Managing e-resources

Briefing and Update

Parallel Projects/Shared Services

JUSP

Entitlement Registry

ELCAT

JOURNALS USAGE STATISTICS PORTAL

Aims

• Supports UK academic libraries by providing a single point of access to e-journal usage data

• Assists management of e-journals collections, evaluation and decision-making

• Collaborative,

community based development

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/3137422976/

Who?Who?

• 125 libraries in JUSP

• All UK higher education institutions have been invited to participate (160+)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellf/3910635234/

Libraries in JUSP

Publishers and intermediaries in JUSP15 publishers

• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

• American Institute of Physics (AIP)• Annual Reviews• British Medical Journal Publishing

Group (BMJ)• Edinburgh University Press (EUP)• Elsevier• Emerald• IOP Publishing• Nature Publishing Group• Oxford University Press• Project MUSE• Royal Society of Chemistry• SAGE• Springer• Wiley-Blackwell

3 intermediaries• Ebsco EJS• Publishing Technology

(ingentaconnect)• Swets

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27205670@N00/543219767/

Publishers and Intermediaries in JUSP

Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)

• M2M way of gathering statistics

• Replaces the user-mediated collection of usage reports

• 16 JUSP SUSHI clients available

• SUSHI server to gather data from JUSP

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ragingwire/3395161474/

Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative (SUSHI)

JUSP report type JUSP report title

Journal level reports • JR1 and JR1A reports• JR1 reports inc gateways and intermediaries• JR1 reports excluding backfile usage

Summary reports • SCONUL return• Summary of publisher usage• Summary use of gateway and host intermediaries• Summary use of backfiles• Number of titles and requests in usage ranges• Tables and graphs –trends over time• Which titles have highest use

Experimental reports • NESLi2 deals• Titles vs NESLi2 deals• Individual journal search and usage• Breakdown of publisher usage (title and year)• Breakdown of publisher usage (title and date

range)

Benchmarking • Calendar and academic year (available to consortium)

JUSP usage reportsJUSP Usage Reports

Community engagement

• Community resource responding to what people want

• Working closely with libraries to understand how JUSP is being used and how it can help decision-making

• Developing new reports and features from user feedback

• Working with publishers to provide benefits to the community

http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_approximate_photographer/5543746890/

Community engagement

Next steps• Invitations to more

publishers

• Value-added enhancements• Subscribed titles• Publisher deals

• Knowledge sharing within the UK and with overseas consortia

• SUSHI client available as free, open source software

Next Steps

• Common approach to development• Standards• Interoperability• Collaboration• Understand user

workflows• Deliver benefits to

the user and supplier communities

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcemarc/5123623219/

JUSP and KB+

ENTITLEMENT REGISTRY SCOPING PROJECT

Aims: • To gather, normalise and verify the entitlement records of

all UK higher education institutions to the titles in the NESLi2 deals with two sample publishers.

• To scope the cost and work flows for gathering, normalisation and verification of entitlement records of all UK higher education institutions across all of the NESLi2 publishers.

• To scope the cost and work flow for updating the entitlement records for all UK higher education institutions to all NESLi2 publishers on an annual basis.

Entitlement Registry Scoping Project

• The project is closely aligned with a separate and parallel strand of activity led by EDINA.

• Prototype designed by EDINA.

Data

Accurate Authoritative Structured Validated Timely

Publication Information

Link Resolvers

Knowledge Bases

Usage Statistics

JUSP Analysis Tools

Entitlements

Entitlement Registry

Licences

Licence Comparison

Tool

Entitlement registry: part of KB+

• NESLI2 PUBLICATION INFORMATION

SUBSCRIBED TITLES

• LICENCE INFORMATION

PCA ENTITLEMENT • VERIFICATION

AGREEMENT

KB+ and Entitlement Registry

Data Model

• Journal Descriptive Metadata• Entitlement Metadata• Access Management Metadata• Publisher Related Metadata• Agent Metadata• Service Provider Related Metadata• Institution Related Metadata• Verification Metadata• Other Metadata

Institutional Processes

• When do the libraries verify their PCA entitlement?• As part of the subscription or renewal process • As part of the cancellation process• As part of the general management of the

collection• How do libraries source entitlement

information? • How is entitlement information stored?

Verification workflows

Data normalisation

• Data received:– Publishers journal title identifiers– Bibliographic information– PCA entitlement– Publisher– Title changes– Open access (oa)

We have sent data to be verified by institutions

Fields:

•Jnl Code•Subscription Code•Print ISSN•Online ISSN•Frequency (2011•Journal Title•Journal Pack •PCA entitlement Start Year•PCA entitlement End Year•Former Publisher•Transfered? •Year of first publication by (where known)•Last Year of Publication

•Published/Ceased/Moved•Previous Title (1)•Old EISSN•Old ISSNs •Last Year of Previous Titles•Previous Title (2)•Old EISSN•Old ISSNs•Last Year of Previous Titles•Month OA Option Started•Year OA Option Started•Month Stopped•Year OA Option Stopped

Preliminary findings

• The publishers were unable to provide the data in a timely and systematic manner

• Some institutions found it very difficult to verify their entitlements.

• In general, the time factor has been and is one of the main reasons why it is so difficult for publishers and institutions to deal with the PCA entitlement data.

A developing approach

• Issues above demonstrate importance of Entitlement Registry

• Balance costs of collecting historical data vs practicality of starting with current data

• The Entitlement Registry likely to be based on a two-pronged strategy– continue working to find the best workflow

regarding the historical data 2011-backwards – start keeping records of the data from 2012-forward

KNOWLEDGE BASE+

Addressing issues with ERMData• Accuracy• Availability

Interoperability• Data silos and flows• Implementation of standards

Workflows• Generality vs granularity

Duplication of effort • Population of knowledge bases• Maintenance of link resolvers

Leverage investment • Improve quality of data for all

Openness• Technology• Data• Relationships –UK, international, suppliers

Prioritise existing issues• Save time and money from the outset

Cohesive activity, tools and services• JISC services• Commercial and non-commercial suppliers• Academic institutions

Approach

Data

Accurate Authoritative Structured Validated Timely

Publication Information

Link Resolvers

Knowledge Bases

Usage Statistics

JUSP Analysis Tools

Entitlements

Entitlement Registry

Licences

Licence Comparison

Tool

Standards

Usage

SUSHI COUNTER

Publication Information

ONIX for Serials KBART

Licence Management

ONIX-PL

Identifiers

Authority files

InteroperabilityData

ExchangeData

Maintenance

JISC Services

Supplier Systems

Local Systems

Open Source

Investing in the enhancement and improvement of existing services whilst supporting

the needs and viability of local systems

ERM as Co-ordination of Effort

Shared Community Activity

Prioritisation Data Maintenance

Data Verification

Workflows and

Allocation

How do we ensure that benefits outweigh the investment of staff time?

Quality Assurance

KB+Verification

Title lists

Holdings

Licences

Usage statistics

Alerts

Workflow

Publisher Information

JUSP

Subscription Agents

LMS & ERM Suppliers

Entitlement Registry

Authority Files

Data Sources

Shared CommunityActivity

Standards Adoption

Business & Legal Model

Academic Institutions

Phase One Deliverables

THANK YOU