scholarly journals COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF ELECTRONIC RESOURCE USAGE STATISTICS ACCORDING TO COUNTER 5

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 157-166
Author(s):  
N. N. Litvinova

The development of COUNTER usage statistics code of practice (de facto standard) during 2003–2016 is considered. It is demonstrated what issues in developing four successive versions of standard resulted in its substantial redesign fulfilled during 2016–2018 and implemented in COUNTER 5. New conceptual structure of COUNTER 5 (effective from January 1st, 2019) with its three components “objects — metrics — attributes” is described. New opportunities of statistical reports generation allowing to combine different attributes and metrics are analyzed. New standard reports are described and commented. Differences in summary statistics data compared to previous year data are explained. The importance of standardized usage data from content providers not COUNTER compliant yet is stressed.

2008 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 79-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet K. Chisman

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Will Roy ◽  
Brian D. Cameron ◽  
Tim Ribaric

Introduction: “Usage metrics are an effective way for libraries to demonstrate the value of their institutional repositories, however, existing tools are not always reliable and can either undercount or overcount file downloads. As well, although statistics can sometimes be accessed through the various repository interfaces, without an agreed standard it is impossible to reliably assess and compare usage data across different IRs in any meaningful way.”[1] The Task Group for Standards for IR Usage Data has undertaken an information-gathering exercise to better understand both the existing practices of Canadian repositories, as well as the emerging tools and processes available for repositories to track and monitor usage more effectively. This exercise directly links to the broader goals of the Open Repositories Working Group, which are to “strengthen and add value to the network of Canadian open access repositories by collaborating more closely and adopting a broader range of services.”[2] Our recommended course of action is for all Canadian IRs to collectively adopt OpenAIREStatistics. This path aligns with the following recommendations which our group also advances: Recommendations: We suggest the following Mandatory (M) and Optional (O) recommendations: R1(M):All Canadian IRs should adopt the COUNTER Code of Practice. R2(M): All Canadian IRs should select a service that allows for interoperability with other web services via a fully open, or accessible, permissions-based API. R3(M): All Canadian IRs should usea statistics service that practices transparent communication and maintains a governance strategy. In addition, we strongly urge for the future that Canadian IRs consider the following advice. R4(O): Make further investments into understanding and utilizing the common log format (CLF). R5(O): Conduct research into the privacy implications of collecting use statistics via third party services with commercial interests and consider available alternatives. R6(O): Practice a healthy skepticism towards tools and solutions that promise “increased” usage statistics, and instead advocate for responsible collection assessment based on multiple aspects of use.


2007 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah D. Blecic ◽  
Joan B. Fiscella ◽  
Stephen E. Wiberley

The ICOLC guidelines and Project COUNTER codes of practice have advanced the measurement of use of electronic resources. At the same time, innovations in functionality within and among electronic resources are changing the environment in which use is measured. The present article explores measures of sessions and searches for one research library’s electronic resources. The article analyzes the transition from vendor-specific to COUNTER-compliant statistics, how vendors measure the running of search alerts, and the effects of federated searching on reported use. The analysis suggests that innovations in functionality may have changed the meaning of sessions and searches. The analysis also suggests the following principle: innovations in electronic resource functionality will necessitate advances in electronic resource usage measures to describe use meaningfully.


2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 386-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed Cherry ◽  
Stephanie Havron Rollins ◽  
Toner Evans

Until more recently, COUNTER reports were predominantly used by content providers and consumers of electronic journals and databases. One of the most significant developments with COUNTER Release 4 is that it integrated book reports as part of the latest COUNTER Code of Practice. Release 4 makes it possible for academic libraries to assess e-books usage in a consistent, credible, and comparable manner. However, in implementing the COUNTER standards for book usage reporting, the variant practices among e-book vendors impose challenges for librarians to correctly interpret vendor COUNTER reports. Therefore, it is crucial for librarians to consult the Code of Practice and COUNTER implementation guidelines in order to better understand COUNTER reports by individual vendors. Chapter 2 discusses each COUNTER standard report for e-book usage data, pointing to potential issues as they have been implemented by e-books vendors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document