[Eril-l] now: print vs. e stats (was: Cost per use from COUNTER 5 Ebook reports)

Thu Nov 18 11:55:24 PST 2021

Naomi Baron, Professor of Linguistics at American University, has written fairly extensively on reading print vs. online. Words onscreen: The fate of reading in the digital world  (2015) and How we read now: Strategic choices for print, screen, and audio (2021) are both well-researched and excellent reads on the ways the reading medium impacts comprehension and learning.
Susan

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Susan E. Beck
Professor & Scholarly Communications/OER Librarian

New Mexico State University Library
MSC 3475 Box 30006
Las Cruces NM 88003-8006
575-646-2869 (o)
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"To every complex problem, there is a simple answer: neat, plausible, and wrong" H.L. Mencken

Land Acknowledgment: New Mexico State University honors Native American knowledges and world-views based on intimate relationships to the natural world. The genesis of the Southwest Indigenous Peoples, including the Pueblo, Navajo, and Apache, established their guardianship of the lands now occupied by New Mexico State University. As the state’s Land-Grant University, we acknowledge and respect the sovereign Indian Nations and Indigenous Peoples. We pledge to have a meaningful and respectful relationship with the sovereign Indian Nations, Indigenous communities, and Native American Peoples within the institution.
________________________________
From: Eril-l <eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org> on behalf of Steve Oberg <steve.oberg at wheaton.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 12:27 PM
To: eril-l at lists.eril-l.org <eril-l at lists.eril-l.org>
Subject: Re: [Eril-l] now: print vs. e stats (was: Cost per use from COUNTER 5 Ebook reports)

WARNING: This email originated external to the NMSU email system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Bob and others,

I’m a bit embarrassed by the typos from my previous email. Oh well. But, thank you for your reply. I think you make some good points. I’d also argue that there is a strong belief, backed up by research studies, about the primacy of print book reading for reading retention and long form reading. Personally, I think that is (in the broad scheme of things) a temporary advantage, and one that is eroding the further we move into e-resources as the norm. Anecdotally, I interact with a lot of grad students (and teach a lot of them in the iSchool at Illinois) who have already made this transition and actively prefer e over print for their research needs, including for long form reading.

I believe and look for further technological improvements to the online reading experience that will help in this transition, too.

However, I don’t want to give the impression that I am anti-print or anti-physical library materials. I really am not. Too often in such discussions, there is an either/or approach, when in reality, I think it is both/and.

What troubles me, though, is how (relatively) small our investment is in marshalling workflows and systems toward paying close attention to e-resources (including website(s), etc.) in comparison to the ways in which we continue to prop up and support physical resources. In my local case, we have not had as precipitous drop in physical material circulation numbers as many, but there still is a perceptible longitudinal decline. So, are we distributing our resources where the community use/need is the greatest now and for the foreseeable future? In terms of collections budget, I think yes, but in terms of other resources and services, including how we staff our services, often, I am not sure we’ve gone far enough to inculcate a greater emphasis on supporting e-resources use.

Steve

Steve Oberg

Assistant Professor and Group Leader for Acquisitions and Discovery Services

Buswell Library | Wheaton College (IL) | +1 (630) 752-5852

From: Robert Boissy <robert.boissy at springernature.com>
Date: Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 11:35 AM
To: Steve Oberg <steve.oberg at wheaton.edu>, eril-l at lists.eril-l.org <eril-l at lists.eril-l.org>
Subject: RE: now: print vs. e stats (was: Cost per use from COUNTER 5 Ebook reports)

I sense that some feel that print is more important because it relates best to long-form reading, as in reading whole books.  I think it is true that the print book wins when it comes to long form reading, but when was that kind of reading awarded more importance than, say, discovering digital content quickly that answers a question, and helps complete a bit of research, a work assignment, a grant, or just answers a question?  The power of faster and more comprehensive discovery and therefore faster use in practice is clearly in the hands of the digital content.  They serve different purposes.  If I want to read a novel, I turn to print.  If I want to analyze the same novel, digital serves me better.  If I want to see if there is consensus on clinical treatment of a certain specific medical condition in a certain specific age group, I want digital every time.  If I am a freshman in college studying for my biology midterm, I probably want that fat biology textbook in print (if I can afford it).  But if I am a junior in my dorm at midnight needing to write a paper on consequences of the Revolt of the Ciompi in 1378 Florence, due tomorrow at 9am, I am badly in need of digital resources for cutting and pasting of evidence for my assertions and I need citations in the right format right away.  Print avails me little in this situation, even if I did check out every book I could find on the subject already.

