Managing e-resources Briefing and Update
Dec 16, 2015
Managing e-resources
Briefing and Update
Parallel Projects/Shared Services
JUSP
Entitlement Registry
ELCAT
JOURNALS USAGE STATISTICS PORTAL
Aims
• Supports UK academic libraries by providing a single point of access to e-journal usage data
• Assists management of e-journals collections, evaluation and decision-making
• Collaborative,
community based development
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/3137422976/
Who?Who?
• 125 libraries in JUSP
• All UK higher education institutions have been invited to participate (160+)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellf/3910635234/
Libraries in JUSP
Publishers and intermediaries in JUSP
15 publishers• American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS)• American Institute of Physics (AIP)• Annual Reviews• British Medical Journal Publishing
Group (BMJ)• Edinburgh University Press (EUP)• Elsevier• Emerald• IOP Publishing• Nature Publishing Group• Oxford University Press• Project MUSE• Royal Society of Chemistry• SAGE• Springer• Wiley-Blackwell
3 intermediaries• Ebsco EJS• Publishing Technology
(ingentaconnect)• Swets
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27205670@N00/543219767/
Publishers and Intermediaries in JUSP
Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)
• M2M way of gathering statistics
• Replaces the user-mediated collection of usage reports
• 16 JUSP SUSHI clients available
• SUSHI server to gather data from JUSP
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ragingwire/3395161474/
Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)
JUSP report type JUSP report title
Journal level reports • JR1 and JR1A reports• JR1 reports inc gateways and intermediaries• JR1 reports excluding backfile usage
Summary reports • SCONUL return• Summary of publisher usage• Summary use of gateway and host intermediaries• Summary use of backfiles• Number of titles and requests in usage ranges• Tables and graphs –trends over time• Which titles have highest use
Experimental reports • NESLi2 deals• Titles vs NESLi2 deals• Individual journal search and usage• Breakdown of publisher usage (title and year)• Breakdown of publisher usage (title and date
range)
Benchmarking • Calendar and academic year (available to consortium)
JUSP usage reportsJUSP Usage Reports
Community engagement
• Community resource responding to what people want
• Working closely with libraries to understand how JUSP is being used and how it can help decision-making
• Developing new reports and features from user feedback
• Working with publishers to provide benefits to the community
http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_approximate_photographer/5543746890/
Community engagement
Next steps• Invitations to more
publishers
• Value-added enhancements• Subscribed titles• Publisher deals
• Knowledge sharing within the UK and with overseas consortia
• SUSHI client available as free, open source software
Next Steps
• Common approach to development• Standards• Interoperability• Collaboration• Understand user
workflows• Deliver benefits to
the user and supplier communities
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcemarc/5123623219/
JUSP and KB+
ENTITLEMENT REGISTRY SCOPING PROJECT
Aims: • To gather, normalise and verify the entitlement records of
all UK higher education institutions to the titles in the NESLi2 deals with two sample publishers.
• To scope the cost and work flows for gathering, normalisation and verification of entitlement records of all UK higher education institutions across all of the NESLi2 publishers.
• To scope the cost and work flow for updating the entitlement records for all UK higher education institutions to all NESLi2 publishers on an annual basis.
Entitlement Registry Scoping Project
• The project is closely aligned with a separate and parallel strand of activity led by EDINA.
• Prototype designed by EDINA.
Data
Accurate Authoritative Structured Validated Timely
Publication Information
Link Resolvers
Knowledge Bases
Usage Statistics
JUSP Analysis Tools
Entitlements
Entitlement Registry
Licences
Licence Comparison
Tool
Entitlement registry: part of KB+
• NESLI2 PUBLICATION INFORMATION
SUBSCRIBED TITLES
• LICENCE INFORMATION
PCA ENTITLEMENT • VERIFICATION
AGREEMENT
KB+ and Entitlement Registry
Data Model
• Journal Descriptive Metadata• Entitlement Metadata• Access Management Metadata• Publisher Related Metadata• Agent Metadata• Service Provider Related Metadata• Institution Related Metadata• Verification Metadata• Other Metadata
Institutional Processes
• When do the libraries verify their PCA entitlement?• As part of the subscription or renewal process • As part of the cancellation process• As part of the general management of the
collection• How do libraries source entitlement
information? • How is entitlement information stored?
Verification workflows
Data normalisation
• Data received:– Publishers journal title identifiers– Bibliographic information– PCA entitlement– Publisher– Title changes– Open access (oa)
We have sent data to be verified by institutions
Fields:
•Jnl Code•Subscription Code•Print ISSN•Online ISSN•Frequency (2011•Journal Title•Journal Pack •PCA entitlement Start Year•PCA entitlement End Year•Former Publisher•Transfered? •Year of first publication by (where known)•Last Year of Publication
•Published/Ceased/Moved•Previous Title (1)•Old EISSN•Old ISSNs •Last Year of Previous Titles•Previous Title (2)•Old EISSN•Old ISSNs•Last Year of Previous Titles•Month OA Option Started•Year OA Option Started•Month Stopped•Year OA Option Stopped
Preliminary findings
• The publishers were unable to provide the data in a timely and systematic manner
• Some institutions found it very difficult to verify their entitlements.
• In general, the time factor has been and is one of the main reasons why it is so difficult for publishers and institutions to deal with the PCA entitlement data.
A developing approach
• Issues above demonstrate importance of Entitlement Registry
• Balance costs of collecting historical data vs practicality of starting with current data
• The Entitlement Registry likely to be based on a two-pronged strategy– continue working to find the best workflow
regarding the historical data 2011-backwards – start keeping records of the data from 2012-forward
KNOWLEDGE BASE+
Addressing issues with ERM
Data• Accuracy• Availability
Interoperability• Data silos and flows• Implementation of standards
Workflows• Generality vs granularity
Duplication of effort • Population of knowledge bases• Maintenance of link resolvers
Leverage investment • Improve quality of data for all
Openness• Technology• Data• Relationships –UK, international, suppliers
Prioritise existing issues• Save time and money from the outset
Cohesive activity, tools and services• JISC services• Commercial and non-commercial suppliers• Academic institutions
Approach
Data
Accurate Authoritative Structured Validated Timely
Publication Information
Link Resolvers
Knowledge Bases
Usage Statistics
JUSP Analysis Tools
Entitlements
Entitlement Registry
Licences
Licence Comparison
Tool
Standards
Usage
SUSHI COUNTER
Publication Information
ONIX for Serials KBART
Licence Management
ONIX-PL
Identifiers
Authority files
InteroperabilityData
ExchangeData
Maintenance
JISC Services
Supplier Systems
Local Systems
Open Source
Investing in the enhancement and improvement of existing services whilst supporting
the needs and viability of local systems
ERM as Co-ordination of Effort
Shared Community Activity
Prioritisation Data Maintenance
Data Verification
Workflows and
Allocation
How do we ensure that benefits outweigh the investment of staff time?
KB+
Title lists
Holdings
Licences
Usage statistics
Alerts
Workflow
Publisher Information
JUSP
Subscription Agents
LMS & ERM Suppliers
Entitlement Registry
Authority Files
Data Sources
Shared CommunityActivity
Standards Adoption
Business & Legal Model
Academic Institutions
Phase One Deliverables
THANK YOU