COUNTER Update

1. COUNTER Update Peter Shepherd COUNTER May 2012

2. COUNTER- three new developments • Release 4 of the Code of Practice • Release 4 definitive version now published • Usage Factor • a new usage based measure of journal impact • detailed statistical analysis completed • Draft Code of Practice for journal Usage Factor now available for comment • PIRUS – Publisher and Institutional Repository Usage Statistics • recording and reporting usage at the individual article level • Final project report now available; provides a promising basis for implementation • technical issues largely resolved; organizational and business model proposed but not yet finalised • Growing publisher interest in implementation

3. COUNTER Release 4 - objectives • A single, unified Code covering all e-resources, including journals, databases, books, reference works, multimedia content, etc. • Improve the database reports • Improve the reporting of archive usage • Enable the reporting of mobile usage separately • Expand the categories of ‘Access Denied’ covered • Improve the application of XML and SUSHI in the design of the usage reports • Collect metadata that facilitates the linking of usage statistics to other datasets, such as subscription information

4. Release 4: main features • A single, integrated Code of Practice covering journals, databases, books, reference works and multimedia content • An expanded list of Definitions, including terms such as ‘Gold Open Access’, ‘Multimedia Full Content Unit’, ‘Record View’, ‘Result Click’, as well as different categories of ‘Access Denied’, etc. that are used for the first time in Release 4 • Improved database reports that include reporting of Result Clicks and Record Views, in addition to Searches (Sessions removed)

5. Release 4: main features • Enhancements of the SUSHI (Standardised Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative) protocol designed to facilitate its implementation by vendors and its use by librarians • A requirement that Institutional Identifiers, Journal DOI and Book DOI be included in the usage reports, to facilitate not only the management of usage data, but also the linking of usage data to other data relevant to collections of online content. • A requirement that usage of Gold Open Access articles within journals be reported separately in a new report: Journal Report 1 GOA: Number of Successful Gold Open Access Full-text Article Requests by Month and Journal. • A requirement that Journal Report 5 must be provided

6. Release 4: main features • Modified Database Reports, in which the previous requirement to report Session counts has been dropped, and new requirements, to report Record Views and Result Clicks, have been added. (Database Report 3 has also been renamed Platform Report 1). • A new report, Multimedia Report 1, which covers the usage of non-textual multimedia resources, such as audio, video and images, by reporting the number of successful requests for multimedia full content units • New optional reports covering usage on mobile devices • A description of the relative advantages of logfiles and page tags as the basis for counting online usage • Flexibility in the usage reporting period that allows customers to specify a date range for their usage reports

7. Release 4: Journal Report 5

8. Release 4: Database Report 1

9. Release 4: Multimedia Report 1

10. Release 4: recording and reporting usage on mobile devices • The following optional additional reports enable usage on mobile devices to be reported separately: • Journal Report 3 Mobile: Number of Successful Item Requests by Month, Journal and Page Type for usage on a Mobile Device • Title Report 1 Mobile: Number of Successful Requests for Journal Full-text Articles and Book Sections by Month and Title ( formatted for normal browsers/delivered to mobile devices AND formatted for mobile devices/delivered to mobile devices) • Title Report 3 Mobile: Number of Successful Requests by Month, Title and Page Type (formatted for normal browsers/delivered to mobile devices AND formatted for mobile devices/delivered to mobile devices) COUNTER will recognize as usage on a mobile device, which may be reported in the above reports, any usage that meets one of the following criteria:   • useragents that have the word ‘mobile’ in the string • useragents that are included in the WURFL list. WURFL is the Wireless Universal Resource FiLe, a database containing the profile of mobile devices; this database may be found at: http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/ • usage via a proprietary mobile App provided by the publisher/content provider

11. Release 4: timetable for implementation • Deadline date for implementation of Release 4: 31 December 2013 -after this date only vendors compliant with Release 4 will be COUNTER compliant • Between now and 31 December 2013, Release 4 and the existing Releases of the Codes of Practice are valid

12. COUNTER Code of Practice-Release 4 Full details of Release 4 will be found on the COUNTER website at: http://www.projectcounter.org/code_practice.html

13. Usage Factor: background Usage Factor: providing a new perspective UF is a complementary measure that will compensate for the weaknesses of Impact Factors in several important ways: • UFs will be available for a much larger number of journals • coverage of all fields of scholarship that have online journals • impact of practitioner-oriented journals is better reflected in usage • usage is recorded and reported immediately upon publication of an article • availability of UF will reduce the current over-emphasis of IFs • authors would welcome a usage-based measure for journals

14. Usage Factor: who will benefit? Four major groups will benefit from the introduction of Usage Factors: • Authors, especially those in practitioner-oriented fields, where citation-based measures understate the impact of journals, as well as those in areas outside the core STM fields of pure research, where coverage of journals by citation-based measures is weak. • Publishers, especially those with large numbers of journals outside of the core STM research areas, where there is no reliable, universal measure of journal impact, because citation-based measures are either inadequate or non-existent for these fields • Librarians, when deciding on new journal acquisitions, have no reliable, global measures of journal impact for fields outside the core STM research fields. They would use usage-based measures to help them prioritise journals to be added to their collections. • Research Funding Agencies, who are seeking a wider range of credible, consistent quantitative measures of the value and impact of the outputs of the research that they fund.