I think there is also a mistaken projection by some librarians of personal reading preferences for relaxation and enjoyment onto all sorts of learning and research tasks by students and faculty.  You can make an assertion, if you like, that long form print reading is the only “true reading” and traditionalists around the world would clap.  But that is not what libraries are primarily designed for.  They are designed to serve the needs of their community.  So if the need is for rapid discovery, use, and output of new knowledge, digital serves that need.  If the need also includes print for long form reading by individuals whose research interests are best served that way, so be it.

For me, I wish there were cascades of digital resources available to me in college in 1980 when I had to write that paper on consequences of the Revolt of the Ciompi in 1378 Florence.  Luckily I was too nervous to be a procrastinator.

-Bob

---

Robert Boissy, Lifelong Learner

and

Director of Account Development

Institutional Sales and Marketing

Springer Nature

1 New York Plaza, 1 FDR Drive, New York NY 10004

T   +1 (212) 726 9624

M  +1 (781) 244 7918

robert.boissy at springernature.com

www.springernature.com<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.springernature.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Csusabeck%40nmsu.edu%7C92047c959c49437841e908d9aac971f9%7Ca3ec87a89fb84158ba8ff11bace1ebaa%7C1%7C0%7C637728604454264275%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=1tVlzN9A%2F10KV3PK3JNeNsOItENGgSPpeovc3nUyp4o%3D&reserved=0>

---

For self service help try support.springernature.com or write to onlineservice at springernature.com

Springer Nature advances discovery by publishing robust and insightful research, supporting the development of new areas of knowledge and making ideas and information accessible around the world. We provide the best possible service to the whole research community.

From: Eril-l <eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org> On Behalf Of Steve Oberg
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2021 11:33 AM
To: eril-l at lists.eril-l.org
Subject: [Eril-l] now: print vs. e stats (was: Cost per use from COUNTER 5 Ebook reports)

[External - Use Caution]

Melissa’s comment about anti-e-book stats reminds me of a puzzling phenomenon I’ve experience a lot in my current environment, in fact, since the day I first started. I am no longer directly involved in ERM but it’s a part of the group I oversee. Since I came here, I’ve made the case, over and over again, that the use of e-resources dwarfs all other use metrics, including for print. And this has continued to be the case for years. In addition, I’ve pointed out how much money we spend on e-resources vs. print or physical materials. The conclusion is that we better pay much better attention to managing our e-resources.

Yet there has been a curious resistance to that narrative that manifests in multiple ways: not enough (in my opinion) staffing devoted to ERM, a doubling down of an attitude that is something like “how great we are because we still buy so much in print,” an attempt to discredit e-resources usage data by claiming it is manipulated and overblown and therefore not trustworthy*, and an absence of mention of e-resource usage in a library-wide assessment plan.

It’s like there are librarians who are simply in denial about the important **to our users** of e-resources. So weird.

Steve

Steve Oberg

Assistant Professor and Group Leader for Acquisitions and Discovery Services

Buswell Library | Wheaton College (IL) | +1 (630) 752-5852

* Mistrust was justified by this C&RL article: https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/17824/19653<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fcrl.acrl.org%2Findex.php%2Fcrl%2Farticle%2Fview%2F17824%2F19653__%3B!!NLFGqXoFfo8MMQ!-gMVXOAWmiXm-OdnKa7IDkkwmKRXUNHY_v704LakmXaLjmM5YZs7e9hohQM9qtay-1hmy_AR%24&data=04%7C01%7Csusabeck%40nmsu.edu%7C92047c959c49437841e908d9aac971f9%7Ca3ec87a89fb84158ba8ff11bace1ebaa%7C1%7C0%7C637728604454274232%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=I89cC0812eAf%2F%2FWMP%2BcJvEXHelm%2F5%2B3lnfOjlwG3ULU%3D&reserved=0>

From: Eril-l <eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org>> on behalf of Melissa Belvadi <mbelvadi at upei.ca<mailto:mbelvadi at upei.ca>>
Date: Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 9:57 AM
To: Fry, Amy <amyfry at illinois.edu<mailto:amyfry at illinois.edu>>, Harper, Cynthia <charper at vts.edu<mailto:charper at vts.edu>>, Sarah Glasser <Sarah.Glasser at hofstra.edu<mailto:Sarah.Glasser at hofstra.edu>>, eril-l at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:eril-l at lists.eril-l.org> <eril-l at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:eril-l at lists.eril-l.org>>
Subject: Re: [Eril-l] Cost per use from COUNTER 5 Ebook reports

