content provider
Release 4: timetable for
implementation

Deadline date for implementation of Release 4:
31 December 2013
-after this date only vendors compliant with Release
4 will be COUNTER compliant

Between now and 31 December 2013, Release 4 and the
existing Releases of the Codes of Practice are valid
COUNTER Code of Practice
-Release 4
Full details of Release 4 will be found on the
COUNTER website at:
http://www.projectcounter.org/code_practice.html
Usage Factor: background
Usage Factor: providing a new perspective
UF is a complementary measure that will compensate for the
weaknesses of Impact Factors in several important ways:
 UFs will be available for a much larger number of journals
 coverage of all fields of scholarship that have online journals
 impact of practitioner-oriented journals is better reflected in
usage
 usage is recorded and reported immediately upon publication of
an article
 availability of UF will reduce the current over-emphasis of IFs
 authors would welcome a usage-based measure for journals
Usage Factor: who will benefit?
Four major groups will benefit from the introduction of Usage Factors:




Authors, especially those in practitioner-oriented fields, where
citation-based measures understate the impact of journals, as well
as those in areas outside the core STM fields of pure research,
where coverage of journals by citation-based measures is weak.
Publishers, especially those with large numbers of journals outside
of the core STM research areas, where there is no reliable,
universal measure of journal impact, because citation-based
measures are either inadequate or non-existent for these fields
Librarians, when deciding on new journal acquisitions, have no
reliable, global measures of journal impact for fields outside the
core STM research fields. They would use usage-based measures
to help them prioritise journals to be added to their collections.
Research Funding Agencies, who are seeking a wider range of
credible, consistent quantitative measures of the value and impact
of the outputs of the research that they fund.
Usage Factor Project
- aims and objectives
The overall aim of this project was to explore how online journal usage
statistics might form the basis of a new measure of journal impact and
quality, the Usage Factor for journals.
Specific objectives were to answer the following questions:

Will Usage Factor be a statistically meaningful measure?

Will Usage Factor be accepted by researchers, publishers, librarians
and research institutions?

Will Usage Factor be statistically credible and robust?

Is there an organizational and economic model for its implementation
that would cost-effective and be acceptable to the major stakeholder
groups.
The project is being carried out in three Stages:

Stage 1 ( 2007-2008): market research

Stage 2 (2009-2011): modelling and analysis

Stage 3 (2012-2013): further tests based on draft Code of Practice
Usage Factor Project
- next steps
Stage 3 Objectives





Publication of a draft Code of Practice for the Journal Usage Factor
Further testing of the recommended methodology for calculating
Journal Usage Factor
Investigation of an appropriate, resilient subject taxonomy for the
classification of journals
Exploration of the options for an infrastructure to support the
sustainable implementation of JUF
Investigate the feasibility of applying the Usage Factor concept to
other categories of publication
Usage Factor Project
- draft Code of Practice

The Code of Practice will be consistent with COUNTER and will provide:
 A list of Definitions and other terms that are relevant to Usage Factor
 A methodology for the calculation of Usage Factor as a median value,
including specifications for the metadata to be recorded, the content types
and article versions whose usage may be counted, as well as the Publication
Period and Usage Period to be used.
 Specifications for the reporting of the Usage Factor
 Data processing rules to ensure that Usage Factors are credible, consistent
and compatible, including protocols for identifying and dealing with attempts
to game the Usage Factor
 Specifications for the independent auditing of Usage Factors
 A description of the role of the Central Registry for Usage Factors in the
consolidation of usage data and in the publication of Usage Factors
The draft Code of Practice for Usage Factors is now available for comment
on the Usage Factor page of the COUNTER website at:
http://www.projectcounter.org/usage_factor.html
PIRUS: why now?
Increasing interest in article-level usage



More journal articles hosted by Institutional and other
Repositories
Authors and funding agencies are increasingly interested in a
reliable, global overview of usage of individual articles
Online usage becoming an alternative, accepted measure of
article and journal value
 Knowledge Exchange report recommends developing
standards for usage reporting at the individual article level
 Usage-based metrics being considered as a tool for use in
the UK Research Excellence Framework and elsewhere.
PIRUS: why now?
Article-level usage metrics now more practical


Implementation by COUNTER of XML-based usage reports
makes more granular reporting of usage a practical proposition
Implementation by COUNTER of the SUSHI protocol facilitates
the automated consolidation of usage data from different
sources.
PIRUS: mission and project aims
Mission
To develop a global standard to enable the recording, reporting and
consolidation of online usage statistics for individual journal
articles hosted by Institutional Repositories, Publishers and
other entities
Project aims
 Develop COUNTER-compliant usage reports at the individual
article level

Create guidelines which, if implemented, would enable any
entity that hosts online journal articles to produce these reports

Propose ways in which these reports might be consolidated at a
global level in a standard way.
PIRUS: benefits




Reliable usage data will be available for journal articles,
wherever they are held
Improved service to authors: authors are increasingly
interested in knowing the level of usage of their articles
(PLoS has been providing this information since 2009)
A PIRUS Code of Practice, based on existing COUNTER
protocols, will provide publishers with a common,
practical standard for delivering article-level usage data
to their authors
The PIRUS standard can, in principle, be extended to
cover other categories of content
PIRUS: project outcomes



Technical: a workable technical model for the collection,
processing and consolidation of individual article usage
statistics has been developed.
Organizational: an organizational model for a Central Clearing
House that would be responsible for the collection, processing
and consolidation of usage statistics has been proposed.
Economic: the costs for repositories and publishers of
generating the required usage reports, as well as the costs of
any central clearing house/houses have been calculated and a
model for recovering these costs has been proposed .
PIRUS: next steps

Development of a draft PIRUS Code
of Practice, based on the outcomes of
the PIRUS project, for the recording
and reporting of usage at the
individual article level
Further information on PIRUS:
http://www.projectcounter.org/News/Pirus2_oct20
11.pdf