Hi Melissa,

 

I used to religiously monitor JR2 access denied stats, along with ILL requests, to see if I could identify demand for a resource. I rarely looked at abstracts viewed. For now, I believe that an ILL request is a much better indication of true demand than JR2 stats. My reasoning is as follows:

In reviewing JR2 stats for many vendors, I have been continually surprised by how infrequently I see an ILL request, or a pay-per-view request, submitted for even those journals with the greatest number of access denied stats. It became apparent to me, that (at least in the case of some vendors) there is a great deal of inflation in the access denied statistics provided by the vendor –as large as 75% or higher.

 

For instance, 392 actual turnaways for the ScienceDirect journal Tourism Management in a year, only translated into 8 requests for an article from that journal through our pay-per-view service with ScienceDirect – which is very convenient for our students to use. When I asked our ScienceDirect rep how they gather access denied stats, I was told that they count everything that any of our students submitted a query for, regardless of where the query originates. There were other things they mentioned too that made me question their methodology, but I can’t remember everything I was told right now. I believe that the 8 requests submitted through our pay-per-view service with them were a much better indication of true demand than the access denied stats. Buying the subscription would have cost the school almost $2,500. We paid less than 10% of that, and I believe that demand was fully met. Certainly, the ability to access any article needed from that journal was available to the students.

 

With regards to ILL, I usually keep track of the top 10 journals with the highest number of access denied stats, regardless of the vendor. Then I monitor how many times those journals were requested through ILL or PPV. If the number of times a journal is requested approaches the ILL limit, then it is time to consider purchasing that journal. With regards to PPV, if the cost of buying the article through a PPV service exceeds what it would cost to purchase the subscription, then it is again time to considered a subscription.

 

Some vendor’s access denied stats provide a closer approximation of demand than others. I found Wiley and Taylor & Francis stats more realistic. Asking your vendors how they capture access denied stats is a good way to get a feel for whether their stats are reasonable or not.

 

Another avenue to consider is pay-per-view (PDA or pre-paid transactions). My school has found it to be a very cost effective way to offer almost unlimited resources from a vendor, for a fraction of the cost. ScienceDirect, Wiley and Taylor & Francis all offer pay-per-view products.

 

Good luck with this.

 

Brenda Keane

Subscriptions & Archives Coordinator

Johnson & Wales University

8 Abbott Park Place

Yena Center

Providence, RI 02903

401-598-5253

 

 

 

 

WARNING: This email originated from outside of Johnson & Wales University.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender & are expecting the message.