www.arl.org Association of Research Libraries Next Generation Statistics for Libraries: CAUL Forum 20 January 2003 Sydney, NSW The ARL E-Metrics Project Mary E. Jackson Senior Program Officer for Access Services Association of Research Libraries [email protected]
32
Embed
Www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries Next Generation Statistics for Libraries: CAUL Forum 20 January 2003 Sydney, NSW The ARL E-Metrics Project.
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
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
Next Generation Statistics for Libraries: CAUL Forum20 January 2003
• New York Public• Notre Dame• Pennsylvania• Penn State • Pittsburgh• Purdue• Southern California• Texas A & M• Virginia Tech• Western Ontario• Wisconsin• Yale
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
Vendor Statistics Working Group
12 major ARL vendors met with project team in Denver prior to 2000 ACRL Meeting
Academic Press/IDEAL *Elsevier/Science DirectLexis/NexisOvidBell & HowellGale Group ISI * †
Use of Networked Resources & Related Infrastructure
• U1 – Number of electronic reference transactions
• U2 – Number of logins (sessions) to electronic databases (db)
• U3 – Number of queries (searches) in electronic db
• U4 – Items requested in electronic db• U5 – Virtual visits to library’s website and
catalog
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
Expenditures for Networked Resources & Related Infrastructure
• C1 Cost of electronic full-text journals
• C2 Cost of electronic reference sources
• C3 Cost of electronic books
• C4 Library expenditures for bibliographic utilities, networks, & consortia
• C5 External expenditures for bibliographic utilities, networks, & consortia
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
Library Digitization Activities
• D1 – Size of library digital collection• D2 – Use of library digital collection• D3 – Cost of digital collection
construction & management
(Collecting these data requires staff familiar with the digital environment.)
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
Performance Measures
• P1 – Percentage of electronic reference transactions of total reference
• P2 – Percentage of virtual visits of all library visits
• P3 – Percentage of electronic books to all monographs
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
Characteristics of Each Recommended Measure
• Definition• Rationale• Unit of Measure• Data source• Frequency• Process• Related Issues
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
R1 – Number of Electronic Full-text Journals
• Definition - Number of electronic full-text journal subscriptions – by individual institution or consortia licensing.
• Rationale – Documents degree of expansion of electronic subscriptions available – can be used to show good coverage & need for more funding.
• Unit of measure – the journal subscription
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
R1 – Number of Electronic Full-text Journals
• Data source – local or vendors.• Frequency – annual, monthly, etc.• Process – parse into database or
spreadsheet, update dynamically from local catalog or vendor record.
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
U1 – Number of Electronic Reference Transactions
• Definition - number of electronic reference transactions – via e-mail, WWW form, etc.
• Rationale – libraries are interested in tracking the development of new electronic services. Attempt to measure reference transactions through new electronic tools and services.
• Unit of Measure – request count, time it took.
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
U1 – Number of Electronic Reference Transactions
• Data Source – local server, manual tally, e-mail count.
• Frequency – daily, monthly, annually, etc.• Process – clarify process, identify activity
points, identify collectors of data, consolidate data.
• Related Issues –This measure may have to broken down into additional data types – time, type of query, type of interaction, scheduling issues, measures of quality and reliability.
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
Outcomes of the Investigation
• Mixed results• Participants wanted more definitive answers• Confirmed how difficult, but not impossible,
to come to consensus• Realized how dependent libraries are for
vendors to supply data• Recognized need for ongoing effort• Reaffirmed importance of using data for
decisions
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
E-Metrics Next Steps
Call for participation among members to test proposed measures for 2002/2003 (over 35 participants to date)– Examination of the deliverables from the first phases– Collect FY02 totals
• Compilation• Data analysis• Distribution for discussion
– Analysis of approaches– Best practices for work processes
• From E-metrics project• Locally developed
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
E-Metrics Next Steps
• Continued work with vendors through international COUNTER project
• Continued work with international standards activities
• Workshops and training to develop necessary data analysis skills
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
Project Documents
• Measures for Electronic Resources (E-Metrics)
Part 1: Project Background and Phase One ReportPart 2: Phase Two ReportPart 3: E-Metrics Instructional ModulePart 4: Data Collection ManualPart 5: Library and Institutional Outcomes
• www.arl.org/stats/newmeas/emetrics/
www.arl.orgAssociation of Research Libraries
Additional Questions?
• Please contact:Martha KyrillidouSenior Program Officer for Statistics and MeasurementAssociation of Research Libraries