dear all,
In general I am not impressed by the number of accesses to a specific
journal or the statistics of downloads.
I remember having seen an interesting figure of the (top 10 or more)
highest numbers of dowloaded articles from a publisher: several were
articles of our institute authored by our own staff!!
This shows that downloads are not only because our staff need access
to information, but use the convenience of the online archive for
providing copings to their colleagues (replacing the good old
reprints....).
Also I remember me verifying the bibliography of my institute: at that
time there was a peak showing there were in a month more than 300
full text downloads (this was in the early days, a couple of years
ago. These examples to proof that not all downloads are the
replacement of ILL.
If journal titles are never accessed and have no downloads at all,
then it is time to have a detailed look and wonder why.
Personally I prefer to check the journals in which my staff publishes
and the journals they cite in their articles.
http://www.meduniwien.ac.at/agmb/mbi/2002_1/39-40.pdf
Best regards,
Suzanne Bakker
Netherlands Cancer Institute
Amsterdam
On Jun 29, 2009, at 4:49 PM, Paula Younger wrote:
> 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
|