As a member of the Counter Executive Committee from its
beginnings, I do not share Peter's confidence in the current
procedures, nor do I agree with his interpretation of Phil
Davis's results.
Phil showed that the variation in counts between publishers
was
greater than could be explained by html/ PDF variation.
While the
greater uniformity in interfaces has reduced the html/PDF
variation between different publishers, it does not affect
any
other factors. Phil's study shows a nine-fold variation; the
maximum effect of html/PDF is two-fold, thus leaving the
majority
of the difference unaccounted for.
Peter says , correctly, that the results between different
publishers are more comparable than prior to Counter--and
indeed
Counter did play a role in getting one particularly
important
non-profit publisher to change its interface to diminish the
html/pdf variation. That does not mean that the results are
even
approximately comparable overall. There is not the least
data to
show they are, and there is Phil's data to suggest that they
are
not.
It has been decided to defer the consideration of these
problems
until the first round of audits has been completed, which is
probably a realistic decision. But the audits measure only
the
accuracy of reporting from a known test script at a site
known to
the publisher. What the will evaluate is the accuracy of
this
report. They will not evaluate the accuracy of reporting
under
library conditions in general, and certainly not from any
particular library. They will not audit comparability
between
publishers, nor will the determine whether there is any
consistency between results being presently reported and
those in
the past.
Were I still collecting, I would continue to rely primarily
on
the one reliable measure we have, even though it does not
measure
all aspects of use--local citations.
David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
dgoodman princeton.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hamaker, Charles" <cahamakeuncc.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:34 pm
Subject: RE: COUNTER posting from Peter Shepherd
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
> I disagree with Peter's conclusion that:" There
are many
> reasons why PDF/html ratios may vary from publisher to
> publisher (archive formats; different practices in
different
> subject fields, to name but two) and not too much
should be
> read into them."
>
> My experience is that faculty and researchers citing
articles
> generally need pdf. I don't believe html is a
substitute when it
> comes time to cite an article in formal publication.
This
> experience suggests to me we should anticipate
differences in
> usage patterns are meaningful.
>
> Chuck Hamaker
> Associate University Librarian Collections and
Technical Services
> Atkins Library
> University of North Carolina Charlotte
> Charlotte, NC 28223
|
