Home⇛PAARL Research Journal⇛vol. 9 no. 1 - Special Anniversary Issue (2023)

Transaction Log Analysis of an Institutional Repository (IR): Unveiling Utilization and User Behavior Patterns

Ana Maria B. Fresnido | Avelino E. Dancalan | Annabelle F. Aliwalas

 

Abstract:

Purpose/objectives. As the value of digital collections is usually measured using metrics, this study examined the transaction logs of the IR of a big university in Manila using three categories (utilization, global visibility, and user behavior) as a framework to determine the effectiveness of the repository. Significance of the study. The results of the study can provide valuable insights which can serve as the basis for recalibrating plans for digitization, storage decisions, and marketing. Design, methodology, approach. This descriptive quantitative study employed transaction log analysis (TLA) to help determine the extent of utilization of the IR being evaluated. Data were generated from the Digital Commons (the IR platform) dashboard. Google Analytics was used to gain insights into the behavior of users. Data examined covered two-year (from October 2020 to September 2022) search logs for the 33,707 metadata, where 4,964 or 14.73% have full texts. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze and interpret the transaction logs generated from Digital Commons and Google Analytics. Findings. Findings showed that views and downloads are high; and that the extent of the IR’s global and research visibility is widespread, having reached all six continents. Although most visitors were from Asia, particularly the Philippines, India, Indonesia, China, and Malaysia, a seeming interest from visitors in North America and Europe was observed. The high visits without site search, the short session duration, and the high bounce rate indicate low user engagement pointing to problems that need to be addressed regarding the IR content or issues regarding the platform itself (e.g., search facility). Originality of the paper. The study is a humble contribution to the limited literature on using transaction log analysis in evaluating an IR



References:

