slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Usage Data for Electronic Resources WRAPS/FRIP Presentation April 24, 2007 Gayle Baker, Maribeth Manoff, Eleanor Read PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Usage Data for Electronic Resources WRAPS/FRIP Presentation April 24, 2007 Gayle Baker, Maribeth Manoff, Eleanor Read

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

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


  • 120 Views
  • Uploaded on

Usage Data for Electronic Resources WRAPS/FRIP Presentation April 24, 2007 Gayle Baker, Maribeth Manoff, Eleanor Read. MaxData http://web.utk.edu/~tenopir/imls/index.htm. “Maximizing Library Investments in Digital Collections Through Better Data Gathering and Analysis”

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Usage Data for Electronic Resources WRAPS/FRIP Presentation April 24, 2007 Gayle Baker, Maribeth Manoff, Eleanor Read' - arlen


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1
Usage Data for Electronic Resources

WRAPS/FRIP Presentation

April 24, 2007

Gayle Baker, Maribeth Manoff, Eleanor Read

maxdata http web utk edu tenopir imls index htm
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

maxdata project purpose
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
maxdata project teams
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
frip equipment award fall 2005
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
project file sharing
Project File Sharing
  • Account (Usestat) on library server for project files for UT Libraries team
  • BlackBoard group site for MaxData team
presentations
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)
publications
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)
the usage data challenge
The Usage Data Challenge
  • Vendor-supplied data
  • Other data
vendor reports background
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
vendor reports consolidating
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
vendor reports challenges
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
survey purpose
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?
survey subjects
Survey: Subjects
  • Sent to Library Directors at Carnegie I and II research institutions (360+)
  • April 2006
  • 92 respondents
biggest challenges
Biggest Challenges
  • Lack of consistency / standards (61)
  • Takes too much time (27)
  • COUNTER standards help but… (14)
most useful statistic s
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)
other local data
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
link resolver data
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
sfx request and clickthrough data
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
sfx clickthroughs vs jr1 full text article requests
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
formatting the sfx report
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
other useful link resolver reports and data
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
conclusions so far
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
into the future
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