1 / 13

CDL ScholarlyStats Consortial Implementation

CDL ScholarlyStats Consortial Implementation. Ivy Anderson California Digital Library ICOLC – April 2007 Montreal. UC Consortial Environment. 10 Campuses + CDL CDL also licenses on behalf of Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore Laboratories 3 Licensing ‘Tiers’

summer
Download Presentation

CDL ScholarlyStats Consortial Implementation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CDL ScholarlyStats Consortial Implementation Ivy Anderson California Digital Library ICOLC – April 2007 Montreal

  2. UC Consortial Environment • 10 Campuses + CDL • CDL also licenses on behalf of Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • 3 Licensing ‘Tiers’ • Tier 1 – systemwide licensing by the CDL • Tier 2 – collaborative licensing based at the campuses (if <9 participants) • Tier 3 – locally-licensed resources • Resources from any given provider may encompass all 3 tiers

  3. Contract Process • Began discussions March 2006 • License signed January 2007 • Still in implementation phase • Consider this a trial to determine overall value for UC • Why so long? • Pricing – a good deal (but one-year only) • Services – concerns about how vendor error reporting and revisions to statistics would be managed • SS wanted separate contracts for each campus – eventually agreed to campus authorization letters • Contract iterations were messy – errors kept creeping into docs • Unrelated local staffing issues

  4. Service Basics: Coverage • Per ScholarlyStats Website • 70,000 journals and almost 450 databases from 42 platforms • CDL Products • Supports 31 of our vendor platforms • Not currently supported • CSA, JSTOR, RLG • Sites that require ip address for access to statistics • Vendors who email statistics (Highwire) • Accounts • CDL account + 10 campus accounts

  5. Service Basics: Reports • Report Types • Consolidated reports • Journals: Full-text downloads by platform & journal title • Databases: Searches & sessions by database & platform; turnaway statistics • Dashboard Reports • Top use journals by platform; low usage journals; top 50 journals across platforms, etc. (9 in all) • Reporting Periods • Latest Reports: monthly (2-month lag) • Archived Reports:annual reports and previously released monthly reports • Formats: • CSV, Excel, Zip file • A Zip file of all reports: contains all the consolidated reports and dashboard reports in a single file

  6. Service(s) • Timeliness is good thus far – reports posted by 20th of each month • SUSHI support • Implemented: ISI Journal Use Reports and Innovative ERM • Tested: Ex Libris Verde • Promised a place on their website for vendor notices & problem reports, but not implemented thus far • Staff are helpful and responsive • Interface is clear, intuitive, and easy to use

  7. Consortial Reporting: We’re Not There Yet • Separate accounts and passwords for CDL and individual campuses • Campus reports show individual campus stats only • CDL reports shows systemwide totals only – functions like just another library report • No combined view of campus(es) + total usage, percent of usage by campus, etc. • No separate lab stats, so campus totals and overall totals don’t jive • Will we have to pay additionally for each lab?

  8. No More Tiers? • We assumed campuses would need separate ScholarlyStats licenses for their Tier 3 resources if they wanted to collect them via ScholarlyStats • SS can’t distinguish Tier 1, 2, & 3 statistics in all cases, even where vendors maintain separate accounts • Some Tier 3 resource statistics show up in campus reports, but inconsistently

  9. Other Caveats • There are still several major vendor platforms that ScholarlyStats doesn’t collect. (CSA, JSTOR, etc.) • ScholarlyStats will not maintain or troubleshoot vendor account information • Limited support for identifying problems in the usage data • need a mechanism for annotating reports • Revised data – pulled down in next monthly collection cycle only • Means corrections to previous years’ reports will not be retrieved (?) • Reports by platform aren’t that useful; reporting by package (“MPS Collection Platform”) would be more useful • ScholarlyStats reserves the right to include anonymized customer data in 3rd-party reports

  10. Overall Assessment • Still in trial / implementation mode – more assessment needed • Service and support seem very good • Consortial functionality and pricing need work – hope to work with ScholarlyStats on this • Only joint in town with SUSHI on the menu • Ask us again next year….

More Related