Explainer · Plain-language

Counter: Definition, Meaning & Examples | CASRAI

COUNTER (Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources) is an international standard that defines how usage of online scholarly content should be recorded and reported, so that the resulting statistics are consistent, credible, and comparable across different publishers and platforms. Publishers that comply produce usage reports following the COUNTER Code of Practice, currently Release 5 and 5.1. The SUSHI protocol allows these reports to be harvested automatically. Libraries rely on COUNTER data to assess the value of their subscriptions.

CASRAI plain-language explainers — clear answers to recurring research-administration questions

The step most authors miss

Doing CRediT right? Don’t stop at the statement.

A CRediT statement credits you inside one paper. The recognition CRediT was built for happens when those roles are tied to you, persistently. Sign in with your ORCID — free — and claim your CRediT contributions on casrai.org, the home of the standard. They become a verified, portable part of your identity, not a line that disappears into one PDF.

Free: claim your contributions, then export a journal-ready CRediT statement, schema.org structured data, JATS XML, CSV or BibTeX — and preview your public profile. A membership publishes that profile publicly and verifies the journals you serve.

Why standardised usage statistics matter

Before COUNTER, every publisher reported usage differently, so libraries could not reliably compare how much one platform's content was used against another's. COUNTER addresses this by setting common definitions, rules, and report formats, so that a "view" or "download" means the same thing wherever it is counted. This comparability underpins collection management: libraries can judge cost-per-use across resources, identify low-use subscriptions, and make evidence-based renewal decisions. Standardisation turns raw, vendor-specific logs into a credible basis for comparison.

The Code of Practice: Release 5 and 5.1

COUNTER's requirements are set out in its Code of Practice. Release 5 introduced a more consistent and flexible reporting structure with a defined set of standard reports and master reports that can be filtered. Release 5.1 is a subsequent update that refines and clarifies the rules, including the handling of certain content types. Compliance is not automatic: vendors must implement the Code of Practice and have their reports independently audited to claim COUNTER compliance, which gives libraries assurance that the figures are trustworthy.

Metric types and SUSHI harvesting

COUNTER distinguishes between metric types so that usage is not overstated. Total Item Requests count every request for an item, while Unique Item Requests count each item only once per user session, reducing the inflation caused by repeated clicks or page reloads. Reporting both gives a fuller picture of genuine use. Because libraries subscribe to many platforms, collecting reports by hand is laborious. The SUSHI protocol (Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative) provides an automated way to retrieve COUNTER reports programmatically, so usage statistics management systems can gather data from many vendors without manual downloads.

Who relies on COUNTER, and IRUS

COUNTER is used across the scholarly-communication ecosystem. Libraries and consortia use it to assess value for money and manage collections; publishers and platform providers produce COUNTER reports as a standard expectation of their customers; and analytics and decision-support tools build on the standardised data. For institutional and other repositories, IRUS provides COUNTER-conformant usage statistics, enabling repositories to report downloads in a way that is comparable with publisher data and consistent across institutions. This extends standardised, credible usage reporting beyond subscription content to open repository holdings.

Key facts

At a glance

Full name: Counting Online Usage of Networked Electronic Resources
Purpose: standardised, comparable usage statistics for online scholarly content
Current: Code of Practice Release 5 and Release 5.1
Metric types: Total Item Requests and Unique Item Requests, among others
Harvesting: SUSHI protocol for automated retrieval of reports
Repositories: IRUS provides COUNTER-conformant repository statistics

Common misconceptions

What people often get wrong

Often heard: COUNTER measures the quality or impact of research.

Actually: No — it standardises usage statistics (such as item requests and downloads). High usage reflects activity and reach, not the quality, validity, or scholarly impact of the content.

Often heard: Total Item Requests and Unique Item Requests are the same.

Actually: No — Total Item Requests count every request, while Unique Item Requests count each item only once per session, reducing inflation from repeated views. They answer different questions.

Often heard: Any vendor-reported download figure is COUNTER-compliant.

Actually: No — compliance requires implementing the Code of Practice and passing an independent audit. Only audited, conformant reports can claim COUNTER compliance.

Going deeper