COUNTER: from conception to compliance

COUNTER was formally launched in March 2002. Within a year Release 1 of the COUNTER Code of Practice had been published, and a number of leading publishers were working towards making their usage reports COUNTER‐compliant. This article describes the background to COUNTER, the main features of the Code of Practice, the current status of its implementation and the next steps for the project. It also stresses the particular benefits to publishers of COUNTER compliance and of COUNTER membership.     

Project Transfer: A Publisher's Perspective

The Transfer Code of Conduct is designed to improve the process of journal transfer between publishers. It was launched by the UKSG (United Kingdom Serials Group) in May 2007. Taylor & Francis is one of eight publishers to support the project. It is different from previous initiatives in that it was created by publishers, librarians, and intermediaries, and it aims to provide a firmer, more practical set of guidelines than those that have been published previously. Despite a strong initial take-up, the Code has not yet been endorsed by some of the larger publishers and trade bodies. These organizations are now working with Transfer to re-draft the Code of Conduct. Once this is in place, further measures are planned to track journal transfer and monitor compliance. Long-term governance of Transfer is also being considered.     

COUNTER Release 5: What’s New and What It Means to Libraries

A new release of the COUNTER Code of Practice, Release 5 (R5), was recently published and becomes the standard that publishers and content providers must comply with when they deliver the January 2019 usage data to their customers. This article provides an overview of what’s new in R5, draws some comparisons to the previous code of practice, and discusses the implications for librarians.     

SUSHI: simplifying the delivery of usage statistics

In 2005, SUSHI became the latest buzzword in the library community. This article (and this kind of SUSHI) refers to usage data, not raw fish. The growth of online collections has resulted in libraries demanding that publishers provide detailed usage data to allow them to better manage their collections and purchases. The Project COUNTER Code of Practice was created in response to this need; however, it did not address the painstaking task of collection and management of the usage data. SUSHI is a new protocol developed to allow for automated retrieval of COUNTER usage reports from publishers and other content providers.     

Print versus electronic journals: a preliminary investigation into the effect of journal format on research processes

Purpose: To begin investigating the impact of electronic journals on research processes such as information seeking, the authors conducted a pilot journal-use study to test the hypothesis that patrons use print and electronic journals differently.Methodology: We placed fifteen high-use print titles also available in electronic format behind the circulation desk; patrons were asked to complete a survey upon requesting a journal. We also conducted a parallel survey of patrons using library computers. Both surveys asked patrons to identify themselves by user category and queried them about their journal use.Results: During the month-long study, patrons completed sixty-nine surveys of electronic and ninety surveys of print journal use. Results analysis indicated that fellows, students, and residents preferred electronic journals, and faculty preferred print journals. Patrons used print journals for reading articles and scanning contents; they employed electronic journals for printing articles and checking references. Users considered electronic journals easier to access and search than print journals; however, they reported that print journals had higher quality text and figures.Discussion/Conclusion: This study is an introductory step in examining how electronic journals affect research processes. Our data revealed that there were distinct preferences in format among categories. In addition to collection management implications for libraries, these data also have implications for publishers and educators; current electronic formats do not facilitate all types of uses and thus may be changing learning patterns as well.     

An Update from the TRANSFER Working Group

TRANSFER is an initiative of the UK Serials Group (UKSG) that seeks to address the issues that can arise when journals change publishers. The TRANSFER Code of Practice, first released in 2008, has made some important strides in improving the process by which journals transfer from one publisher to another. There is still much work to be done, and the TRANSFER Working Group is committed to continuing to develop and disseminate procedures and policies surrounding the transfer of journals between publishers so that the annual movement of journals causes less disruption for all parties involved.     

