I disagree with Peter's conclusion that:" There are
many reasons=20
why PDF/html ratios may vary from publisher to publisher
(=20
archive formats; different practices in different subject
fields,=20
to name but two) and not too much should be read into
them."
My experience is that faculty and researchers citing
articles=20
generally need pdf. I don't believe html is a substitute
when it=20
comes time to cite an article in formal publication.
This=20
experience suggests to me we should anticipate differences
in=20
usage patterns are meaningful.
Chuck Hamaker
Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical
Services
Atkins Library
University of North Carolina Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223
---------- Forwarded message ----------
I write in response to Phil Davis's recent comments on
the=20
comparablity of the online usage statistics from
different=20
COUNTER-compliant vendors. While I agree with Phil that
COUNTER=20
is no panacea, I am confident that the COUNTER compliant
usage=20
statistics from different=A0vendors are much more comparable
than=20
he believes.=A0The results of the 2005 study that he reports
are=20
interesting, but two siginificant developments have taken
place=20
since it was published that render some of its conclusions
rather=20
questionable. These developments are:
1. In 2005 only one COUNTER-compliant =A0vendor required
users to=20
download the full-text=A0html version of an article
before=20
accessing the full-text PDF. This vendor has since
changed=A0its=20
interface so that this is no longer a requirement and the
user=20
can go straight to the=A0PDF. While it is not COUNTER's job
to=20
instruct vendors on the design of their user interfaces, we
do=20
specify in the Code of Practice that it is not best practice
for=20
vendors to require users to download html first.
2. In 2005 and 2006 we carried out a research project
(sponsored=20
by JISC) which investigated ways of mitigating possible=20
'interface' effects' on COUNTER usage data. The results of
this=20
project are reported in full on the JISC website at=A0
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/progr
ammes/programme_pals2/synthesis/project=
s/counter.aspx
These results tend to call into question the wisdom of
drawing=20
too may conclusions about usage data based on the poportion
of=20
PDF/html ful text downloads observed for different
publishers.=A0I=20
think that the following results are
particularly=A0noteworthy:
a) When a unique article filter is applied to
the=A0usage=20
statistics contained in Journal Report 1 ( Number of
successful=20
full text article requests - in all formats), which reduces
the=20
count to the number of unique article requests per
session,=A0the=20
reduction=A0in the count is not=A0particularly dramatic.
Only in a=20
minority of=A0cases do users download an article in more
than one=20
format in a single session and it=A0=A0seems reasonable to
assume=20
that in=A0these cases users=A0may actually want=A0to use an
article in=20
more than one format. ( Further studies into the use of
different=20
article =A0formats by users would shed more light n this).
2. There does not apear to be any relationship between
the=20
reduction=A0in the count=A0produced by the application of
the unique=20
article filter and the proportion of PDF/html downloads.
The=20
publisher with a PDF/html ratio of 0.64 sees a similar
reduction=20
in count,=A0when the unique article filter is applied,=A0to
the=20
publisher with a PDF/html ratio of 7.69. These results
indicate=20
that=A0it would be ill-advised to=A0draw any conclusions
about=20
'inflation' of usage statistics from PDF/html download
ratios.=A0=A0
While=A0we continue with the work=A0to further =A0improve
the COUNTER=20
usage statistics, we stand by the statements we have made in
our=20
recent message.=A0COUNTER has made usage statistics from
different=20
vendors more comparable. The COUNTER statistics are not
perfect,=20
but we=A0feel that=A0they are comparable enough for the
purposes of=20
most librarians.
We=A0must, of course, be=A0alive to the dangers of=20
over-simplification, but=A0the siren voices of
over-interpretation=20
are=A0equally tempting and just as=A0hazardous;=A0their
call=A0can,=20
indeed,=A0be irresistible when=A0so much data is so
readily=20
available. There are many reasons why PDF/html ratios may
vary=20
from publisher to publisher ( archive formats; different=20
practices in different subject fields, to name but two) and
not=20
too much should be read into them.
Peter Shepherd, PhD
Director,
COUNTER
>>>At 05:46 PM 5/16/2007, Gillingham Emily wrote:
>>>
>>>Since the launch of the first COUNTER Code of
Practice in 2002,
>>>libraries around the world have been able to
compare and contrast
>>>the usage for different journals and databases
across different
>>>subjects from different publishers.
>>
>>As a former member of the Executive Board of Project
COUNTER, and
>>as a former science librarian, I only have great
respect and
>>admiration for this organization, its leadership,
and its dedicated
>>board members.=A0=A0Yet the standardization of
downloads and reports
>>has not resulted in panacea whereby librarians can
simply compare
>>usage across different publishers. In a study of
six
>>COUNTER-compliant publishers [see below], we report
very large
>>differences in download patterns across publisher
interfaces --
>>even controlling for identical journal content. As a
result, there
>>needs to be more work on this front before
librarians are persuaded
>>that they can simply compare the usage of journals
and databases
>>across publisher platforms.=A0=A0At the least,
Project COUNTER should
>>be cautious in making over-simplified statements
that can result in
>>erroneous beliefs by those who are responsible for
making sound
>>collection decisions.=A0=A0At worse, publishers may
exploit this myth
>>to artificially inflate and manipulate the numbers
they report.
>>
>>eJournal interface can influence usage statistics:
implications for
>>libraries, publishers, and Project COUNTER.
>>
>>Philip M. Davis and Jason S. Price
>>JASIST (2006, vol 57, issue 9, p.1243-1248).
>>copy available: http://www.
people.cornell.edu/pages/pmd8/
>>
>>The design of a publisher's electronic interface can
have a
>>measurable effect on electronic journal usage
statistics. A study
>>of journal usage from six COUNTER-compliant
publishers at
>>thirty-two research institutions in the United
States, the United
>>Kingdom and Sweden indicates that the ratio of PDF
to HTML views is
>>not consistent across publisher interfaces, even
after controlling
>>for differences in publisher content.=A0=A0The
number of fulltext
>>downloads may be artificially inflated when
publishers require
>>users to view HTML versions before accessing PDF
versions or when
>>linking mechanisms, such as CrossRef, direct users
to the full
>>text, rather than the abstract, of each article.
These results
>>suggest that usage reports from COUNTER-compliant
publishers are
>>not directly comparable in their current form. One
solution may be
>>to modify publisher numbers with 'adjustment
factors' deemed to be
>>representative of the benefit or disadvantage due to
its interface.
>>
>>Standardization of some interface and linking
protocols may
>>obviate these differences and allow for more
accurate
>>cross-publisher comparisons.
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------
-------------------
>>Philip M. Davis
>>PhD Student (and former Science Librarian)
>>Department of Communication
>>Cornell University
>>email: pmd8 cornell.edu
>>work phone: 607 255-0354
>>web: http://www.
people.cornell.edu/pages/pmd8/
---2071850956-1553107164-1179965891=:18511--
|
