The counter code of practice
Download
1 / 21

The COUNTER Code of Practice - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 105 Views
  • Uploaded on

The COUNTER Code of Practice. Peter Shepherd Project Director COUNTER. Background: 1. Libraries need online usage statistics To assess the value of different online products/services To make better-informed purchasing decisions To plan infrastructure

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 'The COUNTER Code of Practice' - lizina


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
The counter code of practice
The COUNTER Code of Practice

Peter Shepherd

Project Director

COUNTER


Background 1
Background: 1

  • Libraries need online usage statistics

    • To assess the value of different online products/services

    • To make better-informed purchasing decisions

    • To plan infrastructure

  • Publishers need online usage statistics

    • To experiment with new pricing models

    • To assess the relative importance of the different channels by which information reaches the market

    • To provide editorial support

    • To plan infrastructure, site design, etc

  • STM publishing is global


Online usage statistics need to be
Online usage statistics need to be…….

  • Credible

  • Consistent

  • Compatible


The counter code of practice

  • “We conclude that it is largely impossible to compare data across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

    We believe that the comprehensive standardisation of usage statistics and data delivery methods cannot be easily achieved in the short term”

    ARL E-Metrics Phase II Report, Oct 2001


The answer is
... the answer is…... across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors


Counter endorsed by
COUNTER - endorsed by… across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

  • AAP, Association of American Publishers

  • ALPSP, The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers

  • ARL, Association of Research Libraries

  • ASA, Association of Subscription Agents and Intermediaries

  • EDItEUR

  • JISC, Joint Information Systems Committee

  • NCLIS, National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

  • NISO, National Information Standards Organization

  • PA, The Publishers Association

  • STM, International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers

  • UKSG, United Kingdom Serials Group


2002 objectives
2002 Objectives across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

  • Gain industry support for COUNTER

  • Increase awareness of COUNTER

  • Deliver Release 1 of the Code of Practice:

    • Focus on journals and databases

    • Will be published on the COUNTER website


The counter code of practice strategy
The COUNTER Code of Practice across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors- Strategy

  • Responsive to requirements of the international librarian, publishing and intermediary communities

    • An open, inclusive and interactive process

    • Representation of all three communities on COUNTER

    • Comments welcome on the Code of Practice

  • Limit scope of Release 1 to journals and databases

  • Systematically extend scope of Code of Practice

    • Horizontally, to cover other content types, such as e-books

    • Vertically, to provide, e.g., usage statistics for individual articles

  • Only one valid version of the Code of Practice at any time

  • A cost-effective process for all parties involved


The counter code of practice main features
The COUNTER Code of Practice across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors- main features

  • Definitions of terms used

  • Specifications for usage reports

  • Data processing guidelines

  • Auditing

  • Compliance

  • Maintenance and development of the Code of Practice

  • Governance of COUNTER


Definitions of terms used
Definitions of terms used across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

  • Data elements to be collected

  • Page views

    • Bibliographic data, e.g. ‘Online ISSN’

    • Page type, e.g. ‘full-text article’

    • Source of page, e.g. ‘referred from an aggregator or gateway’

    • Authentication of user, e.g. ‘IP address

    • Access rights, e.g. ‘Turnaway’

  • Session data, e.g. ‘End time’

  • Market elements, e.g. ‘Consortium member’


Specifications for usage reports
Specifications for usage reports across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

  • Content

    • Journal report 1: number of full-text article requests by month and journal (Level 1)

    • Journal Report 2: turnaways by month and journal (Level 1)

    • Journal Report 3: number of item requests by month, journal and page-type (Level 2)

    • Journal Report 4: total searches by month and collection (Level 2)

    • Database Report 1: total searches and sessions by month and database (Level 1)

    • Database Report 2: turnaways by month and database (Level 1)

    • Database Report 3; Referrals by aggregator or gateway (Level 1)

  • Format

  • Delivery


Data processing guidelines
Data processing guidelines across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

  • Only intended usage is covered

  • Impractical to describe all possible filters for all possible ways of generating usage records

  • COP specifies the criteria to be met by the data to be used in building the reports

    • Only successful requests will be counted

      • For web server logs successful requests are those with a specific return code (200, 301, 302, 304 in 2002)

    • Records generated by the server together with the requested page should be ignored

    • All users’ double clicks within 10 seconds on an http-link should be counted as only one request (30 seconds for a pdf)


Auditing
Auditing across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

  • Auditing will be required from 2004

  • Auditing processes are still being developed

  • A list of COUNTER-approved auditors will be made available in 2003


Compliance
Compliance across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

  • More than one compliance level

    • Level 1: basic set of journal and database reports

    • Level 2: more detailed reports

  • Licence agreements

    • Standard clause covering COUNTER compliance

  • Declaration of COUNTER compliance

    • For 2003

    • Vendors sign declaration, and demonstrate to COUNTER that they can provide at least Level 1 Usage Reports

  • Register of COUNTER-compliant vendors

    • Maintained on the COUNTER website


Maintenance and development of the code of practice
Maintenance and development of the Code of Practice across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

  • Full text of the Code of practice will be freely available on the COUNTER website

  • Code of Practice will be systematically extended

  • Feedback on Release 1 actively sought

    • Via test sites involving publishers and libraries

    • Via feedback to COUNTER via the website, committees, etc


Governance of counter
Governance of COUNTER across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

  • Executive Committee

    • Chaired by Richard Gedye (OUP)

  • International Advisory Board

    • 30+ members

    • Technical Advisory Group

    • Marketing Committee

  • Project Director

    • Peter Shepherd


2003 and beyond
2003 and beyond across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

  • Objectives for 2003

    • Promote and gain acceptance for the COUNTER Code of Practice

    • Obtain feedback on Release 1

    • Complete list of approved auditors

    • Define and set up permanent administrative structure

    • Full implementation of Code of Practice by Vendors for 2004

  • Beyond 2003

    • Extend and deepen Code of Practice

      • Cover e-books, etc

      • Reporting at article level

    • Monitor usage and user behaviour?


Counter founding sponsors

AAP/PSP across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

ALPSP

ARL

ASA

Blackwell Publishing

EBSCO

Elsevier Science

Ingenta

Institute of Physics Publishing

JISC

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins

Nature Publishing Group

Oxford University Press

The Publishers Association

ProQuest

Taylor & Francis

STM

UKSG

COUNTER Founding Sponsors


For more information
For more information…….. across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

www.projectCounter.org


Online librarian survey
Online Librarian Survey across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

  • 650 librarians responded

    • 49 corporate librarians

    • Responses of corporate librarians did not deviate from the whole

  • Focus on journals & databases

  • Need for a small number of reliable reports

  • Reports should be made available on a password-controlled website, with email alerts

  • Reports must be provided at least monthly

  • Data must be updated within two weeks of the end of the reporting period

  • All of last year’s data and this year’s to date must be supplied


Vital factors for a successful implementation and uptake
Vital factors for a successful implementation and uptake across vendors, and we recommend that comparison be limited to data from the same vendors

  • ‘Start small, test often’….develop a modest core Code and build out incrementally

  • Build continuous development capability into the support structure

  • Pool our collective wisdom and work together

  • One Code - parallel codes will attract minimal buy-in