Introduction to Usus,a Community Website on Library Usage,and a Discussion about COUNTER 4

Established in 2014, Usus (Latin for usage), supported by Counting Online Usage of NeTworked Electronic Resources (COUNTER), but editorially independent, is a community-run website designed to provide a space for librarians, consortia, publishers, aggregators, repository managers, and scholars to discuss all aspects of usage, including particular ways that use is measured. In this session, Usus Supervisory Board members provided an introduction to Usus, outlined the purpose of the community-run site, and discussed how librarians may utilize the site to submit ongoing and complex usage issues. In addition, the presenters engaged attendees in discussing specific e-resource usage issues they have encountered as well as report changes and additions in the recently released COUNTER Code of Practice 4.     

COUNTER--网络化电子资源使用统计的新标准

自《COUNTER实施规范》于2002年3月发布以来,已为越来越多的出版商所采用,作为规范电子资源利用统计数据的采集、报告和传递的标准,图书馆有了更可靠、稳定的依据来评价和比较本馆电子资源的价值和使用情况。文章详细介绍了该规范的起源、核心内容及其发展动向。     

Evolution of the Transfer Code of Practice

The Transfer Code of Practice was launched in 2008 as a set of best‐practice guidelines to be followed when a journal changes publisher, with the aim of ensuring uninterrupted access to content for subscribers. The Code has now been updated to reflect the continued evolution of the academic publishing process driven by new technologies, policies, and publishing practices.     

Project Transfer comes of age?

The Transfer Code of Practice, first released in 2008, is a set of recommendations that establishes a baseline level of quality and performance in the event that a journal changes publisher. 2012 will see new developments from the Transfer Working Group, but there is still more work to be done to inform and educate all of the various constituencies involved in the journal transfer process.     

Content management for journal publishers

Despite the dot‐com downturn, content management software continues to grow in popularity. What began as a niche product for publishers, or as a means of managing large websites, has become touted as a universal panacea for every kind of organization that creates, holds or disseminates content – and since a website is a form of publication, this means pretty much any organization. How relevant is content management to journal publishers? With over 150 competing content management products available in the UK, content and document management systems are not difficult to find (although perhaps difficult to choose). But do they meet a need? Do they provide a clear return on investment? Or are they simply the latest in a long line of management and business fads, the next big thing? To answer these questions, the author created a questionnaire for journal publishers, and then carried out follow‐up interviews with key people in the relevant organization. His aim was to discover if content management software was felt relevant to journal publishers, and exactly what their interest was.     

Journal publishing systems: outsource or in‐house?

This article describes a framework to help publishers decide whether they should develop and host their own proprietary online journal system, or whether they should outsource this activity. We also suggest a practical high‐level checklist for comparing journal systems.     

研究数据使用统计新标准及其应用案例研究

[目的/意义]介绍Make Data Count与COUNTER联合推出的《研究数据使用统计实施规范》，为数据级别计量提供新指标与新视角。[方法/过程]通过对标准文本的分析，介绍该规范的提出背景、目标、范围、相关概念及核心内容，通过案例剖析Dash、DataONE、Zenodo及其他7个数据存储库对《规范》的应用情况。[结果/结论]研究数据的使用统计具有其独特之处，《规范》的推出可对数据引用及数据替代计量形成补充进而描述完整的科研学术影响力。目前遵循该规范的数据存储库还不多，为推动数据使用计量的应用，需要标准组织、科研人员、机构库及数据存储库、出版商、科研机构及资助机构、图书馆等不同利益相关者在数据产生、管理、传播与利用等环节的相互合作。     

The extent of concentration in journal publishing

This study examines the extent of concentration in the journal publishing industry. A number of aspects are considered: publishers, journal impacts, countries, and languages. For journals indexed in JCR from 1997 to 2009, just 0.2% of publishers produce 50% of journals and articles, and 0.3% of publishers account for the top 50% of citations, impact factors and immediacy indices. More than a half of publishers in JCR are from four countries: USA, UK, Germany and Japan. In addition, more than a half of journals come from the USA and UK. Examining the publishers' interactions in terms of buying and selling journals shows the extent of change by acquisition, and the acquisition links between publishers. The findings confirm that the international market of journal publishing is essentially dominated by a few publishers.     

