Why don't COUNTER reports include subject classifcations?

Welcome to another in our series of posts answering common COUNTER questions. This time, it’s about why COUNTER reports don’t include a field for classification. We know a lot of librarians would like to see one. The problem is, each librarian who asks the question wants us to use a different classification scheme. As Wikipedia says,

“A library classification is a system used within a library to organize materials, including books, sound and video recordings, electronic materials, etc.,”

Lovely and simple on the surface – but as is so often the case, the simple surface conceals a great deal of complexity.

So what are the options?

If there’s a trend in library requests, it’s that US librarians want us to use Library of Congress Classification (LCC). There’s an equally strong preference from everyone else to not use LCC and instead implement their local equivalent. Libraries in China, for example, have requested that we implement the New Classification Scheme for Chinese Libraries.

A couple of you have asked for Dewey, which is proprietary. Some people have suggested the BISAC subject headings from the Book Industry Study Group, but there’s not enough depth in the scholarly space. MeSH headings only cover biomedical and health-adjacent fields – and there are plenty of other subject-specific vocabularies (e.g. ANS/NISO Z39.96). And of course, if the purpose of adding subject classifications is to easily compare usage across subject areas, then the bespoke subject tags applied by publishers won’t serve.

No one has yet explicitly requested Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). If we were to add classifications, I’d vote for UDC. It’s an international collaborative effort overseen by a non-profit, and available in multiple langauges. What’s not to like?

The summary is that by choosing one classification scheme, we would inevitably fail to satisfy libraries using different schemes. We’d also create a lot of extra work for publishers. At the same time, trying to accommodate multiple schemes would introduce excessive complexity for everyone.

Keep it simple

Our mission to to normalise usage measurement, ensuring consistent, comparable metrics across publishers and content platforms. By keeping subject classification out of the reports, we allow you to decide which classification system you want to apply (or none). You can blend COUNTER reports with internal cataloging metadata, and then analyse usage data according to whichever classification system your institution prefers.

Of course, if you do want us to add subject classifications, I’d be happy to stick it on the list for a future development. You just need to get everyone to agree on which scheme we should apply. Good luck!