Another reason to use unique_title_requests compared with unique_item_requests for ebooks is that some providers only allow the user download one chapter at a time, but others allow both individual chapter downloads and also the entire ebook as a single PDF. There has been a lot of debate about whether the provider should count that entire ebook download as just 1 item requested, or count the number of chapters and count that many. At this point, you can't know vendor by vendor which way they are handling that.  But you can count on unique_title_request to count it all as 1 use for sure.

Librarians have been debating the issue of print-circulation equivalency to ANY ebook metrics pretty much since ebooks became popular.

Unique_title_requests have been COP5's way of addressing at least some of the objections to drawing those equivalencies.

But I know some anti-ebook librarians are going to refuse to accept ANY metric.

Melissa Belvadi

Collections Librarian

University of Prince Edward Island

mbelvadi at upei.ca<mailto:mbelvadi at upei.ca>  902-566-0581

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4433-0189

________________________________

From: Eril-l <eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org>> on behalf of Fry, Amy <amyfry at illinois.edu<mailto:amyfry at illinois.edu>>
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 6:02 PM
To: Harper, Cynthia <charper at vts.edu<mailto:charper at vts.edu>>; Sarah Glasser <Sarah.Glasser at hofstra.edu<mailto:Sarah.Glasser at hofstra.edu>>; eril-l at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:eril-l at lists.eril-l.org> <eril-l at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:eril-l at lists.eril-l.org>>
Subject: Re: [Eril-l] Cost per use from COUNTER 5 Ebook reports

WARNING: The sender of this email could not be verified and may not match the person in the 'FROM' field. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you are uncertain, please forward to phishing at upei.ca<mailto:phishing at upei.ca> and delete this email.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of UPEI. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you are uncertain, please forward to phishing at upei.ca<mailto:phishing at upei.ca> and delete this email.

In my experience, the numbers for unique title requests and total requests are very similar – unless they aren’t. If you look at the numbers month by month, they mostly correlate and then sometimes there will be one month where there’s WAY more in total, and I’m not quite sure why.

I think Cynthia is correct, that the way it counts unique uses is not precise enough to make that much difference. I don’t think unique would be like a print circulation – I wouldn’t compare those numbers directly for sure. I have usually gone with total, myself, assuming a use is a use, whether it’s by the same person or not.

I think this is one of the things that makes COUNTER 5 so confusing – instead of clearing up confusion, the additional data just creates more questions and makes me not sure what to think.

I think as long as you’re consistent in which count you use, and don’t try to compare the numbers to COUNTER 4, then you’re doing the best you can.

I like to see how many titles are used, myself, and maybe how many months they got used. Neither of those are official COUNTER numbers, but I think they give me a better picture of how the ebooks are doing (compared to other ebooks) and how likely they are to be used again than how many item requests one book gets in one year, given how weird that number can be.

Amy Fry

Associate Professor, E-Resources Management Librarian

Acquisitions & Cataloging Services

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

217.265.9480

amyfry at illinois.edu<mailto:amyfry at illinois.edu>

https://experts.illinois.edu/en/persons/amy-lynn-fry<https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fnam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps*3A*2F*2Fexperts.illinois.edu*2Fen*2Fpersons*2Famy-lynn-fry%26data%3D04*7C01*7Csteve.oberg*40wheaton.edu*7C4d480f2e41be48a8285908d9aaac138a*7Cb7098c8ac6b24e8bba4c872cf5f00a20*7C0*7C0*7C637728478454585580*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C0%26sdata%3DWTR36LOM2SWvz7M4p7ROyDsHsY9CoZR0oYY2pQBam88*3D%26reserved%3D0__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJQ!!NLFGqXoFfo8MMQ!-gMVXOAWmiXm-OdnKa7IDkkwmKRXUNHY_v704LakmXaLjmM5YZs7e9hohQM9qtay-xUrxZHQ%24&data=04%7C01%7Csusabeck%40nmsu.edu%7C92047c959c49437841e908d9aac971f9%7Ca3ec87a89fb84158ba8ff11bace1ebaa%7C1%7C0%7C637728604454284192%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=1lpLuDkEht3Prc343Da7JVzdF%2FKBeOKax6elN18F7mQ%3D&reserved=0>

