Usage Analysis of E-resourcesYogendra Singh

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkeeyogi@iitr.ernet.in

Agenda

Why Usage AnalysisNeeds of the ManagementHow to collect dataStandards and GuidelinesData AnalysisData PresentationCase Study : IIT Roorkee-

Why Usage Analysis -1

Librarians are collecting usage data since beginning of librarianship mainly for

Justifying the budgetJustifying the manpower requirementJustifying the Space requirementKeeping track of changes

Why Usage Analysis -2

• Accountability to management/patronsFor reporting purpose (e.g. Annual Reports)Comparison with other librariesAssessment of QualityBenchmarkingStrategic Planning

And the same is true in case of e-resources

Needs of the Management -1Collection Management

Management needs info about e-journals for publicity purpose such as brochures, pamphlets, surveys etcManagement need info about money spent on e-journalsManagement need info about the number of e-journals increased over a period of timeManagement need info about duplication in p/eor in even various bundles of e-journals

Needs of the Management - 2Impact of the E-journals

How much use the e-journal collection is gettingDifference in use in p+e mode or the new packages/bundle modeNumber of users browsing TOC and downloading fulltext

Needs of the Management - 2Impact of the E-journals-contd

Effect on print useEffect on ILL/Photocoping/CirculationProportion of Onsite/ Remote UsersTime savingIncreased quality in research

Needs of the Management- 3- Reporting to funding Agency

Expenditure on e-productsSavings as a result of consortiumNumber of pages downloaded/viewedReasons for asking additional budget

Needs of the Management- 3Collection Management and Access

What are most heavily used journals ?What are non used journals?Are there limitations due to restricted number of simultaneous users?Are the navigation tools such as subject list or alphabetical lists being used?

Needs of the Management- 3Collection Management and Access-contd

What is the preferred download format-pdf/html ?Which Library is most benefited in the Consortium?What is the search pattern?Are there any breach of Contract ?

How to collect data-1

How to Collect Data-electronically

Usage data provided by Publishers and Vendors

Collecting Data Locally

Third Party Sources

Publishers and Database Vendors

Normally provided in COUNTER compliant formatTitle x Month MetricsProblems you can face are

Non supplyInconsistency - session/queryData retained for a limited timeSystem crash

Problems - contd

• System upgradation• Repeated download• Unfinished sessions counted as multiple

sessions• Double clicks may be counted twiceThe list is long- A detailed description in

available in

Curtis, Donnelyn. E-journals: A how to do it manual for building, managing and supporting electronic journal collections.London, Facet, 2005 p 360-1.

Local Data Collection

• Locally developed tracking systems– Redirection– Access Management System– Readers’ logs– Web-server logs

• Details of pages visited/date &time/IP/Location /viewd/downloaded

– Link Resolvers• SFX, SS

Standards and Guidelines-Organisations

ANSI/NISO ( American National Standard Institution/ National Informnation Standard Institution)COUNTER (Counting Online Usage in Networked Electronic ResourcesICOLC ( International Coalition of Library Consortia)

ANSI/NISO Z39.7-2004Available at www.niso.org/emetrics/current/appendixA.htmlStatics provided should include Number of

SessionsSearches(queries)Number of units/descriptive records viewed/downloadedVirtual visitsRejected sessions (additional)Menu selections (additional)

COUNTER

Started in UK as an International CooperationAdopted by a large number of publishersReliable to a great extent as audited by COUNTER approved auditorTwo codes

Journals and DatabasesBooks and Reference works

COUNTER: Codes of Practice

1) Journals and databasesRelease 1 Code of Practice : January 2003Release 2 : April 2005 replacing Release 1 in January 2006

Now a widely adopted standard by publishers and librarians100+ vendors now compliant15000+ journals now coveredLibrarians use it in collection development decisionsPublishers use it in marketing to prove ‘value’

Release 3 published August 2008, implemented in August 2009

COUNTER: Codes of Practice

2) Books and reference worksRelease 1 Code of Practice launched March 200612 vendors now compliant Relevant usage metrics less clear than for journalsDifferent issues than for journals

Direct comparisons between books less relevantUnderstanding how different categories of book are used is more relevant

ICOLC

Guidelines for Statistical Measures of Usage of Web-based Indexed, Abstracted and Full Text ResourcesIssued in 1998 and revised in 2001Available at www.library.yale.edu/consortia/2001webstats.htmlICOLC now endorses COUNTER reports

