JUSP Community Survey 2016

JUSP logo

One of Evidence Base’s bread and butter jobs is to conduct the annual user survey for JUSP, which is the Jisc specialist resource for university or further education college librarians. JUSP tells them about the use of on-line journals or e-books that they have purchased or to which they have subscribed. By using JUSP a librarian can find out whether a certain journal or e-book has been used and how many times. In the old days, when everything was paper it was easy to work out if books had been taken out of the library, and if journals were looking well thumbed, or still in pristine condition because no-one had looked at them. E-resources are a different, with all sorts of possible metrics available you can find out if something has or hasn’t been downloaded, and from which IP address. Of course, it does mean that someone, somewhere has to collect and collate that information. Briefly, JUSP works by using SUSHI to harvest COUNTER statistics and it will then give you reports about the resources used by your institution. Currently, JUSP has a “Journal” portal and an “e-book” portal. If you have no idea what SUSHI and COUNTER mean, don’t worry about it, they are simply a means to an end and I will devote whole posts to explaining them in the future. Meanwhile, back to the survey…

survey

We finished the JUSP community survey at the end of last December, and the full report is now ready to read here: http://jusp.jisc.ac.uk/news/jusp-community-survey-2016-report.pdf . The results of the report showed that JUSP is a much wanted resource for university and college librarians which adds value to their service, provides them with reliable data and saves them time (somewhere in the region of 7 hours work a month). One commented JUSP has a “hugely positive impact on staff time… freed up for analysis rather than finding and downloading data files”.  Many respondents thought that JUSP was vital to their service because without it they would have to take staff away from other tasks; one even thought that they would not use usage statistics any more if JUSP did not exist.

Of the journal statistics that JUSP can calculate, the most vital one appeared to be “Journal Report 1 (JR1)” which can tell you the number of requests there has been for one specific journal per month, over a period of time which you can select. Users of JUSP use the Journal portal statistics for a range of tasks:

  • Ad-hoc reporting
  • SCONUL reporting
  • Considering subscription renewals
  • Answering general enquiries
  • Finding evidence to prove access rights
  • General annual statistics
  • Evaluating deals with publishers
  • Benchmarking against organisations
  • To put a list of “top ten journals” on the website
  • To search for anomalies in their data

E-book portal is less used, it is still in development and does not contain statistics from many e-book suppliers used by many of the libraries. Librarians can get the statistics that they need directly from the publishers. However, respondents did think that e-book statistics are important and the ones who do use JUSPs e-book portal (just less than half the respondents) use Book Reports 2 and 3 (BR2, BR3) in order to find out the number of times an e-book has been requested per month over a selected period of time (BR2) or the number of times access has been denied to an e-book (BR3). When a library users asks for a certain e-book, only to discover that they cannot access it indicates that the library does not subscribe to or has not purchased that e-book. Librarians like to know this so that they can understand what their customers want. So, our respondents tolde-book us that they use e-book statistics for:

  • Collection development
  • Choosing which subscriptions to renew
  • To see how the full collection is being used
  • To make purchasing decisions
  • To calculate cost per download

Overall, the JUSP users were satisfied with the service that it provides and they praised the JUSP team for the support that it gives to users. Some very appreciative clients there, so university and  college librarians out there who are not using JUSP, take a look at it, you may benefit from its use.

UKSG Annual Conference 2013 #uksglive

UKSG conference

UKSG conference

This week some of Evidence Base staff attended the UKSG Annual Conference and Exhibition in Bournemouth. It was a packed conference schedule covering a variety of different topics – open access, discovery services, innovative technologies, patron driven acquisition, mobile technologies and more.

Some of the key themes which stood out to me included:

  • The need to improve dialogue between publishers and librarians

This was my first UKSG conference and I was pleasantly surprised by the mix of publishers and librarians. Quite often I have attended conferences where the exhibitors have felt very separate from delegates but this wasn’t the case at UKSG. Many of the publishers and exhibitors attended the sessions, the socials, as well as presenting (sharing some of their research or things they are working on rather than the traditional sales pitches). As the closing plenary speaker, T Scott Plutchak, highlighted, librarians and publishers have a shared goal of helping link people to information, and there’s a lot of information about users that both librarians and publishers find valuable. There does still seem to be a barrier though, and I think it old be beneficial to improve communication between librarians and publishers both at conferences and outside conferences.

  • Different business models for acquiring content

One of the stand out plenary sessions (everyone was talking about it!) was from a postgraduate medical student, Josh Harding. He demonstrated how he had moved completely paperless and does all his studying and activities out on medical practice through his iPad. I could relate to a lot of what he was saying (I’m writing this blog post on an iPad and made all my notes and tweets during the conference on either a tablet or mobile phone), but it’s great to hear about his workflow in detail. He uses a number of different apps to help him with his studies – for searching and accessing content (interactive textbooks, medical reference resources etc.), annotating, note taking and voice recording in lectures. He uses Inkling to download ebook chapters to his iPad and add annotations (using GoodReader) which he then stores in the cloud (Dropbox) and can access from any device. Sharing his experience caused many of the librarians and publishers at the conference to consider how to support this workflow.

We also heard from Coventry University who have worked with Ingram Coutts to provide all students with a pack of books to support their studies (and I had discussions with people about how to do something similar with electronic content such as giving students a tablet or e-reader with all the content preloaded) and there were a number of presentations and discussions about patron driven acquisition (PDA). It’s clear that the traditional business model which has been used for print materials is not fit for purpose for electronic materials, and it’s really interesting hearing about new developments to support models which may suit electronic content.

  • Importance of understanding the behaviours and workflows of our users 

There were a number of presentations and discussions about the information-seeking behaviours and the workflows of users. This is something that has always interested me, and it was good to see it covered during the conference as I think it’s something that spans across most of the delegates. Understanding more about this behaviour and user workflows helps libraries provide support throughout the process and helps publishers and other suppliers provide tools to help facilitate effective searching and content consumption. I was interested to hear about some of the research happening and hope there will be ways to continue to share this sort of information to help us better understand different types of user groups and how new developments are changing behavious (e.g. mobile devices).


There were of course many other things discussed at the conference (I was really impressed with how broad the coverage was), but these are the key ones that stood out to me. The conference gave me lots of food for thought and I’ve come away with plenty of ideas for things to follow up on and future topics for research. I of course also managed to get some conference goodies and very much enjoyed the conference dinner which included popcorn, candy floss, dodgems, hook a duck and laser quest in a massive inflatable maze (as all good conference dinners should!).