Managing e-resources

1. Managing e-resources Briefing and Update

2. Parallel Projects/Shared Services JUSP Entitlement Registry ELCAT

3. Journals Usage Statistics portal

4. 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 decision-making Collaborative, community based development http://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/3137422976/

5. Who? Who?

6. 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/

7. Publishers and Intermediaries in JUSP Publishers and intermediaries in JUSP 15 publishers American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) American Institute of Physics (AIP) AnnualReviews British MedicalJournal Publishing Group (BMJ) EdinburghUniversity 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/

8. Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI) Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI) M2M way of gathering statistics Replaces the user-mediated collection of usage reports 16 JUSP SUSHI clients available SUSHI server to gather data from JUSP http://www.flickr.com/photos/ragingwire/3395161474/

9. JUSP Usage Reports JUSP usage reports

10. Community engagement 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/

11. Next Steps 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

12. 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/

13. Entitlement Registry Scoping project

14. 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.

15. The project is closely aligned with a separate and parallel strand of activity led by EDINA. • Prototype designed by EDINA.

16. Entitlement registry: part of KB+

17. KB+ and Entitlement Registry

18. 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

19. 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?

20. Verification workflows

21. Data normalisation • Data received: • Publishers journal title identifiers • Bibliographic information • PCA entitlement • Publisher • Title changes • Open access (oa)

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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

25. Knowledge Base+

26. Addressing issues with ERM

27. Approach

30. Interoperability Data Exchange Data Maintenance JISC Services Local Systems Open Source Supplier Systems Investing in the enhancement and improvement of existing services whilst supporting the needs and viability of local systems

31. ERM as Co-ordination of Effort How do we ensure that benefits outweigh the investment of staff time?

32. Data Sources Standards Adoption Phase One Deliverables Publisher Information Authority Files JUSP Entitlement Registry Subscription Agents LMS & ERM Suppliers Academic Institutions Shared Community Activity Business & Legal Model

33. Thank you