ACCESS likes music databases, which explains
why in this issue we feature the Smithsonian Global Sounds database from
Alexander Street Press. Besides several audio archives of American folk
and traditional music, there is also music from India and South Africa. If
you're a world-music-kinda-dude (or dudette) don't let this database pass
you by. The full score is here.
SuperStar at University of Hong Kong
Libraries
Was it Andy Lau? Jacky Chan? Nicole Kidman? Or Aretha Franklin?
No, it was something much bigger. This SuperStar has 280,000 names all
rolled into one. It's Chinese, it is mirrored at the HKUL, and it will be available
for other Hong Kong's libraries. Find out what it is here.
Which are the top two science journals in the
world?
The International Journal of Woolly Mammoth
Preservation and the International Journal of Dandruff Studies, were voted
the top science journals of 2004. Noted for their insightful editorials,
earth shattering science and their contribution to The Flintstone cartoon
series and employment of longhaired shampoo models, both journals
increased their reputation for excellence. Okay, we jest. Want to know
whom Thomson Scientific chose?Here has
the answer.
Insights into published scientific
research
At the end of 2004, CAS had 24 million records in its
databases of which 855,000 abstracts were added in that year alone. 1.8
million records of organic and inorganic chemicals were added. And the
number of citations appearing in CAS databases grew to more than 120
million. For more number crunching at CAS, see the figures here.
Hijacking your heritage through
patents
India, Thailand and other countries have been to court
to stop the patenting and trade marking of their plants and foodstuffs. To
aid the fight against contentious patent claims, SAARC is creating a
Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, so that it is easier for South
Asian countries to prove prior existence of knowledge. The TKDL will be
modelled on India's own TKDL set up after a successful fight to revoke a
US patent for the use of turmeric to heal wounds, an age old practice in
the subcontinent. More here.
India has this problem
too
The Chinese government is to help transform its
country's 4,500 scientific journals into world class publications. Like
India, but more so because of language, Chinese journals have a low
international profile, not befitting the country's growing international
status. As a start, English language academic journals and some popular
science publications will receive a boost with government funds.
The full story is here.
Oh no. Not more open access
stuff!
'fraid so. But this time it's stuff of substance. The
leading economist of academic publishing, Dr. Mark McCabe, has been
comparing the economics of traditional scientific journals and open access
journals. Together with Christopher Snyder, Dr. McCabe compares 'reader
pays' with 'author pays'. If econometrics and graphs send you to sleep, do
not fear: the findings of this two sided market framework are lucid and
easy to read. As you will see here.
Are you a leader of a
follower?
If you feel you've been blessed with Napoleonic or Ho
Chi Minhian qualities of leadership that need to be nourished to reveal
their true colours, the University of Hong Kong Libraries has the
fertiliser you need. Now in its third year, the Third Leadership Institute
admits senior librarians to this residential course, in Macau this year,
to encourage the blossoming of new management and leadership skills.
If you're a myrmidon, no need to read the story here.
Fellowships to study
in Singapore
Need a ticket to ride? AMRC
at NTU is offering four fellowships a year to study at AMRC. AMRC came
about through the merger of the AMIC and SCI collections. Such a unique
collection deserves to be mined by researchers to support their
communication and information research from an Asian perspective. Doesn't
matter where you live either. Acronyms explained here.
ACCESS interviews Dr. Peter
Shepherd, COUNTER Project
Director
Counting Online
Usage of NeTworked Electronic Resources, better known to you and me
as COUNTER
continues to attract publishers
wanting to offer their subscribers usage statistics. COUNTER has
been with us since 2002 and is managed by Dr. Peter Shepherd, a
veteran of the global publishing industry. ACCESS conducted this
interview with Dr. Shepherd by email.
Who
owns COUNTER?
COUNTER Online Metrics is a
not-for-profit company set up in England in 2003. It owns all
the assets associated with the COUNTER brand. COUNTER Online
Metrics is itself owned by its members. COUNTER membership is
open to any vendor, library, library consortium, or other
qualified organization. There are currently over 150 COUNTER
members. COUNTER's sole source of income is annual membership
fees paid by members.
Does
it have full time staff?
No. As the Project Director I'm
engaged on a part-time, freelance consultant basis. One of
COUNTER's main objectives is to run an efficient, low-overhead
organization.
