UKSG Conference April 2010, Edinburgh

The UKSG Usage Factor ProjectA Progress Report

Richard Gedye and John Cox

UKSG Conference April 2010, Edinburgh

UKSG Usage Factor Project 1. Brief background

2. Issues addressed before data collection and analysis

3. Collecting and analysing the data What data we have collected

Methodology

Issues and challenges

4. Anticipated issues that will need to be addressed

5. Next steps




Methodology


4. Some early recommendations


6. Next steps

The challenge…….

ISI's Impact Factor compensates for the fact that larger journals will tend to be cited more than smaller ones

Can we do something similar for usage?

In other words, should we seek to develop a “Usage Factor” as an additional measure of journal quality/value?

For example…..

Usage Factor =

Total usage over period ‘x’ of articles published during period ‘y’

Total articles published during period ‘y’

Usage factor advantages

Especially helpful for journals and fields not covered by ISI

Especially helpful for journals with high undergraduate or practitioner use

Especially helpful for journals publishing relatively few articles

Data available potentially sooner than with Impact Factors

“Authors select journals that will give their articles prestige and reach. Impact Factor is a widely used surrogate for the former, while perceived circulation and readership reflect the latter. But usage is becoming more important as a measure of reach”

Carol Tenopir

Modelling and Analysis Using Real Data

Real journal usage data is currently being analysed by John and Laura Cox

Participating publishers:-

– American Chemical Society

– Emerald

– IOP

– Nature Publishing

– OUP

– Sage

– Springer




Methodology



5. Next steps

Key data issues we have addressed

1. Consistency – numerator/denominator

2. Defining article usage year

3. Defining article publication date

4. Different usage patterns by subject

Data issues we have addressed

1. Consistency

– Items in numerator must be in denominator

– Clear definition of qualifying “items”

Machine recognisable

Unambiguous

Solution? All items with a DOI?– This will include items such as editorial board listings,

calendars of events, sponsoring society announcements, etc.

Other Possible Solutions

Rejected– Item must have references

– Item must not have an empty author field

– Item must be more than one page in length

Possible– Cross mapping items against one of the large and inclusive

A and I services or citation databases

– Examining article DTD tags

– Intelligent textmining

Longer-term Solutions

Encourage publishers to:-

– Lodge more detailed article metadata with CrossRef

– Adopt the NLM DTD, use its article categories element, and make the results harvestable

Key Data Issues






2. Article usage year– Inter-journal comparisons can be distorted by different

patterns of article publication during the calendar year

– Usage in the first calendar “year” could be as little as one month and as much as 12 months

Solution– provide data about the first 12, 24, 36 months of usage

of articles published in each chosen calendar year rather than calendar year usage

Key Data Issues






3. Article publication date

– Early online version

– Final online version

– Printed issue publication date Some early or even “final” versions of articles

are published online many months (sometimes years) before the official publication date of the journal issue of which they are nominally a part.

Solution– Supply usage data at the article version level, showing

usage patterns of different versions separately

Key Data Issues






4. Potential differences by subject – Might usage patterns vary between subject areas?

– To find out, we needed to identify a third party schema which had classified by subject all journals participating in our project

Solution– Use the Dewey Decimal Codes (DDC) which the British

Library have assigned to all the journals for which they hold records (>20,000)

With key data issues addressed, we developed a specification for a report via which participating publishers would deliver their usage data for analysis




Methodology



5. Next steps

JUF variables to be tested All journal content (excluding standing matter)

Articles only:– Version of Record

– All versions of the article on the publishers’ platform

Differing publication periods – 1 or 2 years (2006-2009)

Differing usage periods:– Single year of usage from the online publication date

– Two years of usage from the online publication date

– Single year of usage from a year after the online publication date

– Two years of usage from a year after the online publication date

Samples of calendar year usage

JUF variables to be tested – continued…Subject comparisons Broad subjects:

– Physical Sciences

– Medicine and Life Sciences

– Social Sciences

– Humanities

– Engineering

Narrow subjects– Business and Management

– Clinical Medicine

Methodology

The data

The calculationJournal Usage Factor =

Total usage over period ‘x’ of items published online during period ‘y’Total items published online during period ‘y’

‘x’ is the usage period ‘y’ is the publication period

Create comparative subject data JUFs for each journal into seven spreadsheets (one per subject)

– All content JUFs

– Article only JUFs

– VoR only JUFs

– All version JUFs

Comparing resultsVariable Article & Non-article content JUFs

Publ. Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008 2008 - 2009

Usage Period

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

Journal Title

Journal A

12 2.3 15.4 15.2

Journal B

15 4.2 23.4 17.2

Variable Article only JUFs

Publ. Year

2006 2007 2008 2009 2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008 2008 - 2009

Usage Period

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

1-12 1-24 13-24

13-36

Journal Title

Journal A

16.3 4.1 18.4 18.9

Journal B

16.8 5.7 24.4 20.1

Determine the best definitions for the calculation To include non-article content or not

To include versions of articles other than the VoR

Which definitions of ‘x’ and ‘y’ work best

Does calendar year create as meaningful data

Are the differences between subjects significant – do they need different definitions or calculations

What will be easiest for publishers




Methodology



5. Next steps




Methodology



Issues to address in next phase of project

Detecting and deterring gaming

Differences between disciplines and journal types

What about print usage

What about offline usage

How to integrate usage data when journal content hosted on multiple sites

Responding to technological innovations


Prefetching to local cache(E.g. PubGet, WebFeat)

– Need to establish list of user-agent names

– Then ignore prefetch requests and count only those with a “304” response


Bulk downloading to local hard disk

(E.g. Quosa, PubGet bulk download plug-in)

– If specifically requested (e.g. Quosa), these should ideally be counted but considered separately

– We are still considering ways to address the automated downloading of articles to hard disk




Methodology



5. Next steps

Next steps Submission to UKSG of final report from John and Laura

Cox – end of July 2010

This report will:-

– Outline the various metrics assessed

– Recommend which of them prove consistent and robust enough to be adopted for scaled up onward monitoring

– Suggest any ways in which data providers might amend the way they capture, structure, label, and maintain their data which would make the measurement of Usage Factors:-

Easier More reliable

– Propose ways to audit Usage Factors for accuracy

UKSG Research Committee will consider the report and decide whether it justifies seeking funding for a further (third) phase for the Project

UKSG Usage Factor Phase 3

Scaled up testing of candidate metric(s) recommended in Cox report

Address outstanding issues revealed during the course of the project so far

In collaboration with data suppliers, develop agreed standards and templates which, going forward, will streamline the process of data collection and analysis

More detailed practical recommendations for a cost-effective infrastructure to manage the Usage Factor process.

UKSG Usage Factor Project

Many thanks to the sponsors of this latest phase:- GOLD

SILVER– ALPSP

– American Chemical Society

– STM

– Nature Publishing Group

– Springer

Thank you for your attention!

http://www.uksg.org/usagefactors/

http://www.uksg.org/usagefactors/

UKSG Conference April 2010, Edinburgh

Documents

Transcript of UKSG Conference April 2010, Edinburgh