Cadmore media player playing video Understanding the value of open-access usage information
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
Understanding the value of open-access usage information
Description:
Understanding the value of open-access usage information
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/a12823e4-d1aa-4b64-bfe1-20cd6227d605/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H47M29S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/a12823e4-d1aa-4b64-bfe1-20cd6227d605
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/a12823e4-d1aa-4b64-bfe1-20cd6227d605/Understanding the value of open-access usage information.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=xwW3x%2B%2BHgJLVIYs2nqbRJDTgLnoHgOujC7%2BzyGvMDdw%3D&st=2025-01-03T08%3A29%3A36Z&se=2025-01-03T10%3A34%3A36Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
Welcome, everybody. It looks like people are finding their way into the Zoom room here. You think we'll just wait another minute or so to let everybody join? Yeah there is a little snafu with an outdated meeting room that was posted in the cab.
So we have a nice staff member over there who is directing people to the right spot. Great Nadia, you'll. Then you'll tell us when we're ready to start. I think. Well, there were about 26 people I counted in the cab. More so. Oh, we've got quite a nice crowd here, so I'd say you could start whenever you wish, Stephanie.
OK, fantastic. Yeah then welcome to the discussion on this. Nadia, are there any words that you'd like to say first about the nice hopeless structure, etc., or do you want us to just jump in? I think it's OK to just go on and talk, if you like. I'm going to put a chat link to a Google Doc in the chat if I'll try to take a few notes. But if anyone else is interested in sharing in also adding to the notes document, that would be wonderful.
You know, one idea, one thing we do at an ISO Class is we examine gaps and areas that the community could work on. And if that comes out of this discussion, great. If you have a great discussion, that's wonderful. Really just interested in people raising questions and talking with each other as much as possible. Fantastic great. So there's I think there are a lot of there's a lot of big questions and big challenges around tracking, aggregating, sharing and understanding the usage of open access content.
So I'm really excited to have this group of experts here today. Um, because the, we have a whole range of different stakeholders. I thought I might just kick things off while people are getting their questions added to the chat or to the Q&A. I just thought I would kick things off with a question to everybody by just asking each of you to briefly say, where do you see the value in open access usage?
So everybody on our panel would be great if you just said in just one or two sentences just focusing on the Word value, what does that really mean for you and your work and your organisation? So maybe starting off with Shazia, we can go in the order of our presentations. Thank you, Stephanie. Once again, I'm cachoeira betta. I'm with Duke University Press.
I, I work for journals and collections marketing team and I'm responsible for many different things. But one of the things that I do is, is usage statistics for journals, not for books. We have different people that do this for books because Duke University Press also publishes books, but I mainly switch statistics for our journals. And as I mentioned in my presentation, we currently have seven fully open access journals and over 60 other journals that are not open access.
So where do we see value in measuring open access usage? I think it's in general, I connected with the value of open having content open published open access. So how does can how this can measuring assist us with determining this content, this value of open access content? So so just three things that I just want to mention here from my organization's perspective, like readers increased knowledge, like we want to know as a publisher, we want to know when we use it for many different to report to many different stakeholders that the readership is of our journals where the readership is and how it is increasing because we are opening our content.
And, you know, we can determined, as I mentioned in my presentation, we can determine very easily, you know, how institutions are using our content. But, you know, we know very little about readers that are using open access. So we hope that if we improve this, if this dimensions for access, for measuring of open access content, we will also know a little bit more about how we are impacting different communities all around the world.
Another thing that I want to very quickly mention here is other author benefit. So as we all know, like authors, many authors, they don't get lots of proceeds from publishing your book. This is mainly associated with their career development. So so open access can actually opening a book or like publishing a book, open access publishing, publishing an article, open access or publishing in open access journals.
Will we already know that having it published, open access, you will have a much bigger audience. So we can tell a later tab that author that you have this and this much usage and you know, if this usage this usage has to be comparable across, you know, different platforms. Ideally, of course, like right now, it's not really possible. But we want to make sure that, you know, if author is going to be used using this information for their 10 year promotion, you know, we can actually compare this usage data that we are providing to the author is trusted.
So, you know, so another author that will be also providing those usage statistics, you know, of course, like it's not I will never be identical, but we can trust this data. So this is also what we Ideally would want to use in the future while we're working with authors. So another thing that publishers like Duke University press, we have lots of stakeholders and we report on many different, many, many different things to those stakeholders.
So one of those stakeholders are libraries. And, you know, we, we, we work with Silverchair and we provide sushi and counter reports for our universities that are subscribing to our content. But again, like, we are not having this conversation about global usage. This is what Tasha was talking about, like something that it's not anymore like especially when we talk about open access content.
Music it's not only about anymore about your institutional usage. It's about the societal, global impact of Open Usage. And it's about this collective value that libraries should recognize while they're subscribing, where they're funding open access journals. So it's about educating libraries that it's not any more within the open access content use. It's not any more about your usage.
It's about the global, global societal value of having content, open usage, and how we can measure this open access usage so that this data is reliable and trusted. Just a one. Just very short follow up question, kasia. How are your open access journals funded? Are those do they have article processing charges to? Are they funded by libraries by subscribe to open models or other institutional we currently have?
I will talk about again three examples very quickly. So other people can talk to we have institutional funding, so you have environmental humanities journals that is funded by certain like a cooperative of certain institutions organization. We do have a demography journal which is a collective funding. So it's, it's we made it open access. We have been publishing the journals for the last three years and it was paywalled journals.
Get the journals and we open it and there is the model that we use, the collective funding. So what is happening that there is a voluntary voluntarily funding for the journals so it's not subscribed to open? We made it open, which is to make sure that we are able to cover our costs. And another. Another another thing that we're looking into right now, we don't do it yet is subscribe to open.
Maybe we could just jump to Emily. Just keep the publisher the question of value from the publisher perspective at the moment. Emily, what about what are your thoughts on value and and also how to fund open access models? Yeah, probably quite a lot we could talk about with that. I'll keep it short because you covered it really well. But you press the.
Why do we need open access? Usage stats. It's one. It's for our authors to show the reach of their work. The primary reason and secondary is for our librarian. So the open access and that links to your second question Stephanie. The way we fund our open access books, there's various sources, but the model that we launched is a collective funding model.
So we have librarians that subscribe to the opening, the future model. And the way that model works is they subscribe to a package of backlist, books, and all the money that we generate from that is used to fund future titles. So front list titles and open access. So the more money that we generate, the more books we can publish in open access from our front list.
