Can Users Find Your Content Anymore? The Impact of Discovery Service on Journal Use ITHAKA Sustainable Scholarship Pre-Conference New York, October 21, 2013 Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver John McDonald, University of Southern California Jason Price, SCELC
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Can Users Find Your Content Anymore? The Impact of Discovery
Service on Journal Use
ITHAKA Sustainable Scholarship
Pre-Conference
New York, October 21, 2013 Michael Levine-Clark, University of Denver
John McDonald, University of Southern California
Jason Price, SCELC
Does implementation of a discovery service impact usage of journal content?
Discovery tools are not
• Federated search tools
• Library catalogs
• Indexing and abstracting services (PsycInfo, Web of Science, etc)
Web-Scale Discovery Tools
• Single source for finding information
– Books
– Articles
– Local content
• Metadata and/or full text
• Content is pre-indexed and/or pre-harvested
• Single fast search
ILS
HathiTrust
MLA Bibliography
Institutional Repository
Publisher Metadata
Discovery Tool
Metadata
• Publisher-provided metadata
• Third-party metadata
– Journal or ebook aggregator
– Indexing service (EBSCO, ProQuest, MLA Bibliography)
• Full text
• MARC
Assumptions
• At any given institution, given a relatively stable user base, the total search effort will remain roughly the same.
– X students will have Y assignments and Z hours per day to search
Discovery tools
– Will take up an increasing amount of a finite time for searching
– Will alter the overall productivity of searches (users will find more or less)
– Will alter the overall efficiency of users (users will find more or less per search)
– Will draw users from other (more or less efficient) search tools
Given those assumptions
• Introducing a discovery tool may:
– Cause users to view more (or fewer) articles per search
– Cause users to view different versions of articles (publisher vs aggregator)
• This study:
– WILL NOT identify which (if any) of these causes is in effect
– WILL provide a rigorous, unbiased test of whether an effect can be detected
Identifying Institutions
• Survey of libraries
– Which discovery tool
– Implementation Date (month/year)
– Search box on library web page
– 149 responses
• 24 libraries
– 6 for each of the 4 major discovery tools
Library Demographics
• 21 US, 1 UK, 1 NZ, 1 Canada
• 10 ARL
• WorldCat book holdings
– Average: 1,114,193
– Median: 1,044,153
– High: 2,665,796
– Low: 298,365
Implementation Dates
• 2010
– 3 libraries (Discovery 2)
• 2011
– 19 libraries
• 2012
– 2 libraries (Discovery 2)
Methodology
• Compare COUNTER JR1 data for 12 months before and 12 months after implementation date. Implementation date counted as month 12 of year 1.
Jun
e 2
01
0
Star
t
Imp
lem
en
tati
on
M
ay 2
01
1
May
20
12
En
d
Year 1 Year 2
Journal Usage
• Title must be available to that library for all 24 months
– Net change in usage from 12 months prior to 12 months after
– All titles added together for each institution
– Titles not counted in analysis unless 12+ uses in both years
Publishers
• 6 publishers
– 56,286 titles (not deduped)
Journal Availability by Institution
• Title counts vary (different institutions have different packages)
– Average: 2,345
– Median: 2,416
– High: 5,531
– Low: 125
Journal Availability by Discovery Tool
• Discovery 1 – Total (combined): 23,717
– Average: 3,952
– Median: 3,862
– High: 5,531
– Low: 2,441
• Discovery 2 – Total (combined): 5,744
– Average: 957
– Median: 449
– High: 2,896
– Low: 161
• Discovery 3 – Total (combined): 10,116
– Average: 1,686
– Median: 1,716
– High: 3,666
– Low: 125
• Discovery 4 – Total (combined): 16,705
– Average: 2,784
– Median: 2,603
– High: 3,702
– Low: 2,194
Net Change
Discovery 4, 20%
Discovery 3, 7%
Discovery 2, 0%
Discovery 1, -4%
-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Observations
• Variations by publisher within each discovery tool
• Variations by institution within each discovery tool
• Some publishers are net losers, some net winners