  1. Abrizah, A., Noorhidawati, A., & Kiran, K. (2010). Global visibility of Asian universities’ open access institutional repositories. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 15(3), 53–73.
  2. Allen, J. (2005). Interdisciplinary differences in attitudes towards deposit in institutional repositories.
  3. Asadi, S., Abdullah, R., Yah, Y., & Nazir, S. (2019). Understanding institutional repository in higher learning Institutions: A systematic literature review and directions for future research. IEEE Access, 7, 35242–35263. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2897729
  4. Average session duration. (2023). https://dashthis.com/kpi-examples/averagesession-duration/#:~:text= What is a good average, is between 2-4 minutes.
  5. Average session duration in Google Analytics. (2023). https://www.hotjar.com/google-analytics/glossary/session-duration/
  6. Barba, I., Cassidy, R., Leon, E. De, & Williams, B. J. (2013). Web analytics reveal user behavior : TTU Libraries’ experience with Google Analytics. Journal of Web Librarianship, 7, 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2013.828991
  7. Benefits of an institutional repository. (2004). Library Technology Reports, July August, 11–16. Bepress. (2023). Digital Commons dashboard. https://bepress.com/reference_guide_ dc/digital-commons-dashboard/
  8. Cassella, M. (2010). Institutional repositories: An internal and external perspective on the value of IRs for researchers’ communities. LIBER Quarterly, 20(2), 210– 225. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.7989
  9. Chaudhary, S. (2022). How to track user behavior with Google Analytics. https://www.godaddy.com/resources/skills/track-user-behavior-google-analytics
  10. Chukwueke, C., Nnadozie, C. D., & Okafor, V. N. (2020). Enhancing academic visibility of faculty members in Nigerian university community: The role of institutional repositories. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), 7(9), 87–94. www.rsisinternational.org
  11. Covey, D. T. (n.d.). Recruiting content for the institutional repository (pp. 1–18).
  12. Cullen, R., & Chawner, B. (2010). Institutional repositories: Assessing their value to the academic community. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 11(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1108/14678041011064052
  13. Fang, W. (2007). Using Google Analytics for improving library website content and design: A case study. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–17.
  14. Ferreira, M., Baptista, A. A., Rodrigues, E., & Saraiva, R. (2008). Carrots and sticks: Some ideas on how to create a successful institutional repository. D-Lib Magazine, 14(1–2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1045/january2008-ferreira
  15. Friend, F. J. (2006). Google Scholar: Potentially good for users of academic information. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0009.105
  16. Giesecke, J. (2011). Institutional repositories: Keys to success. Journal of Library Administration, 51(5–6), 529–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2011.589340
  17. Google Analytics users. (2023). https://www.hotjar.com/google-analytics/glossary/users/
  18. Hee Kim, H., & Ho Kim, Y. (2008). Usability study of digital institutional repositories. Electronic Library, 26(6), 863–881. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470810921637
  19. Heitmayer, M. (2022). Patterns of multi-device use with the smartphone. A video ethnographic study of young adults’ multi-device use with smartphones in naturally occurring contexts. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 8(April), 100244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100244
  20. Holland, M., Dutton, M., & Glover, S. (2023). How it’s done: Search tools and techniques for major bibliographic databases. Paramedic Practice, 13(5), 210–213.
  21. Kim, J. (2006). Finding documents in a digital institutional repository: DSpace and Eprints. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.1450420173
  22. Konkiel, S., Dalmau, M., & Scherer, D. (2015). Altmetrics and analytics for digital special collections and institutional repositories. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1392140.v1
  23. Lam, K. T., & Chan, D. L. H. (2007). Building an institutional repository: Sharing experiences at the HKUST Library. OCLC Systems and Services, 23(3), 310– 323. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650750710776440
  24. Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional repositories: Essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(2), 327– 336. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2003.0039
  25. Narayan, B., & Luca, E. (2017). Issues and challenges in researchers adoption of open access and institutional repositories: A contextual study of a university repository. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 22(4), 1–25. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/121438/1/Issues and challenges in researchers’ adoption of open access and institutional repositories%3A a contextual study of a university repository.pdf
  26. Organic search: What is organic search. (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2023, from https://www.wordstream.com/organic-search
  27. Part one: Understanding your Google Analytics report. (2023). https://ocreative.com/understanding-google-analytics-your-website-traffic-report/
  28. Riserbato, R. (2022). What’s an organic search & how do you report on it? https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/organic-search-definition-100-words
  29. Shreeves, S. L., & Cragin, M. H. (2008). Introduction: Institutional repositories: Current state and future. Library Trends, 57(2), 89–97.
  30. Thibodeau, K. (2007). If you build it, will it fly? Criteria for success in a digital repository. Digital Curation & Trusted Repositories, 8(2), 1–9.
  31. Tsakonas, G., & Papatheodorou, C. (Eds.). (2009). Evaluation of digital libraries: An insight into useful applications and methods. Elsevier.
  32. Turner, S. J. (2010). Website statistics 2.0: Using Google Analytics to measure library website effectiveness. Technical Services Quarterly, 27(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131003765910
  33. Ukwoma, S. C., & Okafor, V. N. (2017). Institutional repository in Nigerian universities: Trends and development. Library Collections, Acquisition and Technical Services, 40(1–2), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649055.2017.1331653
  34. Vecchione, A., Brown, D., Allen, E., & Baschnagel, A. (2016). Tracking user behavior with Google Analytics events on an academic library web site. Journal of Web Librarianship, 10(3), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/193 22909.2016.1175330
  35. Villén-Rueda, L., Senso, J. A., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2007). The use of OPAC in a large academic library: A transactional log analysis study of subject searching. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(3), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2007.01.018
  36. Ware, M. (2004). Institutional repositories and scholarly publishing. Learned Publishing, 17(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1087/095315104322958490
  37. Westell, M. (2006). Institutional repositories: Proposed indicators of success. Library Hi Tech, 24(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610669583
  38. What is “traffic source.” (2023). Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/traffic-source
  39. Xia, J., & Sun, L. (2007). Assessment of self-archiving in institutional repositories: Depositorship and full-text availability. Serials Review, 33(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2007.10765087
  40. Yang, L., & Perrin, J. M. (2014). Tutorials on Google Analytics: How to craft a web analytics report for a library web site. Journal of Web Librarianship, 8(4), 404–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322909.2014.944296
  41. Zhang, H., Boock, M., & Wirth, A. A. (2015). It takes more than a mandate: Factors that contribute to increased rates of article deposit to an institutional repository. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 3(1), 0–16. https://doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.1208

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic