JUSP - The JISC
Journal Usage Statistics Portal
Ross MacIntyre, Mimas
The University of Manchester
[ross.macintyre@manchester.ac.uk]
Timeline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1998 Nesli
2002 COUNTER*
2003 *J&Db[R1]
2004 Evidence Base report:
‘Nesli2 Analysis of Usage Statistics’
2005 *J&Db[R2]
2006 Key Perspectives report:
’Usage Statistics Service Feasibility Study’
2007 Content Complete report: ‘JUSP Scoping Study’
2008 JISC ITT: ‘JUSP Scoping Study 2’ *J&Db[R3]
2009 JUSP Report
2010 April JISC fund JUSP to service
Mission
to assist and support libraries in the analysis
of NESLi2 usage statistics and the
management of their e-journals
collections.
• 20 NESLi2 e-journal deals/Publishers
• 132 HEIs taking up NESLi2 deals
• 3 Intermediaries (gateway/host)
DEMO of JUSP
Link to JUSP Prototype
1. Single point of access to all JR1 and JR1A usage
statistics as currently downloaded individually from
publisher websites
•
•
•
User informational text
From this page, you can download JR1 and JR1A
(archive) reports.
You can select data ‘from’ & ‘to’
•
•
•
•
Interface shows
Report – drop down list (JR1 (all), JR1A (archive only)
Publisher – drop down list
Date Span – from Month & Year – to Month & Year
2. Addition of host/gateway JR1 statistics
where relevant
• User informational text
• To get a full picture of usage you may need to add usage
statistics provided by other services such as Swetswise.
This will depend on the publisher.
• Select publisher and date range to download JR1 reports
with Ingenta, Swetswise, Ebsco EJS etc included where
appropriate.
•
•
•
•
Interface shows
Report – drop down list (JR1 (all))
Publisher – drop down list
Date From (m/y) & To (m/y)
3. Excluding usage of backfile collections
• User informational text
• JR1 reports include all usage. Some publishers also
produce JR1A reports which give only usage of their
archive or backfile collections. If you have access to
these, you can download here reports that exclude
backfile use and show only usage of current titles.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Date From (m/y) & To (m/y)
Data processing notes
Titles in JR1 and JR1A matched by ISSN.
JR1A usage subtracted from JR1.
4. SCONUL Return
(Society of College, National and University Libraries)
• User informational text
• Use this data for SCONUL return, which requires total
use by Publishers by Academic Year.
• These tables are used to look at usage trends over time,
and to compare usage of the various publisher deals.
• Interface shows
• Publisher – drop down list
• Academic year
5. Summary table to show use of host/gateways
• User informational text
• Use this table to see how much of your total usage goes
through intermediaries, e.g. Ingenta and Swetswise
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Calendar Year(s)
Data processing notes
Separate columns for publisher, gateway, host and total.
JR1 usage shown in each.
Percentage use from each source calculated.
6. Summary table to show use of backfiles
• User informational text
• Use this table to see how much of your total usage
comes from backfiles
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Calendar Year(s)
Data processing notes
JR1 total including intermediaries.
Shows percentage of total JR1 usage that comes from
JR1A.
7. ‘Some more figures’ [sic]
• User informational text
• Find the average, median, (monthly) maximum number
of requests, standard deviation and variance.
• Interface shows
• Publisher – drop down list
• Calendar year(s)
8. Which titles have the highest use?
• User informational text
• Find the (20) titles which have the highest use
•
•
•
•
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Calendar year(s)
Display (20) titles with the highest usage, including
publisher, title, issn, no. of requests (descending order).
9. Tables and graphs
• User informational text
• See your monthly or annual usage over time as a chart
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Calendar years
Data processing notes
Show table of monthly totals for each year
Draw line graph
10. Benchmarking
• User informational text
• Compare usage with others in the same JISC band
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interface shows
Publisher – drop down list
Calendar year(s)
JISC Band (‘A’-’J’ & ‘All’)
Data processing notes
Give total for all libraries in the JISC band and average.
JISC Collections Benchmarking Survey – March 2010
Usage Statistics Portal: Benchmarking functionality
76 Institutions responded to our short survey in reference to the usage statistics portal
(benchmarking functionality). Our findings are as detailed below.
Question 1: How useful would it be for you to benchmark your institution’s journal
usage for each individual NESLi2 publisher against that of other HE institutions?
(76 responses)
38 / 76 (50%) = Very useful
36 / 76 (47.4%) = Somewhat useful
2 / 76 (2.6%) = Not useful
Question 5. Regarding questions 2-4 above, please indicate which would be your
preferred choice regarding benchmarking (74 responses)
37 / 74 (50%) = Named institution
23 / 74 (31.1%) = Listed anonymously (same JISC band)
14 / 74 (18.9%) = Average usage by institutions in the same JISC Band
Questions 10: Regarding questions 7-9 above, which would be your preferred
choice? (74 responses)
37 / 74 (50%) = Being anonymised within my JISC Band
30 / 74 (40.5%) = Other institutions being able to see my institution's name
7 / 74 (9.5%) = Being part of an average figure for the Band I am in
Question 6. Is there any other benchmarking criteria
you would like to see?