Data Analysis• Define on the data elements to be analyzed

based on your audience and purpose• Collect the data from most reliable source• Compare where ever possible • Normalize the format of data in case from

different source• Transfer data into appropriate field of your

database or columns of your spreadsheet• Sort the data as per requirement• Provide meaning full interpretation of important

data elements

Data PresentationDepends on your requirements

TablesBar ChartsPie- ChartsLine GraphsScatter diagram or any formCan be processed in any spreadsheet program such as Microsoft Excel or Statistical Analysis tool such as SPSS

Questions normally asked

• Cost per search• Pay per view vs. Subscription• Cost per download• Searches per session• Records viewed per session• Full text contents viewed per session• User preferences and behaviour• Trends in Usage

Case Study : IIT Roorkee-

Usage Pattern in e-journals: A case study of two publishers at Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

An introduction

Established in 1847 as Roorkee College of Engineering-First in British CommonwealthRenamed as Thomason College of Civil Engineering in 1854Raised to University of Roorkee in 1948Converted in IIT Roorkee in 2001

Central Library -IITREstablished in 1848 as College Library as a subsidiary deptt of the CollegeCollection of Ganges Canal Library and AdiscombeCollege Library merged into it in 1862 and renamed as Central Library in 1864Collection over 3.50+ lacsPrint Journals 900+E-journals 11000+ (being subscribed since 2001)E-books 18000+ and increasing

Central Library –IIT-contd

Computerisation started in 1990CD-ROMs 1994Computerisation Completed in 1997Central Library LAN (CLL) 1999Integration of CLL with Institute Fiberoptic LAN 2000IT for LIS Mool Mantra of Library

Central Library–ICT Infrastructure

250+ I/Os150 Desk topsEight Wi-fi Routers12 No. 24 port switchesFive serversSeven scanners including Minolta PS 7000 andOther peripheral devices

Institute ICT Infrastructure

3000 Desktops on Institute Network accessing e-journals from anywhere including residences155 MB Internet BandwidthTotal Campus wi-fi enabled

E-journal accessibilty

Through INDEST-AICTE Consortium –Level 1 member-8000+ titles

Own arrangement -3000+ titles

Modes of Subscription -1

Big Deal Publisher

Elsevier’s SciencedirectSpringer’s Springerlink

AggregatorEbsco’s Business Source PremierProquest’s ABI Inform

Modes of Subscription -2

Cross sharingJohn WileyAIP/APS

Pick n ChooseMore than 100 publishers

What is Big Deal in E-journals subscription

Consortium site licensing where a library, a group of libraries or a consortium enter into an agreement with the publisher or aggregator for accessing all of their publications

Agenda of talk

What is the better way of subscription ?

The big deal or

Cross sharing

The third option i.e. pick n choose can not be applied in consortia mode

Sciencedirect study 2003The present study is an extension of an earlier study based on Sciencedirect usage dataThat study found that

1. There are a majority of journals which are not at all used or sparingly usedThere are a very limited number of titles which are heavily usedThere are a moderate number of titles which lies in the middleBig deals are not the suitable method of subscription for consortia

Data Collection & Methodology

Data pertains to 2007 from a multi-disciplinary publisher and a Cross sharingPublisherwas obtained in COUNTER compatible format and downloaded in Microsoft Excel

Data sheet was sorted in ascending order of usage of full text requests made.

Analysis of data - Grouping

Group 1 0-9 requests/title

Group 2 10-99 requests/title

Group 3 100-999 requests/title

Group 4 1000+ requests/title

Group A (0-9) Title vs Downloads

Group A (0-9) Title vsDownloads in %age

Group B (10-99) Title vsDownloads

Group B (10-99) Title vsDownloads in %age

Group C (100-999) Titles vsDownloads

Group C (100-999) Titles vsDownloads in %age

Group D (>1000) Titles vsDownloads

Group D (>1000) Titles vsDownloads

Usage graph Big deal

Usage-graph big deal-contd

Usage graph Cross sharing journals

Usage graph Cross sharing journals

Big deal vs Cross sharing

Comparison

Other pitfalls

Archival IssuesMonopolyIncreased ranking of the journals of big publisherDanger of vanishing of small journalsWastage of financial resourcesMore manpower for e-journals managementMore infrastructural facilities

FUTURE OF E-JOURNAL PUBLISHING

In an article published in Nature in 2004 Tim O’Reilly has warned

“ Publishers must serve the values of both authors and readers. If they try to enforce an artificial scarcity, charge prices that are too high or otherwise violate the norms of their target community, they will encourage that community to self organize, or new competitors will emerge who are better attuned to the values of the community.

www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/orelly.html

Conclusion

Cross sharing mode of subscription is better than the Big Deal

Thank you