From: Eril-l <eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org>> On Behalf Of Harper, Cynthia
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 2:39 PM
To: Sarah Glasser <Sarah.Glasser at hofstra.edu<mailto:Sarah.Glasser at hofstra.edu>>; eril-l at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:eril-l at lists.eril-l.org>
Subject: Re: [Eril-l] Cost per use from COUNTER 5 Ebook reports

But none of the COUNTER 5 metrics can show that person A used Ebook X for 5 sessions, and person B used it over 8 different sessions, and count that as 2 uses, correct?

Thanks,

Cindy

From: Sarah Glasser <Sarah.Glasser at hofstra.edu<mailto:Sarah.Glasser at hofstra.edu>>
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 3:22 PM
To: Harper, Cynthia <charper at vts.edu<mailto:charper at vts.edu>>; eril-l at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:eril-l at lists.eril-l.org>
Subject: RE: Cost per use from COUNTER 5 Ebook reports

Hi Cindy,

At my library we decided to use the metric Unique_Title_Request for e-books because it is more in line with a print book circulation (i.e. a use of the book regardless of whether the patron used one or ten chapters). I think the unique-item-requests counts chapter/section use (the “item” can be either an entire book or a chapter).  On page 10 of the Friendly COUNTER 5 guide for books (attached – not sure attachment will come through distribution list but sending to your email too), it suggests using the Unique_Title_Request for calculating cost per usage.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Sally

**************************************
Sarah (Sally) Glasser
Serials and E-Resources Librarian
Axinn Library-Hofstra University
Hempstead, NY  11549

From: Eril-l <eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:eril-l-bounces at lists.eril-l.org>> On Behalf Of Harper, Cynthia
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 3:07 PM
To: eril-l at lists.eril-l.org<mailto:eril-l at lists.eril-l.org>
Subject: [Eril-l] Cost per use from COUNTER 5 Ebook reports

EXTERNAL MESSAGE

Hello – I am just realizing I may not be computing the unique titles used/requested for an ebook resource properly.

In the past, I have taken the number of titles mentioned in a TR report as the unique ebooks – what we would have had to purchase as firmorders if we wanted to replace the use we got from the subscription.

At first, I thought that that’s what Unique_Item_Requests represented when I started using COUNTER 5 Report Tool. Now that I read the definition, I’m not so sure.  I haven’t gone back in and compared the number of titles in my TR report to the Uniquet_Item_Requests in my PR reports, but I suspect they’re not the same. And if I had used Unique_Title_Requests, would that have been better? Can anyone shed light on this please?

EBOOK USAGE AND COST PER USE

Jan-Oct.

10-month price

Jan-Oct.

platform

data_type

metric_type

year

reporting_period_total

subscr price

Firmorder cost 2021

Cost per Use

BloomsburyCollections

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

92

$ 95.00

$ 33.19

Brill

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

1

$ -

Cambridge Core

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

146

$ 9.18

De Gruyter Platform

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

6

$ -

EBSCOhost

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

5230

$ 1,307.81

$ 1.10

Grove Music Online

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

9

$ 190.56

JSTOR

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

47

$ -

Manchester University Press

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

6

$ -

Oxford African American Studies Center

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

11

$ 85.91

Oxford Biblical Studies Online

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

274

$ 6.28

Oxford Bibliographies

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

33

$ 10.83

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

34

$ 45.64

Oxford English Dictionary

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

735

$ 0.54

Oxford Handbooks Online

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

178

$ 8.82

Oxford Reference

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

1

$ -

Oxford Research Encyclopedias

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

6

$ -

Oxford Scholarship Online

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

11

$ -

ProQuest

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

3

$ -

ProQuest Ebook Central

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

3036

$ 2,831.94

$ 3.41

Project MUSE

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

1218

486.25

$ 1.77

Wiley Online Library

Book

Unique_Item_Requests

2021

2

$ -

Cindy Harper

Electronic Services and Periodicals Librarian

Virginia Theological Seminary, Box 159

3737 Seminary Road

Alexandria, VA 22304

charper at vts.edu<mailto:charper at vts.edu>

(703)461-1794

**** CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Hofstra University. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ****
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.eril-l.org/pipermail/eril-l-eril-l.org/attachments/20211118/58aa805a/attachment.html>