And for that model to be sustainable and successful, we need usage stats that we can go back to our librarians with and say this is the difference that it makes. And so that chart that I showed in the presentation was just one comparison using a new stats, and so comparing the reach of closed titles versus open ones, and the impact is pretty immediate. So those are two sort of main use cases for usage stats.
Cool and so we've heard a bit from the publishers who have a strong connection to the library community. And we also heard from Tasha and Yumi that that counter is an important piece of that. So we mean maybe you could say a little bit about for you the value of the open asset access stats.
But maybe also take there's a question for you in the chat. What changes were made to either the discovery or the library website that accelerated students and faculty and researchers finding open access articles? So you showed a big jump. You've showed like, Oh wow, open access is becoming more important. Is there something that you specifically did to make that happen?
But also in that context, what sort of. Yeah, why do you care about open access usage? Thank you so much, Stephanie. And this is such a great question. Yes, a value. I mean, for us global North libraries, the biggest value we see is global reach. Global impact? Not really.
Oh, this is. I mean, it's great, but it's global impact. So like, you know, especially leadership into global south, as Emily showed in the map, I mean, the no no way. One was just only us lighting up or readership goes far down like it just eating a global it's also like Yeah readership outreach in the global South it's great. But who's going to benefit from this in global North libraries. So that's faculty, right?
They are the authors. They're the ones who want to reach out more. So this is where reading publish deal comes in. That's sweet for us. I mean, it sounds great, but so yeah, our faculty members are interested, but students not much, they don't even know sometimes. And that kind of answers the question that came in. Students sometimes don't.
I mean, lots of the time most of the time they don't even know what they're reading. And we are as I said in my presentation, residential campus, everybody is on campus. So like as long as they are on campus, they are in they don't even know if they're reading it through a library or not. So for libraries or students, yeah, it's more like a social justice issue, which is not a bad thing to support for.
But when it comes to when money comes in, when we libraries see usage like count or usage because they are always after our business model, it just because it's OK, it doesn't mean we don't pay for it. Right that's as Keisha said, there are stuff like direct to open that we pay for it. And if it's a good deal, yeah, that's great because we all pay for it and the subscription fee might go down.
But are we actually reading like, you know, like, I don't want to sound so superficial, but we do care if our money went to our people as opposed to global sales people who are know, this is so unfair, but that's what we care to. Are we getting our money's worth? Cool Yeah. Yeah and there's, there's another question in the chat. Also related to that, how libraries can interact j with your our discovery app and how that, how that works together.
Yeah would you like to it's the question is does our discovery integrate with any library knowledge bases or is it only used at the individual level in the app format? And they're wondering if it's possible to use our discovery at the institution. What kind of costs are there? It's a costs involved. Great question.
So at this moment we are user only. So it's a B to C application that's available to any researcher that has a smartphone from almost anywhere except for China. So right now we're not active in China, but we do see traffic from China on our website through VPN. But we're not live in any app stores as far as institutions who could utilize it. We've been thinking about this specific, specific use case where we could possibly roll out either a white labeled app or build an environment within the app for specific institutions.
So for example, if UAV University wanted to offer our discovery, we could create a we could create a custom environment for, for her college where it would be their branding and we could pull in content that it could be potentially either published by their scholars or content that would be published in specific fields or subject areas that the college focuses in on. So those are the sort of things that we can do, and it is something that we are exploring about setting up these custom environments within the app for institutions as well as for subject or specific fields of study.
And we're also exploring setting up publisher specific environments or journal specific environments within the app. So for you, j, the main value of the open access usage is to support authors and and researchers to find interesting content. Do you use that open access usage to serve up different articles to them or how are you actually are you actually using that open access usage that you're tracking in your app in, in, in, in certain ways, Yeah.
So I mean, open access plays, it plays a huge role for us. I mean, whenever you open up the app, open access is really featured front and center. So the users and we've noticed that our users want to be able to access full text and with paywalled content, that's always a challenge. But we do integrate, get after for paywalled content. But again, that has to be off the app onto a browser experience, which we don't control.
But the beauty of open access is we can really kind of control how the user experience works and we're constantly tweaking it to make it better. So the beauty of open access is because we have full text to work from. We, we index the full text. So we go far beyond just keywords. So we are looking at the full text and we're looking at very everything from very high level concepts to very granular concepts.
And then we build relationships between all those different concepts and we fingerprint each individual article. And then based on that fingerprint, we can match it up to specific users and that really helps us pinpoint what our users would, will want to read based on what they read, based on what others have read, and also based on the fingerprint of each of the articles.
But, Uh, that's really interesting that all of this fantastic usage that you are generating on your platform is never making it to you. Right or it's never. Or it's also never making it back to cassio and Emily. So this is, and it's um, and so there seems to be, there's, there's, there's really a disconnect there. Maybe, Tasha, you can talk a little bit about how counter is maybe trying to fill that kind of a gap.
So thank you for letting me go last. I've got everybody's information to pull from now. So as you know, counter is privacy protective by design. Everything we ask people to deliver is aggregated and anonymized. So we don't know. We don't want to within a counter report who the users are, where they've come from, what they're doing, any of those things that is not what counter is about, but that aggregated data has a lot of value in and of itself.
And I would say that falls into two categories, the first of which is return on investment, and the second is impact. And I touched on impact when I was speaking earlier. I think kasia and Emily and Amy have talked a lot about how usage can affect authors when they're applying for tenured positions. It is a valuable thing. The return on investment question.
Often when we speak about counter is library return on investment. So the infamous cost per download calculation, which is the number of unique item requests and what you've paid for your subscription. Divide one by the other and you get a cost per download. But there is a question of return on investment for publishers as well and counter metrics usage metrics can help answer that question.
So my background is in publishing. I've been I haven't been library site. I have been publisher side. And one of the things that I've asked for over the years is for aggregators and for groups like discovery to provide me as a publisher with usage metrics for the content that I have given them. So if I think about Scopus or Web of science or any of the big aggregated platforms, they are built off of publisher content that is given free of charge.
And I'm speaking very much personally. This is not a formal counter position, but I believe that those aggregated groups should be giving global item level counter metrics back to the publishers so that the publisher can know whether their investment in that content across the web, whether it's can see as a publisher what your usage on your platform is, but knowing whether it's worth your while, continuing to send content to scopus, whether it's worth your while making the necessary conversions to send things to PubMed central.
Is this adding value to you as a publisher? Are there ways that you could get your content to a wider audience? You need to know that. Just to say PubMed central. You should send your content to PubMed central. But PubMed central does not do counter reporting yet and I wish it did.
