The COUNTER Code of Practice -Release 1 by np6KJuHl

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 18

									COUNTER:
towards reliable vendor usage statistics

Progress to date (April 2003 - March 2004)
Richard Gedye
Chair
COUNTER


UKSG Conference, Manchester, March 2004
    Summary

COUNTER Code of Practice released January 2003

   Which vendors are now compliant?

   What issues and challenges has compliance raised?

   Results of library and vendor research

   Auditing

   COUNTER Code of Practice Release 2

   Priorities for 2004 and beyond
    Compliant vendor growth


   Compliant vendors Jan 2003:       2
   Compliant vendors Dec 2003:      12
   Compliant vendors Mar 2004:      25

   43% of annual total of new articles
    covered by ISI now come from
    COUNTER compliant publishers.
Compliant vendors at 17 March 2003
      Achieving compliance - hurdles and issues
   Cost of development

   Concern re fulltext request count reductions

   Need for more guidelines e.g. searching,
    sessions, timeouts, overlapping IPs

   Need for a “Guide to interpretation” of
    COUNTER reports? Like National Rail or
    BookScan
        Testing the COP via market research
   Library Focus Groups:-
       San Diego         14 September 2003
       London            16 September 2003
       Elsinore          23 October 2003
       Charleston         6 November 2003

   International Advisory Board Round Table, London Dec 2003

   Library pilot testing programme from February 2004:-
       Cornell University
       Cranfield University
       GlaxoSmithKline
       University of California
       University of Leicester
     What the market research has told us

   PUBLISHERS
      If you want to maximise compliance, don’t

       make it excessively complex, demanding,
       and expensive - and don’t keep changing it!
   LIBRARIES
      Keep reports simple and basic

      Postpone development and implementation

       of Release 2 till we have more feedback on
       Release 1
      Put future releases in draft form on the web

       for a period of public comment
What the market research has told us
   “Level 2 reports, especially Journal Report 3, contain
    too much data to be useful”
   “Two levels of compliance are unnecessary”
   Add a “Publisher” column (helpful with aggregator
    reports)
   Allow removal of zero usage journals in aggregator
    reports
   Divide glossary into 2, separating terms used in the
    reports from the rest
   One report per file please
   No punctuation in data
   ISO date format
    What the market research has told us

   Preconstructed reports preferred to “on the fly”. One user
    found only 25% of usage reports generated live actually
    worked.

   Consortia need a way to derive an aggregated summary
    report cf. compiling it institution by institution.

   Make clearer the protocols for measuring usage when
    intermediaries are involved
Source of       Responsibility for   Report   Comments
page            recording usage      zero
                and reporting to     usage
                customer
Direct from     Vendor               Yes      Delivery of content to the user is from the
vendor’s                                      vendor’s own service/site, to which the user
server                                        has direct access.
Direct from     Aggregator           No       Delivery of content to the user is from an
an                                            intermediary (a gateway that is also a host),
aggregator                                    using its own store of publishers’ content.
                                              Gateway is responsible for recording and
                                              supplying usage statistics for full-text
                                              requests direct to the customer and also,
                                              where contractually permitted to do so, to
                                              the vendor. (In this case the vendor may not
                                              add the ‘gateway’ usage figures to those
                                              recording usage of content delivered by the
                                              vendor direct to the customer)
Referral from   Vendor               Yes      Delivery involves the gateway sending the
an                                            end user from the gateway’s site to the
aggregator                                    vendor’s site for the requested content.
or gateway                                    Vendor is responsible for recording and
                                              supplying full-text usage statistics to the
                                              customer. Gateway may also supply usage
                                              statistics to the customer, but must report
                                              them separately from those covering its
                                              delivery of full-text direct to the customer
Via a           Gateway              No       Delivery of content is via a gateway, which
gateway                                       requests the content from the publisher and
                                              delivers it to the user in the context of the
                                              gateway service. Responsibility for
                                              collecting and supplying usage statistics to
                                              the customer is the responsibility of the
                                              Gateway.
Referral to     One of Vendor,                In this case an index or abstract service
an              Aggregator or                 refers the customer to the gateway for full-
aggregator      Gateway                       text. In this case the full-text is delivered
or gateway                                    according to one of scenarios listed above,
                                              and the recording and supplying of usage
                                              statistics to the customer is as specified in
                                              each of these cases.
    What the market research has told us
Feedback from the pilot test sites

   Feb 2004 meeting held to plan objectives and modus
    operandi. Early results:-
       Some differences between compliant submitted reports and
        actual ones (e.g. different number of columns, ISSNs with
        leading zeros missing)
       Difficulties locating and identifying COUNTER reports amongst
        others
       Lack of historical data for comparison limits usefulness initially
       Problem of knowing when compliant data starts. Add “Compliant
        from” column to the register
   For more feedback, attend the “Using COUNTER
    statistics workshop” at this conference
    What the market research has told us

   Provide a toolkit to allow customers to combine usage
    statistics from different vendors automatically
       Issues
            Role of COUNTER cf agents, library systems suppliers, and libraries
             themselves.
            Role of XML DTD (machine readable)


   Develop a separate COP for e-Books and reference
    works

   Audit is critically important – should be credible but not
    so rigorous it causes publishers to raise prices
     Auditing
   Auditing by a Chartered Accountant (UK), a Certified
    Professional Accountant (USA), or its equivalent
    elsewhere, or by another, suitably-qualified
    COUNTER-approved auditor, will be required to
    validate the usage reports
   Auditing principles have now been agreed
   Draft test scripts have now been written and are
    being discussed by the Audit Task Force with
    professional feedback from Deloitte & Touche and
    others
   RFPs for other COUNTER-approved auditors ready to
    go out to candidates once scripts finalised.
   Taken longer than anticipated – complexity revealed
    as scripts written
         COUNTER COP Release 2
   Will be published April 2004 in draft and placed on the
    website for six months for comment
   Will contain a list of specific questions for which we would
    like responses, in addition to comments on the changes
    from Version 1
   Final version Jan 2005 and valid version Jan 2006.
          More prescriptive re formatting

          Make changes minimal cost as far as possible

          A new Journal Report 1a, which reports usage

           statistics for html and PDF full-text requests
           separately, but with “health warning”.
          A Table of terms and definitions specifically relevant

           to the Usage Reports contained in Release 2.
Priorities for 2004

      Publish draft of Release 2

      Solicit feedback on Release 2 draft

      Implement auditing

      Publish e-Books draft COP mid 2004

      Encourage and assist growth in compliance

      Recruit more members
         COUNTER Membership
   Member Categories and Annual Fees
       Publishers/intermediaries: £500
       Library Consortia: £333
       Libraries: £250
       Industry organization: £250
       Library affiliate: £100 (non-voting member)

   Benefits of full membership
       Owner of COUNTER with voting rights at
        annual general meeting, etc.
       Regular bulletins on progress
       Opportunity to receive advice on
        implementation
    Membership at March 2004
Members March 2004:         120


    Vendors           35%
    Libraries         28%
    Consortia         25%
    Industry Orgs     10%
    Lib affiliates    2%


 Join us too and help influence the future
 development of usage reporting standards
   For more information……….

http://www.projectcounter.org/member.html



            Thank you!

            Richard Gedye (Chair)
         rgedye@projectCounter.org

								
To top