Usage Data for Electronic Resources WRAPS/FRIP Presentation April 24, 2007 Gayle Baker, Maribeth Manoff, Eleanor Read

1. Usage Data for Electronic Resources WRAPS/FRIP Presentation April 24, 2007 Gayle Baker, Maribeth Manoff, Eleanor Read

2. MaxDatahttp://web.utk.edu/~tenopir/imls/index.htm “Maximizing Library Investments in Digital Collections Through Better Data Gathering and Analysis” Funded by Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) 2005-2007

3. MaxData Project Purpose • Evaluate and compare methods of usage data collection and analysis • Develop cost/benefit model to help librarians select appropriate method(s) for electronic resource usage assessments

4. MaxData Project Teams • UT Libraries: COUNTER data from vendors, link resolver, database usage logs, federated search engine • David Nicholas et al. (Ciber): deep log analysis on OhioLINK journal usage data • Carol Tenopir and Donald King: readership surveys at UT and four Ohio universities

5. FRIP Equipment Award(Fall 2005) • Requested • PC with extra capacity for handling data • HP LaserJet Printer • Microsoft Office 2003 Professional • Archival DVDs • $2477 • Consulted with David Ratledge • Housed in faculty study in Hodges

6. Project File Sharing • Account (Usestat) on library server for project files for UT Libraries team • BlackBoard group site for MaxData team

7. Presentations • Charleston 2005 (GB, ER/project intro) • ER&L 2006 (GB/vendor data issues) • Lib Assessment 2006 (ER, MM/combining data) • Charleston 2006 (GB/vendor data results) • ER&L 2007 (GB/vendor data survey) • ELUNA 2007 (MM/SFX data) • ALA/ACRL/EBSS 2007 (MM/data presentation) • Charleston 2007 (all 3/comparing data types)

8. Publications • “MaxData: A Project to Help Librarians Maximize E-Journal Usage Data.” In Usage Statistics of E-Serials (summer 2007) • “All That Data: Finding Useful and Practical Ways to Combine Electronic Resource Usage Data from Multiple Sources.” Library Assessment Conference Proceedings (May 2007) • Article on vendor data survey results in Learned Publishing (due June 1, 2007)

9. The Usage Data Challenge • Vendor-supplied data • Other data

10. Vendor Reports: Background • Vendor-supplied data primary source of e-journal usage information • Project COUNTER helpful, but… • Manipulation may be required to compare use among vendors

11. Vendor Reports: Consolidating • COUNTER Journal Report 1 (JR-1) • Data from each vendor combined in Excel spreadsheet • Facilitates additional analyses • Sorting by selected fields • Subject analysis • Cost per use calculations

12. COUNTER: JR1 Format

13. Vendor Reports: Challenges • Inconsistencies in data fields • Journal title (articles, upper/lower case, extra information) • ISSN (with and without hyphen) • Time consuming to fix • ScholarlyStats, SUSHI, ERMS may help

14. Survey: Purpose • How much effort is involved in working with vendor-supplied use data? • How are the data used? • What data are most useful in managing electronic resources?

15. Survey: Subjects • Sent to Library Directors at Carnegie I and II research institutions (360+) • April 2006 • 92 respondents

16. Number of Vendors Providing Usage Reports

17. Reports for Different Types of Resources

18. Purpose for Reviewing and/or Analyzing Vendor Data

19. Number of Hours Processing Usage Reports in 2005

20. Percentage of Time Processing Vendor Data

21. Biggest Challenges • Lack of consistency / standards (61) • Takes too much time (27) • COUNTER standards help but… (14)

22. Most Useful Statistic(s) • Number of full-text downloads (67) • Number of searches (41) • Number of sessions (27) • COUNTER statistics (26) • Number of turnaways (17) • Other (17)

23. Other (Local) Data • UT – database “hits” recorded from database menu pages • Federated search system (MetaLib) statistics • Some libraries using proxy server logs • Link resolver (SFX) data

24. Link Resolver Data • SFX includes a statistical module with a number of “canned” reports • For journal level data, one report in particular (“Requests and clickthroughs by journal and target”) is analogous to COUNTER JR1

25. SFX “Request” and “Clickthrough” Data • UT student searching in an SFX “source” discovers an article of interest • Clicks on FindText button • Article is available electronically in Journal A, Package Y and Z – “Request” statistic recorded for each • Student chooses link to Journal A in Package Y – “Clickthrough” statistic recorded

26. SFX “Clickthroughs” vs. JR1 “Full-Text Article Requests” • Clickthrough is less specific, does not measure actual download • But, clickthrough is a “known quantity,” not dependent on package interface • SFX report as a useful supplement to JR1, comparing trends and patterns • SFX contains data not in JR1 reports, e.g., non-COUNTER packages, open access journals, backfiles

27. Formatting the SFX Report • Report from SFX is not formatted like JR1, does contain data elements • Request to software vendor: Include in statistical module • Incorporate into ERMS • Manual or programming approach, depending on time and expertise available

28. Other Useful Link Resolver Reports and Data • Unmet user needs • Journals “requested” with no electronic full-text available • Interlibrary loan requests • Unused full-text report • Overlap reports • Subject categories

29. Conclusions So Far • Collecting, consolidating and analyzing vendor data is time-consuming and difficult • Survey of electronic resource librarians indicates many do not have enough time • Acquiring data from local systems provides consistency, also requires time and effort • Libraries face difficult decisions about what methods are most practical and useful

30. Into the Future • Present selected data sets to subject librarians to see what they find useful • Investigate usefulness of new COUNTER standards • Will SUSHI solve our problems? ERMS? • Compare our findings with those of the other MaxData teams