Is
there value in making COUNTER data publicly available to
assist librarians take decisions about, for example, journal
selection?
Data may be shared among libraries
and publishers on specific projects, subject to the
confidentiality requirements specified in their contracts with
publishers, consortia, etc. There is certainly value in
sharing data, as a recent JISC (UK) project using COUNTER data
from a number of libraries has shown.
Following on from that, how can
librarians compare usage data for competing titles which they
do not hold?
It is too early to say how this
aspect is developing. Librarians have only started using
COUNTER statistics during the last year.
Comparing reports from different
publishers must be done locally. Will COUNTER be working
towards making this task easier for librarians, by developing
tools for example?
COUNTER will not itself be
developing toolkits, but is actively encouraging suitable
qualified organizations and companies to do so.
Even
with COUNTER reports from a range of publishers, a lot of
librarians still complain that it's very difficult and time
consuming to make usage comparisons across a range of
publishers. Are there any plans to make this easier?
Yes, COUNTER encourages the
development of toolkits as just mentioned.
What
are the main incentives for publishers to become COUNTER
compliant? Is it increased sales? Maintaining their
subscription base? Something else?
First, to meet an important customer
need. Second, to demonstrate to customers that their online
publications are used. Third, so that they have a better
insight into how their own products are used online.
Does
COUNTER in effect create a two tier system amongst publishers
- those who are compliant and those who are not? Won't this
stigmatise the smaller publishers who may not have the means
to become compliant?
COUNTER compliance is open to all.
Smaller publisher may use a third party to develop their usage
statistics if they do not have the resources internally to do
so. Most businesses have standards that cost money to meet;
publishing is no different and we have gone out of our way to
ensure that COUNTER standards are not unduly burdensome to
publishers.
What
guarantees are there that all COUNTER publishers really are
abiding by the rules? Are publishers audited for example?
Publishers not only have to certify
in writing that they comply with COUNTER. From 2006 they will
have to be audited annually by an independent auditor.
If
librarians increasingly use usage as the sole measure of value
of a journal, what will be the result for specialist titles or
those in the humanities? High use doesn't necessarily mean
high value so how will we protect the high value, low used
journals?
There is no indication that
librarians plan to use usage as the sole measure of the value
of a journal. It is only one of several measures.
Have
any studies been done comparing journals' usage? Which
publishers offer the best used journals and which offer the
least used journals?
Yes, the first has just been
completed by JISC in the UK. The full results will not be
published, however, owing to confidentiality obligations.
Will
usage statistics/analysis ever be a service publishers could
charge for?
The COUNTER statistics reports must
be provided at no extra charge. This is part of the Code of
Practice. Of course, publishers may provide other reports
outside of COUNTER for which they may charge.
Does
COUNTER work with open access journals?
Yes, PLoS is COUNTER compliant.
However, as things stand at the moment COUNTER statistics will
tend to underestimate overall usage of open access journals,
as it will not be practical for all usage to be measured. With
time it may happen that most open access journal usage occurs
on relatively few sites that can produce COUNTER
statistics.
Is
there an easy way to combine usage data for a journal
available on different publisher/vendor platforms?
Yes, the protocols for doing this
are clearly stated in the Code of Practice. Toolkits as
described earlier will further facilitate this.
Would
shared and publicly available usage statistics replace or
diminish the 'quality standard' of impact factors?
No, but they will provide an
additional means of measuring the value of a journal.
If
COUNTER statistics were more widely available, would they
influence the price of journals?
There is not yet enough data to
speculate on this. As I have already said usage statistics are
only one measure of the value of a journal.
Asia
has thousands of journals published in local languages,
especially Chinese and Japanese. How can COUNTER help their
publishers and library subscribers?
If these journals are available
online they can apply for COUNTER compliance. COUNTER
statistics will allow publishers and libraries alike to
monitor usage, irrespective of the journal's language.
What
are the future plans for COUNTER?
COUNTER has just released a draft
Code of Practice for online books and reference works, so our
coverage is extending to more content types. We also promote
ever wider compliance and will be publishing Release 2 of the
Code of Practice for journals and databases in the Spring of
2005.
Finally, what would you say to Asian
librarians to encourage them to use COUNTER reports?
COUNTER is the only route allowing
librarians to reliably compare usage statistics form different
publishers, whatever language they publish in. Numbers are
universal.
Who
owns COUNTER? 
