A. Usage Data: What It Does and Does Not Show
One of the great advantages of electronic publishing has been the facility of collecting usage data. No longer dependent on anecdotal or unreliable methods for trying to determine the frequency of use of journals (e.g., counting unshelved print copies of a title), librarians and publishers have been given the ability to determine precisely how frequently, when, where and in some cases, by whom, licensed electronic content is used. Further, it is possible, often, to determine through what source a user came to the publisher’s content, whether from browsing or searching the publisher’s own service or through an abstracting and indexing (A&I) service or a CrossRef (see below) link within a reference.
It remains difficult to answer many questions about use with currently collected data, includingwhya user selected certain material, or what he or she gained, if anything, from it. Beyond “value,” how can we measure effectiveness? Despite these persistent questions, usage data can inform both economic and editorial decisions for both publishers and librarians.
A caveat is worth noting. Usage of licensed electronic materials has grown dramatically over a very short period. This rate of growth will be inevitably slower as the number of libraries providing access and the number of titles available electronically stabilizes. Given this, one example illustrates the need for caution in trying to interpret usage statistics: from 1998 to 2001, OhioLINK growth of use of electronic journals (in full-text downloads) increased by 464%; during the same time period, average serial costs (across disciplines) increased by 23.1% (ARL, 2001 – 2002). Thus, one could conclude that relative to use, electronic journals provide good value for money. Conversely, OhioLINK statistics show that during a 1-year period
beginning in April 1999, 85% of use of electronic journals in OhioLINK’s collection came from 40% of the available titles (Tenopir, 2003, p. 19). The lesser-used titles might be targeted first if subscription cancellations are necessary.
Usage data tell publishers how users access information given a variety of access options. At the same time, all usage is not the same. One download is not necessarily the same as another download. Utility to the user cannot be measured with available statistics, so usage must be considered within the context of other conditions. Usage is also an artifact. It tells only what has come before; it provides no insight into the future. As research interests tend to change frequently, those trying to make decisions (whether editorial or economic) using historical usage data must also consider other salient environmental data specific to their institution and user community.
B. Usage Data and Publishing Decisions
Usage trends can and do inform publishing decisions. Trends in usage indicate subject areas in which research is apparently headed, and this can lead publishers to anticipate growing demand. Publishers can use these data as a factor in deciding subject areas in which to expand their offerings: as a result, we have seen additional publications in fields such as proteomics, genomics, bioinformatics, and fuel cells. In the past 3 years, although it is a difficult economic environment for starting new journals, Wiley has launched journals with titles such as these:Chemistry and Biodiversity, Comparative and Functional Genomics, Engineering in the Life Sciences, Fuel Cells, Functional Genomics, Gene Function and Disease, Journal of Genetic Medicine,andProteomics (seehttp://www.interscience.wiley.com).
In medicine and the life sciences, usage data inform decisions about what areas to speak with scientists about, and potentially point to journal content to acquire and what functionality should be supported with additional investment. For example, usage data show that a high proportion of users
“land” on full-text articles as a result of searches in abstracting and indexing sources. Clearly, abstracts have value, and with the concurrent emergence of handheld technologies, it seems apparent that abstracts delivered to the palm would be popular. Physicians were rapid adopters of handheld technologies, and this has led some publishers to choose medical titles as the first titles to offer downloadable abstracts for use on handheld devices. For example, Wiley currently offers the tables of contents and abstracts of articles in 23 medical journals delivered to Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs); see http://www3.
interscience.wiley.com/aboutus/mobileedition.html.
C. Usage Data and Pricing
Usage data are emerging as an important aspect of discussions about the pricing of electronic information. Librarians, armed with title-by-title costs of journals and other electronic content, are scrutinizing their collections in new ways, asking tough questions of those information providers whose costs are perceived to be above the norm. Publishers too are using these data to support the assertion that electronic content has been widely adopted by users, and that this should encourage renewed long-term commitments to journal packages.
Alternatively, usage data can precipitate new pricing models. These have so far been of two types: pure usage, and a hybrid of usage and subscriptions.
“Pure” usage-based models can work in various ways. Perhaps the most extreme in terms of its difference from currently available pricing schema would have no predetermined conditions. Access to content would be purely discretionary and consumers would pay “as they go.” In this scenario, consumers (whether institution or individual) would have no obligation to any set amount of consumption. They would decide on an ad hoc basis when to select content for which they would pay a set fee which could be the same for all of a publisher’s titles, or could vary depending on the title or medium, for example, book chapters could be available at a different rate per download than journal articles.
A variation on this model is that the consumer could be offered favorable pricing terms in exchange for an up-front commitment to a certain amount of downloading. In exchange, publishers would be willing to offer lower per unit prices. This reduces costs, but also flexibility to control spending. Some databases are priced this way.
A hybrid approach may be the best solution. For example, a library could pay a set subscription-based fee for access to some titles and at the same time buy access to unsubscribed content on an as-needed basis. Striking the right balance between these two pricing models is a challenge facing collection development librarians and publishers.
The 80/20 rule may apply to the use of scientific and other professional content, but it would be antithetical to the good of science to suggest that publishers should only publish the 20% of currently available journals that are most heavily used. No matter how reasonable a pricing model may be, purely economic analysis does not necessarily work when considered alongside the mission of STM publishers and librarians: the dissemination of important scholarship. By making the initial investments in start-up journals that may or may not succeed, publishers take a risk because they consider the content being produced important. Concurrently, librarians pay more, relatively, for less critical journals. Publishers and libraries value
the good of science more than strict economic rationality to ensure that highly specialized, little-used research material continues to be published and collected.
The argument against the Big Deal is that the deal protects “lesser- quality” journals. This goes to the heart of the central questions in collection development. Who is to determine what content is worth supporting, and should librarians give users what they want, or what the librarian thinks they need?
Librarians and publishers can work together to ensure that the content being published, and the methods used to acquire access to it, evolve to meet the dynamic needs of the users we both serve.