15. Usage Factor Project- aims and objectives The overall aim of this project was to explore how online journal usage statistics might form the basis of a new measure of journal impact and quality, the Usage Factor for journals. Specific objectives were to answer the following questions: • Will Usage Factor be a statistically meaningful measure? • Will Usage Factor be accepted by researchers, publishers, librarians and research institutions? • Will Usage Factor be statistically credible and robust? • Is there an organizational and economic model for its implementation that would cost-effective and be acceptable to the major stakeholder groups. The project is being carried out in three Stages: • Stage 1 ( 2007-2008): market research • Stage 2 (2009-2011): modelling and analysis • Stage 3 (2012-2013): further tests based on draft Code of Practice

16. Usage Factor Project- next steps Stage 3 Objectives • Publication of a draft Code of Practice for the Journal Usage Factor • Further testing of the recommended methodology for calculating Journal Usage Factor • Investigation of an appropriate, resilient subject taxonomy for the classification of journals • Exploration of the options for an infrastructure to support the sustainable implementation of JUF • Investigate the feasibility of applying the Usage Factor concept to other categories of publication

17. Usage Factor Project- draft Code of Practice • The Code of Practice will be consistent with COUNTER and will provide: • A list of Definitions and other terms that are relevant to Usage Factor • A methodology for the calculation of Usage Factor as a median value, including specifications for the metadata to be recorded, the content types and article versions whose usage may be counted, as well as the Publication Period and Usage Period to be used. • Specifications for the reporting of the Usage Factor • Data processing rules to ensure that Usage Factors are credible, consistent and compatible, including protocols for identifying and dealing with attempts to game the Usage Factor • Specifications for the independent auditing of Usage Factors • A description of the role of the Central Registry for Usage Factors in the consolidation of usage data and in the publication of Usage Factors The draft Code of Practice for Usage Factors is now available for comment on the Usage Factor page of the COUNTER website at: http://www.projectcounter.org/usage_factor.html

18. PIRUS: why now? Increasing interest in article-level usage • More journal articles hosted by Institutional and other Repositories • Authors and funding agencies are increasingly interested in a reliable, global overview of usage of individual articles • Online usage becoming an alternative, accepted measure of article and journal value • Knowledge Exchange report recommends developing standards for usage reporting at the individual article level • Usage-based metrics being considered as a tool for use in the UK Research Excellence Framework and elsewhere.

19. PIRUS: why now? Article-level usage metrics now more practical • Implementation by COUNTER of XML-based usage reports makes more granular reporting of usage a practical proposition • Implementation by COUNTER of the SUSHI protocol facilitates the automated consolidation of usage data from different sources.

20. PIRUS: mission and project aims Mission To develop a global standard to enable the recording, reporting and consolidation of online usage statistics for individual journal articles hosted by Institutional Repositories, Publishers and other entities Project aims • Develop COUNTER-compliant usage reports at the individual article level • Create guidelines which, if implemented, would enable any entity that hosts online journal articles to produce these reports • Propose ways in which these reports might be consolidated at a global level in a standard way.

21. PIRUS: benefits • Reliable usage data will be available for journal articles, wherever they are held • Improved service to authors: authors are increasingly interested in knowing the level of usage of their articles (PLoS has been providing this information since 2009) • A PIRUS Code of Practice, based on existing COUNTER protocols, will provide publishers with a common, practical standard for delivering article-level usage data to their authors • The PIRUS standard can, in principle, be extended to cover other categories of content

22. PIRUS: project outcomes • Technical: a workable technical model for the collection, processing and consolidation of individual article usage statistics has been developed. • Organizational:an organizational model for a Central Clearing House that would be responsible for the collection, processing and consolidation of usage statistics has been proposed. • Economic: the costs for repositories and publishers of generating the required usage reports, as well as the costs of any central clearing house/houses have been calculated and a model for recovering these costs has been proposed .

23. PIRUS: next steps • Development of a draft PIRUS Code of Practice, based on the outcomes of the PIRUS project, for the recording and reporting of usage at the individual article level Further information on PIRUS: http://www.projectcounter.org/News/Pirus2_oct2011.pdf