Article and book reading patterns of scholars: findings for publishers

Surveys of academic staff in six universities in the UK provide insights for publishers into scholarly article and book reading patterns of academics and differences based on personal characteristics of readers. These surveys were part of the 2011 UK Scholarly Reading and the Value of the Library Study funded by JISC Collections and based on studies conducted by Tenopir and King since 1977. Scholarly articles, especially those obtained from the library's e‐journal collections, are a vital part of academic work. Reading patterns of books are quite different than articles; books most often come from personal print collections. Book readings are still important for research and teaching, however, especially for humanists. Academics come into contact with multiple sources of information every day and therefore, convenience and easy access are important factors. Knowing more about academic reading patterns helps publishers and librarians design more effective journal systems and services now and into the future.     

The role of learned societies in national scholarly publishing

This study examines the role of learned societies as publishers in Finland based on bibliographic information from two Finnish databases. We studied the share of learned societies' peer‐reviewed publication channels (serials with ISSNs and book publishers with distinct ISBN roots) and outputs (journal articles, conference articles, book articles, and monographs) in Finland. We also studied the share of learned societies' open access (OA) publications. In 2018, there were 402 peer‐reviewed publication channels in Finland. In 2011–2017, the number of peer‐reviewed publications from scholars working in Finnish universities and published in Finland was 17,724. Learned societies publish around 70% of these channels and publications, mostly in the fields of humanities and social sciences. Learned societies in Finland focus on journal publishing, whereas university presses and commercial publishers focus on book publishing. In 2016–2017, 38.4% of the learned societies' outputs were OA. This study concludes that Finnish learned societies play an integral part in national scholarly publishing. They play an especially important role in journal publishing, as commercial publishers produce only 2.6% of Finnish journals and book series, and only 1.4% of the journal articles from scholars working in Finnish universities.     

Collaborative Journal Purchasing Today: Results of a Survey

Libraries have joined consortia to increase their purchasing power, and in recent years they have been focusing on electronic journal packages. Purchasing a publisher's entire journal list, often called a Big Deal, seemed to be a good answer at first, but many librarians and libraries found that this solution was restrictive on their budgets and detrimental to their collections. In response, publishers became more flexible about allowing libraries to collaborate on the journal title lists. Survey results show that these collaborations are becoming more prevalent because the benefits outweigh the difficulties.     

美国数字化出版侧记

互联网、App、iPhone、iPad的发展是推动数字化出版的主要力量。实践表明,互联网时代,数字化出版是学术出版的发展方向,并且正在成为美国出版商的创办新刊的重要形式和主要收入来源。数字化出版具有流通、获取和阅读便捷,有利于提升论文的影响力。Springer最早开始数字化出版的探索,并已经通过SpringerLink平台出版62种数字化OA期刊。     

The Macro and Micro Scale of Open Access Predation

Having found a business opportunity in exploiting the open access publishing model, predatory journals and publishers have been spamming authors with emails, inviting them to submit articles for publication. Authors may be misled by the names of prestigious authors and editors that predatory journals and publishers use to advertise their publishing services, either by claims that those scientists serve on the editorial boards or by sending invitations in their names. Given the fact that detailed knowledge of a journal is required to make an informed decision of whether the inviting journal is predatory or not, junior scientists are not likely to possess the knowledge or skill to make such decisions. In addition, analysis of the details of new suspicious journals and publishers can be a lengthy process or even a waste of time. Therefore, in this paper, we provide an analysis of a likely scenario that many authors are facing nowadays when they take on the difficult task of studying the details of suspicious journals as possible venues for the publication of their research findings. The analysis takes the form of an analysis of the Kenkyu Publishing Group, which is listed on Jeffrey Beall’s list of “predatory” open access publishers.