OARS: Toward Automating the Ongoing Subscription Review

OARS: Toward Automating the Ongoing Subs ription Re ieOngoing Subscription Review

Geoffrey P. TimmsMercer University

i d

Jonathan H. HarwellGeorgia Southern University

jh ll i h d timms_gp@mercer.edujharwell@georgiasouthern.edu

Context

Georgia Southern University

Doctoral-Research University

FY09: $300 000 collection budget cutFY09: $300,000 collection budget cut

FY10: $470,000 collection budget cut, g

FY11: $1.2 million total budget

C&RS: 4 librarians & 12 ½ support staff

Needs

Balance the budgetg

Rapid assessment

Maximum input from stakeholders

St li th f l tStreamline the process for long-term use

Control the data vs. data controlling usControl the data vs. data controlling us

What is OARS?

Ongoing Automated Review System

Automate the selection of titles and data for review, which will result in a ,semi-automated process for annual renewal decisionsrenewal decisions

Phase 1 & Phase 2

Two development guidelines: SimpleSimpleOpen source

Variables/Data Tracked

TitleU i C t l #

EntanglementN tUnique Control #

ISSNNotesCurrent Cost

EISSNLC Call Number

Usage DataFaculty Rating

YearPublisher

y gEigenfactor Percentile

u i e

“Discarded” VariableslAlternative coverage

Frequency/cost per issue/useq y pFaculty format preferencePeer reviewPeer reviewPrint costOnline only costPrint plus online costpUsage Year 2Librarian ratingLibrarian ratingILL borrowing (will be in Phase 2)

Structure

L.A.M.P environment

MySQL database on backend

PEAR MDB2 Abstraction LayerPEAR MDB2 Abstraction Layer

Coded in PHP & JavaScriptJ p

Input via .csv upload or forms

Data export in .csv format

OARS Recommendation Metric

Faculty RatingEssential = 100 %Essential = 100 %Desirable = 50 %Not Needed = 0 %

Eigenfactor™ Article Influence PercentilePercentile = % scoreE g 44 80 = 44 8%E.g. 44.80 = 44.8%

OARS Recommendation Metric

Relative CostCost as % of average cost 80

100

120

o r

e

Calculation of Cost Score

Cost as % of average cost(-0.5 x Cost as % of av. cost) + 100Score range limited to 0-100

0

20

40

60

80

C o

s t

S

c

gCovers Cost at 0-200% of av.cost

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Cost as % of average cost

Relative UsageU % f 80

100

120

o r

e

Calculation of Usage Score

Use as % of average use(0.5 x Use as % of av. use)Score range limited to 0-100

0

20

40

60

80

U s

a g

e

S c

gCovers 0-200% of av. use

0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Use as % of average use

OARS Recommendation Metric

Weighted Metric% weighting applied to each of the four variables% weighting applied to each of the four variablesTotal weighting = 100%

Even weightingCost Score Usage Score Rating Eigenfactor TOTAL

44 65 50 85.944 65 50 85.9Weight 25% 25% 25% 25% 100%Net Score 11 16.25 12.5 21.48 61.23

Usage/Eigenfactor preferredCost Score Usage Score Rating Eigenfactor TOTAL

44 65 50 85 944 65 50 85.9Weight 10% 35% 10% 45% 100%Net Score 4.4 22.75 5 38.66 70.81

The OARS Interface to-date

ChallengesHow to treat titles where usage data unavailable

Divide the usage data proportion of weightingamong the other data pointsamong the other data points

Library of Congress Call Numbersy gMySQL Boolean Searching – spaces and periodsSortingRequired normalizationRequired normalizationComplex Regex (Cheers to Bill Dueber)Reverse normalization

MySQL Natural Language SearchMinimum is four-character stringMinimum is four character stringACM, ACS, etc. cannot be searchedMySQL can be locally re-configured

Discussion

OARS Recommendation MetricOARS Recommendation MetricData/variables trackedOARS ReportOtherOther

h kTh k !Thank you!Thank you!yyJonathan H. Harwell

jharwell@georgiasouthern.edu

Geoffrey P. Timmstimms gp@mercer.edu

image from http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2008/05/oars.jpg

timms_gp@mercer.edu