2006/02/16 by Philip M. Davis, Jason S. Price, Jason Price · 4 citations
Computer Science · Decision Sciences · #Information Retrieval and Search Behavior #Library Collection Development and Digital Resources #cs.DL #cs.IR #scientometrics and bibliometrics research
paper · pdf · doi:10.1002/asi.20405
published as JASIST v57 n9 (2006):1243-1248 · 22 pages, 5 figures. JASIST (in press, 2006)
arxiv created 2006/02/16 · openalex publication_date 2006/05/11 · arxiv updated 2009/12/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
Abstract The design of a publisher's electronic interface can have a measurable effect on electronic journal usage statistics. A study of journal usage from six COUNTER‐compliant publishers at 32 research institutions in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden indicates that the ratio of PDF to HTML views is not consistent across publisher interfaces, even after controlling for differences in publisher content. The number of full‐text downloads may be artificially inflated when publishers require users to view HTML versions before accessing PDF versions or when linking mechanisms, such as CrossRef, direct users to the full text rather than the abstract of each article. These results suggest that usage reports from COUNTER‐compliant publishers are not directly comparable in their current form. One solution may be to modify publisher numbers with “adjustment factors” deemed to be representative of the benefit or disadvantage due to its interface. Standardization of some interface and linking protocols may obviate these differences and allow for more accurate cross‐publisher comparisons.