Re: Self-archiving, journal usage and cancellations

From: Tim Brody <tdb01r_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 10:05:21 +0100

Sally Morris (ALPSP) wrote:

> Interesting that Stevan chooses to ignore key points in my message:
   IOP
> didn't say 'the opposite' at all - they said subs hadn't been affected
> 'yet'; as Ken Lillywhite's message makes clear, they fully expect
subs to
> suffer as the logical consequence of the fall in downloads - and Bob
> Michaelson's message shows that their fear is justified
>
> Sally


Hi,

I can have a lot of fun with hypothetical scenarios, in particular how
open access could provide more in depth usage and impact analytical
tools for librarians.

The situation now is that journal usage metrics are being used because
it provides easy access to comparative institution-specific information
for user's online 'reading'. (Although is there evidence to show
cancellation based on usage stats?)

So let us suppose that an institution's authors are self-archiving 90%+
their own material into the institutional archive. The librarian can
then discover which journals their authors are :
1) publishing in
2) editing
3) citing

An OpenURL resolver is used that points users automatically at the
journal version (where subscribed), or an author self-archived version
(where available). That resolver will provide the institutional manager
with information on usage, journal interconnectedness etc. The resolver
naturally aggregates open access and subscription content usage. Perhaps
attempts by users to access an unsubscribed journal will be drawn to the
librarian's attention.

The institutional archive records logs of who accesses its content, and
provides those logs to a 3rd party service that aggregates data across
commercial and open access sources. The service then provides summary
reports, as a comparative 'web impact' metric for journals
(/authors/institutions/publishers).


All the best,
Tim
Received on Fri Oct 07 2005 - 12:51:31 BST