So I think there is a lot of value. I would love to see all discovery and other platforms making reports available. And actually, one of the things that I think could be very interesting if we do manage to get groups returning their usage to the original publishers. Is investigating the possibility of some kind of badging at the level of the item along the lines of the dimension citation badges or the metric badges so that we can help authors demonstrate actual usage across the web, aggregated across the web of their content.
If they have published a chapter in a book that is openly available or not, they should be able to evidence from the original place of publication what usage impact that article or that chapter has had. And I can go on that for a very long time. I'll stop now because often usage is published in many different channels. Many times, probably this usage that author is getting is being underrepresented as a result of this missing usage.
So there is a project which is funded by the Mellon Foundation called the open access usage data trust. It's still in relatively preliminary stages. We're putting together the rulebook for data interchange and suchlike, and Emily is involved, as am I. That's a fantastic project. But as I say, it's early days and it is very focused on specifically open access books.
And I think potentially as a community, we could maybe do a sort of an interim project just to return data to the original publisher and at least get a bigger picture of that usage. It wouldn't necessarily be as comprehensive as what everybody's is looking at, but it could be a really nice step in the right direction. And of course it would go beyond books, which would be nice. I think there's an interesting there's a sort of interesting structure in that there are publishers who have relationships with libraries because libraries were funding.
Them via by buying books and by paying for their content. So the libraries could actually say, hey, we want that usage data and we want it in this format. And the publishers are getting money, so they are kind of under pressure to do things. It's a high hurdle to become counter compliant. IT costs money, it costs technology, time, et cetera. So there's sort of a sense in which publishers who already had that subscription level relationship are set up to do that, whereas born zero publishers never had any relationships with the library ever.
So a lot of times this is a bit of a question from me to you. How do you even how would you even what kinds of open access data would you want to track? Only the outputs by your faculty. Would you want to know every kind of open access usage that's out there? So there's sort of an interesting. There's also a bit of a funding gap, I would almost say, for also a platform like that Jay was describing for cactus.
You know, it's nobody you have a B to C relationship with authors and you're in this author mode and nobody ever asked you for counter compliant reports. And suddenly you're like, OK, how, why? Who would we deliver these to? We don't even have a single email address of a librarian who ever asked us for this data. So I think that's an interesting and an interesting issue.
You mean do you ever reach out to open access publishers and have this discussion? I have because I do need I think I've mentioned like some open publishing publishers don't really, you know, provide a counter and it's understandable. They cannot, you know, just share all the content for individual institution level. But I have. But I think they have staffing issues often.
And then the reply is not as quick as the people we pay money to. So that in. Yeah and then I just wanted to mention that there is a. Yeah like a gap between us and publish. Open public open access publishers. Because we don't. If there is money, we talk, but not much money going on. We don't really talk.
It's so sad, but that's how it works. And, and so like we fill in part we are irrelevant to them because they are models without us, whether we pay for them or not, they exist. They don't care about us. Like so like there is this fear of being becoming irrelevant as a librarian. So like. Yeah emotional level.
I don't know if I answered your question, Stephanie, but there is. Yeah mixed feeling. Absolutely absolutely. I think that there's I think we're sort of unearthing some of those areas of disconnect that are preventing us from having a unified shared. Open usage, Uh, landscape. There's a question in the chat that I think is quite interesting.
What are your thoughts on future options for a cost per use style? Evaluation of open access, both for global usage and costs and for institutional level spend and open access usage, whether globally or located and institutional. Does anybody have an attache you waiving your hand? So we have actually provided through the counter media library our educational platform examples of how to do a cost per use calculation that would mimic the cost per download calculation at an institutional level, but on global data for open access content.
So we've already we spent a lot of time speaking with librarians last year about how they would want that to work. And that's how we've that's how we've modeled it. The question of geolocation. And institutional usage is quite interesting. We do have a common extension which report providers can choose to implement, which is called country, and we also do country subdivision.
So you can hypothetically as a publisher, choose to allow people to subdivide your global counter reports by country. The challenge is that certainly a country subdivision level. So state, for example, IP ranges are fairly frequently reallocated. So saying that a specific subdivision is associated with IP range a, that might be true in January of 2023, but not in March of 2023.
So geolocated reports are quite challenging in that perspective. We all? In the early stages of discussions with groups about providing global usage on a per dose level through the open access switchboard. So universities or libraries that have paid for materials to be made to under a particular deal and who are using the switchboard.
We are hoping that we will be able to give them the unique item requests specifically for what they've paid for from the original publisher. So that's it's very, very early days and I am very much that's on the back burner for me until release 5.1 goes out the door in April. So don't watch this space. It's not going to be this year, but it is something that we would like to do because we do see value in helping both publishers and libraries look at that single item level.
So that the institutions can work out if they've got a publishing deal that's cost them £10,000 in the first year. And they've published 75 articles with x number of unique item requests, they can then do that cost per use request. Can I can I add just to add to the sort of complexity of those models is that I mean, with read and publish deals, you have a link between the institution paying for the authors, authors that are affiliated with the institution.
When you add models that decouple that, that, that affiliation. So in a collective funding models where institution institutions are contributing to make a collection open access, for example, irrespective of where the author originates from and how do we count that? Then it gets a little more complicated. So the models are a little more equitable on the one hand, but harder for an institution to track that value for money.
Absolutely and we I mean, I think we always have to keep in mind the question of value as money, because we have to somehow fund these operations, both the libraries and the publishers. But there's a really nice comment in the chat that I just wanted to point out from Fabio batalla that he says, I see that one of the main objectives of Open Usage data is to empower people to produce meaningful insights, more valuable than simply usage volumes.
And usually publishers that are producing those usage data have other priorities that are not related to this usage evaluation. So it's there, there's value and value. And I do think, like you said, tosha, that usage is an, let's say, an undervalued metric of impact just in terms of, you know, people are really able to access this and produce meaningful insights and share them globally with people.
This is just in and of itself what we're all really trying to get to. There were a few very specific comments about the js platform. And maybe that was just maybe j you could answer a couple of these. One was how interoperable is the usage fingerprint?
So how much the individual can pull this information together themselves or how much is that delivered? And then there was another comment in the Q&A about how our discovery adds actually content. Do you have a direct feed from publishers or do you get it from crossref api? So how does content get in and how the users interact with that content was thought you might maybe just address that.
Yeah so we actually acquire content through multiple sources. One is through direct partnerships with publishers. So we have about 10 publisher partnerships right now, everything from a very small society to very large publishers. So we don't really discriminate on who we partner with. We we just want to be able to provide the best information possible for our users.
