RAMP – the Repository Analytics and Metrics Portal

OBrien, Patrick; Arlitsch, Kenning; Mixter, Jeff; Wheeler, Jonathan; Sterman, Leila

doi:10.1108/lht-11-2016-0122

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, while being easily accessible and commonly used, GA may not be the most appropriate tool to use in scientific research [18]. For example, prior research by OBrien et al [19] has demonstrated that 58% of activity on a website is unreported by GA.…”

Section: Monitoring Web Usagementioning

confidence: 99%

Usage Metrics of Web-Based Interventions Evaluated in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review

Koneska¹,

Appelbe²,

Williamson³

2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The evaluation of web-based interventions (defined as an intervention that can be downloaded or accessed on the internet through a web browser) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has increased over the past two decades. Little is known about how participants’ use of the intervention is measured, reported, and analyzed in these studies. Objective This study aimed to review the evaluation of web-based interventions in RCTs, assessing study characteristics and the methods used to record, and adjust for, intervention usage. Methods A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify all published reports of RCTs that involved a web-based intervention. A random sample of 100 published trials was selected for detailed data extraction. Information on trial characteristics was extracted, including whether web usage data were recorded, and if so, the methods used to gather these data and whether these data were used to inform efficacy analyses. Results A PubMed search identified 812 trials of web-based interventions published up to the end of 2017 and demonstrated a growing trend over time. Of the 100 studies reviewed, 90 studies collected web usage data, but more than half (49/90, 54%) of these studies did not state the method used for recording web usage. Only four studies attempted to check on the reliability of their web usage data collection methods. A total of 39% (35/90) studies reported patterns or levels of web intervention use, of which 21% (19/90) studies adjusted for intervention use in their outcome analysis, but only two of these used appropriate statistical methods. Conclusions Trialists frequently report a measure of web-based intervention usage but do not always report the collection method or provide enough detail on their analysis of web usage. Appropriate statistical methods to account for intervention use are rarely used and are not well reported even in the very few trials in which they are used. The number of trialists who attempt to check on the reliability of their web usage collection methods is extremely low.

show abstract

Section: Monitoring Web Usagementioning

confidence: 99%

Usage Metrics of Web-Based Interventions Evaluated in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review

Koneska¹,

Appelbe²,

Williamson³

2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only one respondent asked for statistics on individual users and it was not clear whether that was a statistic on a self-archiving researcher or a downloader of information. It would be interesting to compare IRUS with the RAMP system (Repository Analytics and Metrics Portal) in the US that seeks to measure and provide similar types of usage information (O'Brien, Arlitsch, Mixter, Wheeler, & Sterman, 2017;O'Brien et al, 2016).…”

Section: Metrics and Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The repository, the researcher, and the REF: “It's just compliance, compliance, compliance”

Holter

2020

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although institutional repositories (IRs) have become widespread, they have been consistently under-populated and under-utilised. Unless their content approaches a significant percentage of a university's output, IRs can neither form a useful branch of open access to scholarly communications, nor provide a representative view of an institution's research output. The UK's 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF) requires all work submitted to it to have been deposited in a repository, which for most authors would mean an IR. This research sought to understand the impact of the REF mandate upon researchers and repository staff, and upon their relationship with the university, through a series of semi-structured interviews with researchers and repository managers. The research discovered that despite steep rises in repository submissions, little resource has been made available to accommodate hugely-increased workloads, nor have interfaces been improved. Researchers and repository-managers alike struggle with a tedious and difficult administrative task that may require many iterations to complete. The research concludes that the mandate, and the pressure it places on the relationship between the researcher and the institution, is highlighting unspoken tensions in this relationship. Although the mandate is increasing the amount of open access material in the UK, as well as providing universities with evidence for the REF, it is placing significant strain on the tacit contract between a researcher and their employer.Opportunities to align the participants, to create alternative metrics from newly available data, and to develop new solutions, are being missed. This has implications for the way other mandates focusing on deposit in IRs are managed, both within and beyond the UK.

show abstract

“…It is noteworthy that the same group of researchers are responsible for the Repository Analytics and Metrics Portal (RAMP) which seeks to improve the quality of usage and traffic analytics [19].…”

Section: Repository Visibility and Discovery: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing Content Discovery of Open Repositories: An Analytics-Based Evaluation of Repository Optimizations

Macgregor

2020

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ensuring open repositories fulfil the discovery needs of both human and machine users is of growing importance and essential to validate the continued relevance of open repositories to users, and as nodes within open scholarly communication infrastructure. Following positive preliminary results reported elsewhere, this submission analyses the longer-term impact of a series of discovery optimization approaches deployed on an open repository. These approaches were designed to enhance content discovery and user engagement, thereby improving content usage. Using Strathprints, the University of Strathclyde repository as a case study, this article will briefly review the techniques and technical changes implemented and evaluate the impact of these changes by studying analytics relating to web impact, COUNTER usage and web traffic over a 4-year period. The principal contribution of the article is to report on the insights this longitudinal dataset provides about repository visibility and discoverability, and to deliver robust conclusions which can inform similar strategies at other institutions. Analysis of the unique longitudinal dataset provides persuasive evidence that specific enhancements to the technical configuration of a repository can generate substantial improvements in its content discovery potential and ergo its content usage, especially over several years. In this case study, COUNTER usage grew by 62%. Increases in Google ‘impressions’ (266%) and ‘clicks’ (104%) were a notable finding too, with high levels of statistical significance found in the correlation between clicks and usage ( t = 14.30 , df = 11 , p < 0.0005 ). Web traffic to Strathprints from Google and Google Scholar (GS) was found to increase significantly with growth on some metrics exceeding 1300%. Although some of these results warrant further research, the article nevertheless demonstrates the link between repository optimization and the need for open repositories to assume a proactive development path, especially one that prioritises web impact and discovery.

show abstract

RAMP – the Repository Analytics and Metrics Portal

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Usage Metrics of Web-Based Interventions Evaluated in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review

Usage Metrics of Web-Based Interventions Evaluated in Randomized Controlled Trials: Systematic Review

The repository, the researcher, and the REF: “It's just compliance, compliance, compliance”

Enhancing Content Discovery of Open Repositories: An Analytics-Based Evaluation of Repository Optimizations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About