1 How reliable user statistics are about to transform our profession David Goodman [email protected] Palmer School of Library & Information Science.

1

How reliable user statistics are about to

transform our profession

David Goodman [email protected]

Palmer School of Library & Information ScienceLong Island University

andPrinceton University Library

InfoToday New York May 7, 2003

2

Some of this is work in progress

These are preliminary results, with only partial data

& incomplete analysis;please do not cite the numbers,

if any.

3

USES OF STATISTICS

1. Intelligent purchasing

• What to subscribe to

• What to buy per-item

• What to get on demand

• What not to get at all

4

USES OF STATISTICS

2. Knowledge of users

• Planning the collection

• Planning services

• Planning instruction

• Planning access

5

USES OF STATISTICS3. Inter-institutional

• Understanding ones' own library

• Comparative data for local advocacy

• Joint advocacy

• Cooperation with publishers

• Development of alternatives

• alternative payment basis

• alternative distribution

• alternative publication

6

Statistics (at present) use by publisher/distributor

(use by title)(use by time period)

(use by IP)all

not standardizednot comparablenot analyzable? trustworthy

The COUNTER Project:new standards for publishers

on usage statistics

www.projectCounter.org

8

COUNTER Code of Practice, Release 1:

Definitions of terms used Specifications for Usage Reports Data processing guidelines Auditing Compliance Compatable superset of IOCLC

9

COUNTER Sponsors & Endorsers (partial list)

AAP/PSP AIP ALPSP ARL ASA Blackwell Publishing BMJ Publishing Group EBSCO Elsevier Ingenta IOPP ISI JSTOR

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Nature Publishing Group New England J. of Medicine NCLIS NISO OCLC Oxford University Press The Publishers Association ProQuest Taylor & Francis Group STM Swets Blackwell UKSG

10

COUNTER RELEASE I: 2003/4Journal and Database use by publisher

by title by time period

(by IP) if wantedALL

standardizedcomparabletrustworthy(analyzable)

11

COUNTER RELEASE II(2005, probably)

Use, by page type (html, pdf)

Use, by time period published

Use, by access route

extensions for e-books, reference works, other media, servers, ...

xml driven analysis

12

COUNTER RELEASE II(2005, possibly)

Use, by journal section

Use, by individual article

Use, by previous link followed

Use, by special features are used(use, by manner of use --

printed, saved, emailed)

Interfaces with linking programs

13

(additional capacities)

correlations between journal & database use use & publication

use & citation

capability for unintrusive individual analysis (with permission)

14

What shall we see?

Some hints, from Princeton and elsewhere

(using current basic data)

15

Princeton Citations

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

number of titles .

95/20

80/5

16

Range of journals usedVery intensive use of an exceptionally limited number of

journals Much lighter occasional use of an

essentially unlimited range of journalsnote: most studies elsewhere show

smaller differences.Alternative interpretations:>Princeton people concentrate

on their real work>Princeton people show

little intellectual curiosity

17

Use vs. Citation vs. I.F. Electronic use, Print use,

Articles cited, Articles published All show similar results Predictable differences:

Non-research titles Preliminary publication

Relation to Impact Factor varies Depends on academic program

Local knowledge is needed to interpret data

18

Effect of quality/relevance Central fields: low quality journals show very little use Peripheral fields: less effect of quality Variation with time

Major titles in central fields: little variation between years

Minor titles in central fields: considerable variation between years

All titles in peripheral fields: Great variation between years

note: some other studies show less effect of quality or relevance.

Does it depend on academic level?

19

Electronic vs. Print Almost all fields strongly prefer electronic

current issues & earlier years

Some fields still use print almost equally organic chemistry

Some fields never use print molecular biology

Use of E-print servers where availablevery high, but use of corresponding journal titles remains substantial.

Increased electronic use in past year; but same patterns!

20

Some Electronic vs. Bound & Unbound Print Data

Average monthly use (Princeton)

Title Electronic PrintBd

PrintUnbd

Science 19012 12 35

J. biological chem. 1365 10 0.3

J. virology 758 6 0.0

J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 866 259 7.5

J. organic chem. 144 163 1.4

21

Use of Print holdings

Little actual use Exception: main awareness journals

Major remaining deficiency of electronic: Scanning and current awareness

Continuing present need for print: Archiving Critical developing problem with

electronic-only: Stability & censorship

22

Effect of journal availability

Much higher use if immediately available Low ILL use: increases with speed Increased expectations for

"immediate" High informal use

23

How are e-journal formats used?

Major journals in field Users access almost every article that they

access. (Mostly by printing them)

Minor journals in fieldUsers scan more journal abstracts and titles

than they read or print

note: controversial result--apparently users can tell quality in their subject

24

How many journals do people use?Most people

Read articles from a very few journals

Some peopleRead a moderate number of journals

note: this is the "Gatekeeper Effect"

25

What will we see from ADVANCED data

(such as COUNTER Level II) ?

Will it confirm our intuitions?

Will it be compatible with our traditions?

Will it vary widely by discipline?

Will it vary widely by institution

Will it lead to major changes?