The other way we get it, of course, is through crossref. And then we also have a partnership with paywall or open Alex for the open access content. And then we then as I said recently, about two weeks ago, we just launched a preprint feed which is over 2 million preprints now that are being curated on a user by user level in a special preprint feed. And that comes from about 109 different preprint servers globally.
And that that number is just going to keep growing as new preprint servers are launched. So that's really how we get content in the way that every user, because they have to sign up and to have an account, they can see exactly what topics they're following, what journals they're following, and then they can tweak those in the settings. So if they don't want to follow a specific topic, they can remove that.
And if they don't want to follow a specific journal, they can remove that. But then we also recommend, like other related topics that they may want to explore and also other journals that they may want to explore. And then we also have recommendations for articles from either the same journal or other similar journals in the app. And then we also provide that stuff through in-app notifications, and we also send out weekly emails where we insert in recommendations for the user to engage with.
Jay that sounds like amazing and like a huge undertaking. How are you? What's your business model for that? How? and do these open access does this open access usage actually feed into that business model? How are you paying for this awesome platform? Yeah so, I mean, for us, we have about a team of 50 people that work on a day to day basis, everything from designers and marketing folks to developers and of course, sales people like myself.
So yes, we do have a large team supporting it and we're constantly updating it. As of currently, the business model has been that it's completely free to use. Our goal and cactus. For the past 20 Plus years, we've worked with a lot of researchers from Asia, from especially from Asia, but also Latin America in the Middle East to help them publish their content with English journals.
So our goal is to try to provide them as many services as they possibly need in order to do their job. So our discovery is just one of those services that we provide. And our hope is that if we build this ecosystem of services, that the researchers will not only utilize our discovery, but also come to us when they need other specific services, like language editing or designing, designing a visual, abstract or an infographic or help with preparing a talk.
So that's really been our focus for the past two years, is trying to build this ecosystem of services for researchers. I think the next phase on where we get into some other business models is going to involve partnering up with publishers to do to do specific channels within the app, possibly, maybe working with institutions to set up custom environments for that institution and their membership.
And, you know, and we're also looking at experimenting with things like translations and and audio features in the app, which could which would be premium on top of what we already provide. So those are some of the things that we're exploring as possible ways to generate revenue for the platform. Mm-hmm And I want to add here, from the publisher's perspective, cooperating with the service, like our discovery, like we know that they know that our discovery does not provide counter counter compliance usage statistics, but they do have lots of other data on usage.
So from the marketing perspective, like especially, we think about how we can learn a little bit more how our content is being used. And in different markets. This is one of the tools we can use like from the marketing perspectives and we can use it to build collections or, you know, provide this information to our library, library relations teams so that they can note our content is trending in this market.
So maybe not necessarily reporting those statistics to our stakeholders, but we can definitely use it for other business purposes. And intarsia and I have spoken about counter. So where I think we're just waiting for five we're waiting for 5.1. Yeah so we're waiting for 5.1. And then I would really like to for our data to become counter compliant because it seems like we collect all the data that counter reports, it's just that we just need to be compliant.
And I will say 5.1 is still on track to go out in April. I might be completely, completely wiped by them, but it is on track to go out and buy April. And I have been suggesting to new platforms who've come to me in the last month or so to wait because. All right. I love Kanter. I think Kanter is really important, but I have to acknowledge it's not the quickest and easiest thing to become compliant with.
I don't want people to have to do rework. I do want to make it as easy as possible for everyone to get on board with the standard. So pragmatic to the end. Just to pop in before we all leave. Is there anywhere that nizar could help with any of these discussions? Connection standards.
Although it seems like it has been a great discussion to I can add something here because there is so many things that is happening currently. And I think that many, many people, many different units are disconnected from what is happening. I know that we're trying to I'm trying to be as updated as possible with everything that is happening in the market. But if we can have like some kind of hub that will provide everything, what is currently not like that is done, but even what is under like under being decided or like worked on, you know, so that we know that there is already initiative that a group of people is working on something that, you know, I as a publisher can go to and you can see like, OK, this is what I should be reading about.
This is what is currently being worked on. And I can just sit still and wait for it, you know. So this is what I think that naza could do for us. A hub for an informational hub, right? Yes I also think science open. We're also an Open Discovery platform. We also collect a lot of usage statistics on the content on our platform, also in a counter like Excel sheets and things like this.
But, but I could imagine bringing together some of the aggregators, researchgate, academia, to also start thinking about like what kind of standards or how could we also work together without sort of creating a single, you know, who's, who's going to be the hub for that, for that usage data because as soon as you start aggregating it too much and then sharing aggregated data.
So I would think that it would be really we are very careful that we don't aggregate data from anybody, any usage data from anybody else because this would, I think be could potentially really muddy the waters. So I think it's important that we all are sort of careful with how we start thinking about consolidating and aggregating usage data. I think it's something that we all want and we've seen where some of those disconnects are, why we don't have already sort of a global shared usage data.
Somebody mentioned it would be really great to have metrics that work for open access content as well as non-zero content. And certainly open access has really changed the playing field in some ways because before when I was a journal manager, we never shared that usage data. Never would we publish usage data on the website or, you know, it was something that we told the editors and, you know, in once a year in the editorial meeting, but otherwise we never shared that kind of data.
And I think that's one of the things that open access has done for the entire community is to start. People want to know how often their paper has been downloaded, even if that's downloaded by libraries or how that works. So so. Well, yeah, very briefly, just to say some aggregators are already counter compliant.
Researchgate is on our registry. And you can check that their metrics are already there. I netty I think possibly counter and I so need to start talking more frequently because I found out recently that I so was not aware that we were working on 5.1. So that's on me. I think we need to. I'm sorry about that. I thought I knew, but it's not sure.
I'm not sure where it came up, but sorry about that. So there was a transfer, obviously. Lorraine retired last year. I came in and I think we just need to reconnect. And that that sounds good. Helpful Yep. And just one more heads up if people want more owa usage data info. There is another panel tomorrow, so I'm definitely also going to check it out.
I put the link in the notes. Fantastic and if anyone is interested in working on the ideas that came up, please put your name in the notes document. It's also linked from the SCID the SCID page for this session. Great then I would just like to thank everybody for attending for all of your great questions, and especially to all of the panelists. It's been great fun just preparing this panel and all of the discussions that we've had up until today and then today with you all.