• Same ‘mission group’ Select our own particular subset of
named institutions
• Similar size and structure
• Usage, spend and budget for resources
• Cost per download & cost per FTE - Student and Staff at
department / subject level
• SCONUL divisions (RLUK, old, new, collHE) and by area
Scotland / Wales would also be useful
• Trend over a period of years
Question 11: Please add any additional comments you
would like to make
• If OK with the licence then comparing named institutions
would be best/ Happy to be named if all institutions are
named
• Averages are not helpful unless accompanied by other
institutional data. Anonymised usage figures would be
more useful
• Institutions within the same JISC Band can vary widely
(e.g. do they have a medical school, do they still have a
chemistry dept) so you really need the institution name
to give any sort of useful benchmarking.
• Pulling data like FTE and RAE would save us all from
having to do that ourselves.
• Would be useful for NESLi2, however the majority of our
deals are outside NESLi2
Participation Agreement - Library
3. PERMITTED USES/ACTIVITIES
3.1
The Institution hereby agrees to:
3.1.1 permit the Consortium to include its COUNTER-compliant Usage
Statistics in the database created for the Journal Usage Statistics
Portal Service;
3.1.2
permit the Consortium to display the COUNTER-compliant
Usage Statistics via the Journal Statistics Portal Service;
3.1.2
permit the Consortium to show the COUNTER-compliant
Usage Statistics to other participating libraries in the Journal Usage
Statistics Portal Service for benchmarking purposes; and
3.1.3
be identified in the Journal Usage Statistics Portal Service by:
(1) institutional name; (2) JISC Band and (3) institutional group.
Participation Agreement - Library
4. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSORTIUM
4.1
The Consortium agrees to:
4.1.1 only provide access to any COUNTER-compliant Usage Statistics
collected by the Consortium to authorized users from other
participating institutions in the Journal Usage Statistics Portal
Service and the Consortium partners;
4.1.2 use authentication for access to the Journal Usage Statistics
Portal Service; and
4.1.3 permit JISC Collections to use the COUNTER-compliant Usage
Statistics in the Journal Usage Statistics Portal Service database for
negotiation purposes with publishers within the framework of
NESLi2.
Participation Agreement –
Publisher/Intermediary
3. PERMITTED USES/ACTIVITIES
3.1
The Publisher hereby agrees to:
3.1.1 provide the Consortium with the COUNTER Usage Statistics of
the Institutions, including by using the SUSHI Protocol;
3.1.2 permit the Consortium to include the collected COUNTERcompliant Usage Statistics in the database created for the JISC
Journals Statistics Portal Project;
3.1.4 permit the Consortium to show all COUNTER-compliant Usage
Statistics to any NESLi2-eligible Institutions for their own usage
assessment and for benchmarking their own usage against that of
other Institutions;
3.1.5 permit the Institutions to use the information in the JISC Journals
Statistics Portal for their SCONUL returns and any other uses
agreed between the Publisher and the Consortium;
3.1.6 provide the Consortium with usage statistics which are in
compliance with the latest COUNTER guidelines; and
3.1.7 implement the SUSHI Protocol.
Additional Identified Requirements
11.
Getting price information for journals.
•
12.
Adding price information for journal lists.
•
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Download list price of journals as supplied on the publishers website
See your annual usage with information on list price for each journal
‘What titles are in the deal?’
Adding deal information to journal lists.
Showing usage/non-usage of titles listed in the deal and titles not
listed.
Summary table showing usage/non-usage of titles listed in the
deal and not listed in the deal.
Summary table showing average and median use of titles listed in
the deal and titles not listed.
Download area 1. Cost per request.
Download area 2. Usage of subscribed titles (tabular data)
Download area 3. Charts and graphs.
Issues
• SUSHI – rare indeed!
• Upload of publisher price lists – lack of
machine-readable sources (maybe ONIX
Serials – SPS?)
• Authority files to populate the Journal and
Supplier tables
• Subject categorisation of journals
‘To Do’ List
•
•
•
•
Production service
Scaling up, more libraries, more publishers
Further development of database
Further exploration of ‘added value’ services e.g.
adding price, subject information, dealing with
title changes, publisher transfers etc
• Further assistance to libraries in analysing own
usage
• Benchmarking
• COUNTER for eBooks
Final Observations
• Open Source – available to institutions or
other consortia
• Complementary not in competition with
licensed software offerings
Q&A
This artwork by ADA+Neagoe, originally published in Omagiu Magazine.