Applying usage data: Libraries & Consortia
Download as PPT, PDF1 like360 views
This document summarizes the key points in applying usage data to collection management decisions in libraries and library consortia. It discusses determining cost per use, comparing usage across publishers and packages, identifying high and low use titles, evaluating value over time, and using consortial data to make equitable decisions that increase value for members. The document emphasizes that usage, cost, and value must be considered in context to properly evaluate collections and make data-driven management choices.
Applying usage data: Libraries & Consortia
- 1. Applying Usage Data to Collection Management in Libraries & Consortia Jason S. Price , Ph.D. Science & Electronic Resources Librarian Claremont Colleges’ Libraries; SCELC Better Data, Better Business: Applying Usage Data in Scholarly publishing June 6, 2007 Society for Scholarly Publishing Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA
- 2. Major questions Which titles should we keep or cut? Highest use/value vs. Lowest use/value Which titles should we add? Most requested (Traditional & Web) Which package provides highest or lowest value?
- 3. Use and Value Determining cost per use Comparison with ILL cost ‘ By-title’ data Comparison across Publishers html? pdf? combined (FTAR)? Need for context
- 4. Overall cost per use =1 year’s cost / 1 year’s requests e.g. $58,600 publisher E-access fee 35,700 article views $1.64 Cost per use * $420,000 mandatory cost of subs (to agent) for a subset of these same titles $420K + $ 58.6K = $478,600 / 35,700 = $13.40 Determining Cost Per Use ?
- 5. Overall cost per view by Subs Type
- 6. Comparison with ILL cost Package CPV = $13.40 What does this tell us? Is it High? Low? Better than ILL?
- 7. Which titles to keep/cut: By-title data Combined 3yr use
- 8. Challenge: Usage report granularity Title-level use statistics Currently reported per title Can’t separate frontfile use from backfile use Backfile may be previously purchased or freely available Ultimately cost per use should be based on what customers are paying for Issue of repository / free backfile use
- 9. Which titles should be added? Still largely determined by faculty request Journal Report 2 (turnaways) is under-utilized by libraries and publishers (see example for Consortia near the end)
- 10. Cross-package comparison So Pkg 1 is a better value than Pkg 3? It might not be… CPV
- 11. Variation in use by format Davis and Price, 2006 JASIST
- 12. html to pdf Ratios vary widely for these packages How many pdfs in Pkg 1 are duplicates of html views?
- 13. Live Link
- 14. S3. Package value revisited pdf requests only tell a different story! CPP CPU vs.
- 15. Implications Publisher interface/content types can have major influence on cost per view Linking tools can have significant disruptive effects on CPV calculations It is unclear whether pdfs vs FTARs are ‘better’ for cost comparisons THUS: Within publisher comparisons are more valid than between publisher comparisons
- 16. Benchmarks for context Consortium
- 17. 16: Low value? Consortium
- 18. 16: High value? Consortium
- 19. 16: The value of context Consortium
- 20. Questions for Consortia Is cost/value fairly distributed among members/participants? How can value/attractiveness be maintained or increased for current and future participants? License renewals– do pricing terms need to be renegotiated?
- 21. Equitable distribution of value? Consortium
- 22. Year to year comparison
- 24. JR2 Turnaways by Journal: Collaborative Collection Management 2004 2005 2006 ChemInform ChemInform ChemInform Journal of Molecular Recognition Journal of Molecular Recognition Journal of Molecular Recognition Journal of Peptide Science Journal of Peptide Science Journal of Peptide Science Ment Retard and Dev Disab Ment Retard and Dev Disab Ment Retard and Dev Disab Electroanalysis Electroanalysis ChemMedChem Reviews in Medical Virology Chemical Engineering & Technology - CET Reviews in Medical Virology Int J Robust and Nonlinear Control Prenatal Diagnosis Prenatal Diagnosis The Chemical Record Human Psychopharmacology International Journal of Cancer Chirality Polymer Engineering and Science Journal of Cellular Biochemistry Single Molecules Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
- 25. Conclusions Price is an integral part of use evaluation Recognize that libraries need to base expenditures on actual return on cost Meaningful cross-publisher comparisons are difficult (but will still be sought) Context is crucial for within-publisher comparison Consortial statistics provide valuable benchmarks Cross-year comparisons can indicate increasing value Use consortial context to identify ideal institutions for additional sales (added titles, backfiles, etc)
Editor's Notes
- #4: On the theme of negative impacts of the US on the UK… I’d say this one is very specific, though Glad don’t have to put into words… Outline of rest of talk
- #5: Big deal Lock-ins & Combined Subscriptions
- #6: For the same publisher pkg in the same year…
- #7: Not exactly red herrings…
- #8: Use best calculated over multiple years Two reasons not to give up: Swapping Cooperative vendors
- #11: Significantly different? What metric for use?
- #14: An option…
- #25: Package with partial access—Which titles should we add?