Also, a special Thanks to kasia. This was her proposal for nice Plus. And I'm really glad that we were able to pull this all together. So Thanks a lot. And Nettie, if I'm correct, we probably have to wrap it up because the next session, actually, we should have done it. Exactly we're a little over time, but that's great. It's been a great session.
Thanks a lot, everyone. Thank you. Have a great day. Take care. Bye
Segment:0 .
Welcome, everybody. It looks like people are finding their way into the Zoom room here. You think we'll just wait another minute or so to let everybody join? Yeah there is a little snafu with an outdated meeting room that was posted in the cab.
So we have a nice staff member over there who is directing people to the right spot. Great Nadia, you'll. Then you'll tell us when we're ready to start. I think. Well, there were about 26 people I counted in the cab. More so. Oh, we've got quite a nice crowd here, so I'd say you could start whenever you wish, Stephanie.
OK, fantastic. Yeah then welcome to the discussion on this. Nadia, are there any words that you'd like to say first about the nice hopeless structure, etc., or do you want us to just jump in? I think it's OK to just go on and talk, if you like. I'm going to put a chat link to a Google Doc in the chat if I'll try to take a few notes. But if anyone else is interested in sharing in also adding to the notes document, that would be wonderful.
You know, one idea, one thing we do at an ISO Class is we examine gaps and areas that the community could work on. And if that comes out of this discussion, great. If you have a great discussion, that's wonderful. Really just interested in people raising questions and talking with each other as much as possible. Fantastic great. So there's I think there are a lot of there's a lot of big questions and big challenges around tracking, aggregating, sharing and understanding the usage of open access content.
So I'm really excited to have this group of experts here today. Um, because the, we have a whole range of different stakeholders. I thought I might just kick things off while people are getting their questions added to the chat or to the Q&A. I just thought I would kick things off with a question to everybody by just asking each of you to briefly say, where do you see the value in open access usage?
So everybody on our panel would be great if you just said in just one or two sentences just focusing on the Word value, what does that really mean for you and your work and your organisation? So maybe starting off with Shazia, we can go in the order of our presentations. Thank you, Stephanie. Once again, I'm cachoeira betta. I'm with Duke University Press.
I, I work for journals and collections marketing team and I'm responsible for many different things. But one of the things that I do is, is usage statistics for journals, not for books. We have different people that do this for books because Duke University Press also publishes books, but I mainly switch statistics for our journals. And as I mentioned in my presentation, we currently have seven fully open access journals and over 60 other journals that are not open access.
So where do we see value in measuring open access usage? I think it's in general, I connected with the value of open having content open published open access. So how does can how this can measuring assist us with determining this content, this value of open access content? So so just three things that I just want to mention here from my organization's perspective, like readers increased knowledge, like we want to know as a publisher, we want to know when we use it for many different to report to many different stakeholders that the readership is of our journals where the readership is and how it is increasing because we are opening our content.
And, you know, we can determined, as I mentioned in my presentation, we can determine very easily, you know, how institutions are using our content. But, you know, we know very little about readers that are using open access. So we hope that if we improve this, if this dimensions for access, for measuring of open access content, we will also know a little bit more about how we are impacting different communities all around the world.
Another thing that I want to very quickly mention here is other author benefit. So as we all know, like authors, many authors, they don't get lots of proceeds from publishing your book. This is mainly associated with their career development. So so open access can actually opening a book or like publishing a book, open access publishing, publishing an article, open access or publishing in open access journals.
Will we already know that having it published, open access, you will have a much bigger audience. So we can tell a later tab that author that you have this and this much usage and you know, if this usage this usage has to be comparable across, you know, different platforms. Ideally, of course, like right now, it's not really possible. But we want to make sure that, you know, if author is going to be used using this information for their 10 year promotion, you know, we can actually compare this usage data that we are providing to the author is trusted.
So, you know, so another author that will be also providing those usage statistics, you know, of course, like it's not I will never be identical, but we can trust this data. So this is also what we Ideally would want to use in the future while we're working with authors. So another thing that publishers like Duke University press, we have lots of stakeholders and we report on many different, many, many different things to those stakeholders.
So one of those stakeholders are libraries. And, you know, we, we, we work with Silverchair and we provide sushi and counter reports for our universities that are subscribing to our content. But again, like, we are not having this conversation about global usage. This is what Tasha was talking about, like something that it's not anymore like especially when we talk about open access content.
Music it's not only about anymore about your institutional usage. It's about the societal, global impact of Open Usage. And it's about this collective value that libraries should recognize while they're subscribing, where they're funding open access journals. So it's about educating libraries that it's not any more within the open access content use. It's not any more about your usage.
It's about the global, global societal value of having content, open usage, and how we can measure this open access usage so that this data is reliable and trusted. Just a one. Just very short follow up question, kasia. How are your open access journals funded? Are those do they have article processing charges to? Are they funded by libraries by subscribe to open models or other institutional we currently have?
I will talk about again three examples very quickly. So other people can talk to we have institutional funding, so you have environmental humanities journals that is funded by certain like a cooperative of certain institutions organization. We do have a demography journal which is a collective funding. So it's, it's we made it open access. We have been publishing the journals for the last three years and it was paywalled journals.
Get the journals and we open it and there is the model that we use, the collective funding. So what is happening that there is a voluntary voluntarily funding for the journals so it's not subscribed to open? We made it open, which is to make sure that we are able to cover our costs. And another. Another another thing that we're looking into right now, we don't do it yet is subscribe to open.
Maybe we could just jump to Emily. Just keep the publisher the question of value from the publisher perspective at the moment. Emily, what about what are your thoughts on value and and also how to fund open access models? Yeah, probably quite a lot we could talk about with that. I'll keep it short because you covered it really well. But you press the.
Why do we need open access? Usage stats. It's one. It's for our authors to show the reach of their work. The primary reason and secondary is for our librarian. So the open access and that links to your second question Stephanie. The way we fund our open access books, there's various sources, but the model that we launched is a collective funding model.
So we have librarians that subscribe to the opening, the future model. And the way that model works is they subscribe to a package of backlist, books, and all the money that we generate from that is used to fund future titles. So front list titles and open access. So the more money that we generate, the more books we can publish in open access from our front list.
And for that model to be sustainable and successful, we need usage stats that we can go back to our librarians with and say this is the difference that it makes. And so that chart that I showed in the presentation was just one comparison using a new stats, and so comparing the reach of closed titles versus open ones, and the impact is pretty immediate. So those are two sort of main use cases for usage stats.
