Internally we are looking at cost per full text download for full text
databases, compared two ways, one is just looking at total package cost
as the only comparator, the other way we are exploring is what is the
cost on the publisher's website per item for regular non-affiliated
users to purchase one off. What would our cost be without the package?
Quite often the cost per article is given on the publisher's website.
But I like the idea of using BL's pricing, or CISTI, for example as a
benchmark.
For A&I's the metric we are trying to use is searches, i.e. cost per
search and if that's not available, sessions are a much weaker measure
IMO.
I like to look at the most expensive packages overall to see what's
happening as a basis for thinking about the other packages, where they
fall. It turns out the most expensive packages can fall anywhere, from
highest to medium, to lowest cost per use. Each MIGHT be appropriate.
Highest cost per full text download might be in a focused research area
bringing in lots of research dollars, for example, and be a perfectly
appropriate use of local funds.
High medium and low depends on what the overall contours are of local
usage/cost factors. I would guess they are significantly different by
type and size of institutions, i.e. the local mission, researchers,
student body, etc. will impact cost per use. What's appropriate cost per
use for a particular package for a specialized research institute or
specialist research area would be quite different than for a general
purpose university. It's all a work in progress! I wouldn't, for
example, compare an aggregator's cost per use to a specialist provider's
cost per use or a "broad band" publisher to a specialist publisher
without some heavy weighting for local needs.
Interpretation needs approached with a great deal of sensitivity to the
vagaries not only of the information sources properties,
characteristics, but also the local institution's goals and
peculiarities.
I would like to see national or at least regional (consortia? level) or
institution type (Carnegie classification?) cost per use developed as a
benchmark for each package, or publisher. Getting benchmarks from other
institutions is the almost impossible piece of the comparison puzzle at
the moment. I think its fairer to use cost per download or per search
than the overall cost for a subscription package, for instance, as that
normally just means what was the historic spend on the package. And
because it takes time for a package to become "viable" in a particular
setting, looking at up to 3 years data to see the comparison over time,
to notice trends, to get a really good sense of what's happening with a
particular package.
But if publisher's won't agree to us sharing info on cost per use, the
historic spend may be what is by elimination, the only viable cross
institutional comparison. I think it is a poor proxy and would serve
both publishers and libraries poorly in both the long and short term.
See: Elsevier Fails to Block Release of Its Licensing Contract with
Washington State University
http://digital-scholarship.org/digitalkoans/2009/06/23/elsevier-fails-to
-block-release-of-its-licensing-contract-with-washington-state-universit
y/
for a recent development in this area.
Chuck Hamaker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Charles Hamaker M.L.I.S | Associate University Librarian Collections and
Technical Services
UNC Charlotte | J. Murrey Atkins Library
9201 University City Blvd. | Charlotte, NC 28223
Phone: 704-687-2825 | Fax: 704-687-2322
[log in to unmask] | http://library.uncc.edu/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission or a person
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or other use of any of the information in this
transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, please notify me immediately by reply e-mail or
by telephone at 704-687-2825. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: An informal open list set up by UKSG - Connecting the Information
Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paula
Younger
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 10:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [LIS-E-RESOURCES] Evaluating statistics
Hi Natalie
I'd be thrilled if anyone comes up with a solution to this too!
One of the aspects I look at when we compile our annual statistics is
how much the online subscription is costing us, and how much it would
have cost to obtain that number of articles via British Library; that
does at least give something of a benchmark.
Paula.
Paula Younger
Electronic Resources Librarian
Exeter Health Library
Royal Devon & Exeter Foundation Trust
Peninsula Medical School Building
Barrack Road
Exeter
EX2 5DW
Tel: 01392 406729
Fax: 01392 406728
Email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: An informal open list set up by UKSG - Connecting the Information
Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Natalie
Pope
Sent: 29 June 2009 09:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [LIS-E-RESOURCES] FW: Evaluating statistics
Good morning,
I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before on the list but I would
really appreciate any suggestions or advice. We are currently reviewing
our usage statistics and looking into levels of usage in terms of making
our stats more meaningful. Would anyone on the list be willing to share
what they use as a general measure or system to indicate what makes a
journal or database 'high' 'medium' or 'low' usage? Is there an accepted
benchmark for this sort of evaluation?
We are also considering whether A&I databases should be evaluated using
the same criteria as full text ejournals. And if anyone has any
suggestions here I'd be really grateful.
Any feedback would be much appreciated. If there is enough I'd be happy
to formulate responses into a report for the list if that would be
useful.
Many thanks,
Natalie
*********************************
Natalie Pope
Library and Information Serivces
The Natural History Museum
London. SW7 5BD
Tel: +44 (0) 207 942 5685
Email: [log in to unmask]
lis-e-resources is a UKSG list - http://www.uksg.org/serials UKSG groups
also available on Facebook and LinkedIn
lis-e-resources is a UKSG list - http://www.uksg.org/serials
UKSG groups also available on Facebook and LinkedIn
lis-e-resources is a UKSG list - http://www.uksg.org/serials
UKSG groups also available on Facebook and LinkedIn
|
