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 [email protected]@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
Geoffrey P. Timmstimms [email protected]
image from http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2008/05/oars.jpg