Cool and so we've heard a bit from the publishers who have a strong connection to the library community. And we also heard from Tasha and Yumi that that counter is an important piece of that. So we mean maybe you could say a little bit about for you the value of the open asset access stats.
But maybe also take there's a question for you in the chat. What changes were made to either the discovery or the library website that accelerated students and faculty and researchers finding open access articles? So you showed a big jump. You've showed like, Oh wow, open access is becoming more important. Is there something that you specifically did to make that happen?
But also in that context, what sort of. Yeah, why do you care about open access usage? Thank you so much, Stephanie. And this is such a great question. Yes, a value. I mean, for us global North libraries, the biggest value we see is global reach. Global impact? Not really.
Oh, this is. I mean, it's great, but it's global impact. So like, you know, especially leadership into global south, as Emily showed in the map, I mean, the no no way. One was just only us lighting up or readership goes far down like it just eating a global it's also like Yeah readership outreach in the global South it's great. But who's going to benefit from this in global North libraries. So that's faculty, right?
They are the authors. They're the ones who want to reach out more. So this is where reading publish deal comes in. That's sweet for us. I mean, it sounds great, but so yeah, our faculty members are interested, but students not much, they don't even know sometimes. And that kind of answers the question that came in. Students sometimes don't.
I mean, lots of the time most of the time they don't even know what they're reading. And we are as I said in my presentation, residential campus, everybody is on campus. So like as long as they are on campus, they are in they don't even know if they're reading it through a library or not. So for libraries or students, yeah, it's more like a social justice issue, which is not a bad thing to support for.
But when it comes to when money comes in, when we libraries see usage like count or usage because they are always after our business model, it just because it's OK, it doesn't mean we don't pay for it. Right that's as Keisha said, there are stuff like direct to open that we pay for it. And if it's a good deal, yeah, that's great because we all pay for it and the subscription fee might go down.
But are we actually reading like, you know, like, I don't want to sound so superficial, but we do care if our money went to our people as opposed to global sales people who are know, this is so unfair, but that's what we care to. Are we getting our money's worth? Cool Yeah. Yeah and there's, there's another question in the chat. Also related to that, how libraries can interact j with your our discovery app and how that, how that works together.
Yeah would you like to it's the question is does our discovery integrate with any library knowledge bases or is it only used at the individual level in the app format? And they're wondering if it's possible to use our discovery at the institution. What kind of costs are there? It's a costs involved. Great question.
So at this moment we are user only. So it's a B to C application that's available to any researcher that has a smartphone from almost anywhere except for China. So right now we're not active in China, but we do see traffic from China on our website through VPN. But we're not live in any app stores as far as institutions who could utilize it. We've been thinking about this specific, specific use case where we could possibly roll out either a white labeled app or build an environment within the app for specific institutions.
So for example, if UAV University wanted to offer our discovery, we could create a we could create a custom environment for, for her college where it would be their branding and we could pull in content that it could be potentially either published by their scholars or content that would be published in specific fields or subject areas that the college focuses in on. So those are the sort of things that we can do, and it is something that we are exploring about setting up these custom environments within the app for institutions as well as for subject or specific fields of study.
And we're also exploring setting up publisher specific environments or journal specific environments within the app. So for you, j, the main value of the open access usage is to support authors and and researchers to find interesting content. Do you use that open access usage to serve up different articles to them or how are you actually are you actually using that open access usage that you're tracking in your app in, in, in, in certain ways, Yeah.
So I mean, open access plays, it plays a huge role for us. I mean, whenever you open up the app, open access is really featured front and center. So the users and we've noticed that our users want to be able to access full text and with paywalled content, that's always a challenge. But we do integrate, get after for paywalled content. But again, that has to be off the app onto a browser experience, which we don't control.
But the beauty of open access is we can really kind of control how the user experience works and we're constantly tweaking it to make it better. So the beauty of open access is because we have full text to work from. We, we index the full text. So we go far beyond just keywords. So we are looking at the full text and we're looking at very everything from very high level concepts to very granular concepts.
And then we build relationships between all those different concepts and we fingerprint each individual article. And then based on that fingerprint, we can match it up to specific users and that really helps us pinpoint what our users would, will want to read based on what they read, based on what others have read, and also based on the fingerprint of each of the articles.
But, Uh, that's really interesting that all of this fantastic usage that you are generating on your platform is never making it to you. Right or it's never. Or it's also never making it back to cassio and Emily. So this is, and it's um, and so there seems to be, there's, there's, there's really a disconnect there. Maybe, Tasha, you can talk a little bit about how counter is maybe trying to fill that kind of a gap.
So thank you for letting me go last. I've got everybody's information to pull from now. So as you know, counter is privacy protective by design. Everything we ask people to deliver is aggregated and anonymized. So we don't know. We don't want to within a counter report who the users are, where they've come from, what they're doing, any of those things that is not what counter is about, but that aggregated data has a lot of value in and of itself.
And I would say that falls into two categories, the first of which is return on investment, and the second is impact. And I touched on impact when I was speaking earlier. I think kasia and Emily and Amy have talked a lot about how usage can affect authors when they're applying for tenured positions. It is a valuable thing. The return on investment question.
Often when we speak about counter is library return on investment. So the infamous cost per download calculation, which is the number of unique item requests and what you've paid for your subscription. Divide one by the other and you get a cost per download. But there is a question of return on investment for publishers as well and counter metrics usage metrics can help answer that question.
So my background is in publishing. I've been I haven't been library site. I have been publisher side. And one of the things that I've asked for over the years is for aggregators and for groups like discovery to provide me as a publisher with usage metrics for the content that I have given them. So if I think about Scopus or Web of science or any of the big aggregated platforms, they are built off of publisher content that is given free of charge.
And I'm speaking very much personally. This is not a formal counter position, but I believe that those aggregated groups should be giving global item level counter metrics back to the publishers so that the publisher can know whether their investment in that content across the web, whether it's can see as a publisher what your usage on your platform is, but knowing whether it's worth your while, continuing to send content to scopus, whether it's worth your while making the necessary conversions to send things to PubMed central.
Is this adding value to you as a publisher? Are there ways that you could get your content to a wider audience? You need to know that. Just to say PubMed central. You should send your content to PubMed central. But PubMed central does not do counter reporting yet and I wish it did.
So I think there is a lot of value. I would love to see all discovery and other platforms making reports available. And actually, one of the things that I think could be very interesting if we do manage to get groups returning their usage to the original publishers. Is investigating the possibility of some kind of badging at the level of the item along the lines of the dimension citation badges or the metric badges so that we can help authors demonstrate actual usage across the web, aggregated across the web of their content.
If they have published a chapter in a book that is openly available or not, they should be able to evidence from the original place of publication what usage impact that article or that chapter has had. And I can go on that for a very long time. I'll stop now because often usage is published in many different channels. Many times, probably this usage that author is getting is being underrepresented as a result of this missing usage.
So there is a project which is funded by the Mellon Foundation called the open access usage data trust. It's still in relatively preliminary stages. We're putting together the rulebook for data interchange and suchlike, and Emily is involved, as am I. That's a fantastic project. But as I say, it's early days and it is very focused on specifically open access books.
And I think potentially as a community, we could maybe do a sort of an interim project just to return data to the original publisher and at least get a bigger picture of that usage. It wouldn't necessarily be as comprehensive as what everybody's is looking at, but it could be a really nice step in the right direction. And of course it would go beyond books, which would be nice. I think there's an interesting there's a sort of interesting structure in that there are publishers who have relationships with libraries because libraries were funding.
Them via by buying books and by paying for their content. So the libraries could actually say, hey, we want that usage data and we want it in this format. And the publishers are getting money, so they are kind of under pressure to do things. It's a high hurdle to become counter compliant. IT costs money, it costs technology, time, et cetera. So there's sort of a sense in which publishers who already had that subscription level relationship are set up to do that, whereas born zero publishers never had any relationships with the library ever.
So a lot of times this is a bit of a question from me to you. How do you even how would you even what kinds of open access data would you want to track? Only the outputs by your faculty. Would you want to know every kind of open access usage that's out there? So there's sort of an interesting. There's also a bit of a funding gap, I would almost say, for also a platform like that Jay was describing for cactus.
You know, it's nobody you have a B to C relationship with authors and you're in this author mode and nobody ever asked you for counter compliant reports. And suddenly you're like, OK, how, why? Who would we deliver these to? We don't even have a single email address of a librarian who ever asked us for this data. So I think that's an interesting and an interesting issue.
You mean do you ever reach out to open access publishers and have this discussion? I have because I do need I think I've mentioned like some open publishing publishers don't really, you know, provide a counter and it's understandable. They cannot, you know, just share all the content for individual institution level. But I have. But I think they have staffing issues often.
And then the reply is not as quick as the people we pay money to. So that in. Yeah and then I just wanted to mention that there is a. Yeah like a gap between us and publish. Open public open access publishers. Because we don't. If there is money, we talk, but not much money going on. We don't really talk.
It's so sad, but that's how it works. And, and so like we fill in part we are irrelevant to them because they are models without us, whether we pay for them or not, they exist. They don't care about us. Like so like there is this fear of being becoming irrelevant as a librarian. So like. Yeah emotional level.
I don't know if I answered your question, Stephanie, but there is. Yeah mixed feeling. Absolutely absolutely. I think that there's I think we're sort of unearthing some of those areas of disconnect that are preventing us from having a unified shared. Open usage, Uh, landscape. There's a question in the chat that I think is quite interesting.
What are your thoughts on future options for a cost per use style? Evaluation of open access, both for global usage and costs and for institutional level spend and open access usage, whether globally or located and institutional. Does anybody have an attache you waiving your hand? So we have actually provided through the counter media library our educational platform examples of how to do a cost per use calculation that would mimic the cost per download calculation at an institutional level, but on global data for open access content.
So we've already we spent a lot of time speaking with librarians last year about how they would want that to work. And that's how we've that's how we've modeled it. The question of geolocation. And institutional usage is quite interesting. We do have a common extension which report providers can choose to implement, which is called country, and we also do country subdivision.
So you can hypothetically as a publisher, choose to allow people to subdivide your global counter reports by country. The challenge is that certainly a country subdivision level. So state, for example, IP ranges are fairly frequently reallocated. So saying that a specific subdivision is associated with IP range a, that might be true in January of 2023, but not in March of 2023.
So geolocated reports are quite challenging in that perspective. We all? In the early stages of discussions with groups about providing global usage on a per dose level through the open access switchboard. So universities or libraries that have paid for materials to be made to under a particular deal and who are using the switchboard.
We are hoping that we will be able to give them the unique item requests specifically for what they've paid for from the original publisher. So that's it's very, very early days and I am very much that's on the back burner for me until release 5.1 goes out the door in April. So don't watch this space. It's not going to be this year, but it is something that we would like to do because we do see value in helping both publishers and libraries look at that single item level.
So that the institutions can work out if they've got a publishing deal that's cost them £10,000 in the first year. And they've published 75 articles with x number of unique item requests, they can then do that cost per use request. Can I can I add just to add to the sort of complexity of those models is that I mean, with read and publish deals, you have a link between the institution paying for the authors, authors that are affiliated with the institution.
When you add models that decouple that, that, that affiliation. So in a collective funding models where institution institutions are contributing to make a collection open access, for example, irrespective of where the author originates from and how do we count that? Then it gets a little more complicated. So the models are a little more equitable on the one hand, but harder for an institution to track that value for money.
Absolutely and we I mean, I think we always have to keep in mind the question of value as money, because we have to somehow fund these operations, both the libraries and the publishers. But there's a really nice comment in the chat that I just wanted to point out from Fabio batalla that he says, I see that one of the main objectives of Open Usage data is to empower people to produce meaningful insights, more valuable than simply usage volumes.
And usually publishers that are producing those usage data have other priorities that are not related to this usage evaluation. So it's there, there's value and value. And I do think, like you said, tosha, that usage is an, let's say, an undervalued metric of impact just in terms of, you know, people are really able to access this and produce meaningful insights and share them globally with people.
This is just in and of itself what we're all really trying to get to. There were a few very specific comments about the js platform. And maybe that was just maybe j you could answer a couple of these. One was how interoperable is the usage fingerprint?
So how much the individual can pull this information together themselves or how much is that delivered? And then there was another comment in the Q&A about how our discovery adds actually content. Do you have a direct feed from publishers or do you get it from crossref api? So how does content get in and how the users interact with that content was thought you might maybe just address that.
Yeah so we actually acquire content through multiple sources. One is through direct partnerships with publishers. So we have about 10 publisher partnerships right now, everything from a very small society to very large publishers. So we don't really discriminate on who we partner with. We we just want to be able to provide the best information possible for our users.
The other way we get it, of course, is through crossref. And then we also have a partnership with paywall or open Alex for the open access content. And then we then as I said recently, about two weeks ago, we just launched a preprint feed which is over 2 million preprints now that are being curated on a user by user level in a special preprint feed. And that comes from about 109 different preprint servers globally.
And that that number is just going to keep growing as new preprint servers are launched. So that's really how we get content in the way that every user, because they have to sign up and to have an account, they can see exactly what topics they're following, what journals they're following, and then they can tweak those in the settings. So if they don't want to follow a specific topic, they can remove that.
And if they don't want to follow a specific journal, they can remove that. But then we also recommend, like other related topics that they may want to explore and also other journals that they may want to explore. And then we also have recommendations for articles from either the same journal or other similar journals in the app. And then we also provide that stuff through in-app notifications, and we also send out weekly emails where we insert in recommendations for the user to engage with.
Jay that sounds like amazing and like a huge undertaking. How are you? What's your business model for that? How? and do these open access does this open access usage actually feed into that business model? How are you paying for this awesome platform? Yeah so, I mean, for us, we have about a team of 50 people that work on a day to day basis, everything from designers and marketing folks to developers and of course, sales people like myself.
So yes, we do have a large team supporting it and we're constantly updating it. As of currently, the business model has been that it's completely free to use. Our goal and cactus. For the past 20 Plus years, we've worked with a lot of researchers from Asia, from especially from Asia, but also Latin America in the Middle East to help them publish their content with English journals.
So our goal is to try to provide them as many services as they possibly need in order to do their job. So our discovery is just one of those services that we provide. And our hope is that if we build this ecosystem of services, that the researchers will not only utilize our discovery, but also come to us when they need other specific services, like language editing or designing, designing a visual, abstract or an infographic or help with preparing a talk.
So that's really been our focus for the past two years, is trying to build this ecosystem of services for researchers. I think the next phase on where we get into some other business models is going to involve partnering up with publishers to do to do specific channels within the app, possibly, maybe working with institutions to set up custom environments for that institution and their membership.
And, you know, and we're also looking at experimenting with things like translations and and audio features in the app, which could which would be premium on top of what we already provide. So those are some of the things that we're exploring as possible ways to generate revenue for the platform. Mm-hmm And I want to add here, from the publisher's perspective, cooperating with the service, like our discovery, like we know that they know that our discovery does not provide counter counter compliance usage statistics, but they do have lots of other data on usage.
So from the marketing perspective, like especially, we think about how we can learn a little bit more how our content is being used. And in different markets. This is one of the tools we can use like from the marketing perspectives and we can use it to build collections or, you know, provide this information to our library, library relations teams so that they can note our content is trending in this market.
So maybe not necessarily reporting those statistics to our stakeholders, but we can definitely use it for other business purposes. And intarsia and I have spoken about counter. So where I think we're just waiting for five we're waiting for 5.1. Yeah so we're waiting for 5.1. And then I would really like to for our data to become counter compliant because it seems like we collect all the data that counter reports, it's just that we just need to be compliant.
And I will say 5.1 is still on track to go out in April. I might be completely, completely wiped by them, but it is on track to go out and buy April. And I have been suggesting to new platforms who've come to me in the last month or so to wait because. All right. I love Kanter. I think Kanter is really important, but I have to acknowledge it's not the quickest and easiest thing to become compliant with.
I don't want people to have to do rework. I do want to make it as easy as possible for everyone to get on board with the standard. So pragmatic to the end. Just to pop in before we all leave. Is there anywhere that nizar could help with any of these discussions? Connection standards.
Although it seems like it has been a great discussion to I can add something here because there is so many things that is happening currently. And I think that many, many people, many different units are disconnected from what is happening. I know that we're trying to I'm trying to be as updated as possible with everything that is happening in the market. But if we can have like some kind of hub that will provide everything, what is currently not like that is done, but even what is under like under being decided or like worked on, you know, so that we know that there is already initiative that a group of people is working on something that, you know, I as a publisher can go to and you can see like, OK, this is what I should be reading about.
This is what is currently being worked on. And I can just sit still and wait for it, you know. So this is what I think that naza could do for us. A hub for an informational hub, right? Yes I also think science open. We're also an Open Discovery platform. We also collect a lot of usage statistics on the content on our platform, also in a counter like Excel sheets and things like this.
But, but I could imagine bringing together some of the aggregators, researchgate, academia, to also start thinking about like what kind of standards or how could we also work together without sort of creating a single, you know, who's, who's going to be the hub for that, for that usage data because as soon as you start aggregating it too much and then sharing aggregated data.
So I would think that it would be really we are very careful that we don't aggregate data from anybody, any usage data from anybody else because this would, I think be could potentially really muddy the waters. So I think it's important that we all are sort of careful with how we start thinking about consolidating and aggregating usage data. I think it's something that we all want and we've seen where some of those disconnects are, why we don't have already sort of a global shared usage data.
Somebody mentioned it would be really great to have metrics that work for open access content as well as non-zero content. And certainly open access has really changed the playing field in some ways because before when I was a journal manager, we never shared that usage data. Never would we publish usage data on the website or, you know, it was something that we told the editors and, you know, in once a year in the editorial meeting, but otherwise we never shared that kind of data.
And I think that's one of the things that open access has done for the entire community is to start. People want to know how often their paper has been downloaded, even if that's downloaded by libraries or how that works. So so. Well, yeah, very briefly, just to say some aggregators are already counter compliant.
Researchgate is on our registry. And you can check that their metrics are already there. I netty I think possibly counter and I so need to start talking more frequently because I found out recently that I so was not aware that we were working on 5.1. So that's on me. I think we need to. I'm sorry about that. I thought I knew, but it's not sure.
I'm not sure where it came up, but sorry about that. So there was a transfer, obviously. Lorraine retired last year. I came in and I think we just need to reconnect. And that that sounds good. Helpful Yep. And just one more heads up if people want more owa usage data info. There is another panel tomorrow, so I'm definitely also going to check it out.
I put the link in the notes. Fantastic and if anyone is interested in working on the ideas that came up, please put your name in the notes document. It's also linked from the SCID the SCID page for this session. Great then I would just like to thank everybody for attending for all of your great questions, and especially to all of the panelists. It's been great fun just preparing this panel and all of the discussions that we've had up until today and then today with you all.
Also, a special Thanks to kasia. This was her proposal for nice Plus. And I'm really glad that we were able to pull this all together. So Thanks a lot. And Nettie, if I'm correct, we probably have to wrap it up because the next session, actually, we should have done it. Exactly we're a little over time, but that's great. It's been a great session.
Thanks a lot, everyone. Thank you. Have a great day. Take care. Bye
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode