The Data Imperative: Libraries and Research Data : comment

I put this in to a seperate post. It continues on from my previous post, but didn’t want my notes of the day to be taken over by my ill thought views.

Personal Thoughts

Reluctant to give some thoughts as I know so little about the service. However… (!)

There seems to be two clear areas here: Data formatting and Data storing. There is some linkage (Preserving surely covers both, formats can become obsolete, Servers die), yet the two seem to be somewhat seperate.

Both require IT skills, but IT is a broad church, the former is technical metadata (and is very much IT and library) and in the general area that I sees covered in the Eduserv efoundations blog.

The latter in its simplest form is hard core infrastructure. Disks, sans, servers, security, but also has elements at the application level (how do we access it, using what software, repositories? CRIS? Fedora?).

On another issue, while it is easy to say that libraries should take the lead, I think we need to be cautious. With the current climate of frozen or decreasing budgets nationally, and journal subscription pressure, how wise is it to go to the University’s executive and demand funding for resources/staff for data management. We know it’s important and could make the process of research more efficient, but there are other things higher up a Universities list of priorities (NSS/atracting good students, REF, research funding). Even at a library level, journals help researchers do research (which brings funding), and keep students happy because we have the stuff they need (NSS). How many journals should we cancel to focus on Research Data? Why? The recent JISC call will help with providing a business case.

The problem at the moment is that there are not enough clear benefits for most Universities to steam ahead with this. Let’s clarify this: not enough benefits for the institution itself. The benefits are for the UK as a while (actually, the while world). It’s the UK-wide economy and research that will benefit. So maybe it needs UK-wide funding. It’s easier to convince someone (or something) to spend money when the benefits for them are clear. In this case the benefits are for UK so it should the UK which sets aside explicit cash (via HEFCE, JISC, and so on).

And this is happening, with the JISC call (talked about today), amongst other things it will help build examples.

But I’m not sure if the institutional level is the best one. Australia has been successful with a centralised approach. We have a number of small Universities, and those which only have one or two departments which are research active. Yet the resources/knowledge required of them will be similar to that of a large institution. Will this leave them at a disadvantage?

On another note, it seems the range of data is vast. When dicussing this, I always – incorrectly – picture text based data, of vearying size, perhaps using XML. Of course this is blinkered. For auido, images and similar should a data service just provide a method to download, or a method to browse and view/listen? When it comes to storage and delivery, should we just treat all data as ‘blobs’ – things to be downloaded as a file, and we no nothing more with it? This makes it easy and repository softwareapplications (eprints/dspace/fedora) are well placed to cater to this need. But I get the impression that this is somewhat simplistic. Perhaps this means a data service needs a clear scope, otherwise we could end up building front end applications which mimic flickr, youtube and all in one. A costly path to go down.

[all views are my own. are wrong, badly worded, ill thought, why are you reading this?, just think the opposite and it will be right, etc]

Event: The Data Imperative: Libraries and Research Data

Today I’m at the one day event ‘The Data Imperative: Libraries and Research Data’ at the Oxford e-research Centre. As usual, these are my own rough notes. There are mistakes, gaps and my own interpretation of what was said.

Paul Jeffreys : Director of IT, Oxford University.

Started off giving an overview of where this has come from. e-Research is more than just e-Infrastructure. e-Research is not just about outputs, but outputs (articles/data) are a part of this, and an discreet area to work on.

This is a cross-discipline area, it needs academics, University executive, research office, IT and Library. Libraries have skills that have to be fed in to this.

EIDCSR : ‘Enough talking,  let’s try and do it’, selected two research groups to work with, but not a pilot, a long term commitment. He talks about Oxford’s commitment to a data repository, it stresses cross agencies, mentions business models and feeds in to a senior research committee (the quote is far too long to add here!).

As each HEI is facing the same issue, it makes sense for national activity. but how much is done locally and how much is done nationally.

What is the vision of research management data? To what extent is managing research data the role of the Library/librarians? Is data management and data repositories a new kind of activity? Is it Librarians or Information Professionals who are charged to take this forward? [cjk: i thought they were one and the same]

John K Milner : Project Manager UKRDS

Can’t just use existing subject specific data centres. Need for cross-discipline (eg climate change) and therefore universal standards and methods so one subject can use another subject’s data with ease.

Feasibility study:

Understand what is happening today? where are the gaps. Avoid re-inventing the wheel.

Four Case studies (Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, Oxford), views of ~700 researchers over all disciplines (inc the arts).

What did they learn?

About half of the data has a useful life of 10 years? 26% has ‘indefinite’ value, ie keep for ever’ Nearly all kept locally (memory stick, departmental server, [cjk: not good!]).

21% use a national/international data centre. 18% share with them.

UK has rich landscape of facilities, skills and infrastructure.

The management of data from a research project are now starting to be directly funded, which is important.

What are others doing? Are we in step with other countries? Yes. US spending $100 million on 5 large data centres. Australians are leading in this area, and have a central approach to it. Canada and Germany also have similar developments.

Aim: to set up a framework for research data.

Why Pathfinder: not a pilot but the start of a long term commitment.

[my notes miss a bit here, had to deal with a urgent work issue]

Service must be useful and accessible. Need a framework for stakeholder engagement.

This is non-trivial. Lots of parties involved, a lot of effort needed.

Citation of datasets is of growing interest to some researchers, this may help engage the research community.

Showing a diagram of UKRDS Basic processes. Split between ‘Research Project process’, Research data sharing process and UKRDS Services and Administration

Diagram doesn’t focus on curation but on accessibility (inc discovery, stable storage, identity) as this seems like the most important part. Discovery:Google, Identity(auth):Shibboleth.

Making it happen.

Need clearly defined service elements, will involve DCC, RIN and data centres.

HEIs need a reliable back-office service to handle working with data.

UKRDS is extremely challenging, nothing is easy and it is expensive. Needs support of funders and HEIs, need the right bodies to show leadership and shape policy. It will take time.

Q: Is it limited to HEI or public sector (museums etc). A: a more complicated issue, but they are working with the liked of Connecting for Health and DEFRA.

Q: Copyright. A: HEI often don’t own copyright. Data Management Plan (Wellcome are funding Data planning as part of funding)

Q: Is it retrospective? A: Could be. [he did say more]

Q: Could UKRDS influence ‘reputational kick back’ [nice phase!] e.g. for the REF. A: Yes, in discussion with HEFCE.

Q: Research Councils A: they are in discussion with RCs but Wellcome very much taking the lead (leap of faith) in the area. The whole key is a ‘value proposition’ which makes a case for funding this.

Q/point: Engage government/politicians.

Q: Challenge in explaining what it is, especially for subjects which are already doing something with data. How can we tap in to those already doing it? A: there is sometimes a missing link between researchers and subject national data centres. No real relationship between the two. Which is a problem in cross-subject research.

Research data management at the University of Oxford: a case study for institutional engagement – Luis Martinez, OeRC, Sally Rumsey, Oxford University Library Service

More of a ‘in practice’ talk, rather than high level.

Luis Martinez

Scoping study: ‘DataShare project‘. Talking to researchers they found some couldn’t understand they own old data, some wanted to publish their own data, some found data was lost when academics moved on.

Requirements: Advice/support across research cycle (where to store it, how, etc), Secure Storage for large dataset. Sustainably infrastructure.

Lots of different Oxford units need to be consulted (library, it, research technology, academics, legal, repository etc).

Findings after consultation: there is actually widespread expertise in data management and curation amongst service units, and other findings. DataShare: new models, tools, workflows for academic data sharing.

Data Audit Framework: (DAF) adapted this to Oxford needs and used it to document practices in research groups.

Policy-making for Research Data in Repositories : a guide‘ [pdf]

The EIDCSR challenge: two units that both research around the human heart. The two groups share the data between them and agree to produce 3d models using the combined data. They are helping this groups do this, using a ‘life cycle approach’.

Using the DAF to capture the requirements. Participating in the UKRDS Pathfinder (as above).

They have a blog

Sally Rumsey

Starts of by talking about the roles required regarding the library. They have Repository staff, librarians, curators, but not so sure about ‘data librarians’.

What should of data should they be responsible for? Some stuff can go to a national service. There are vast datasets (eg Oxford Supercomputing centre), who has the expertise to make these specialised datasets available. Some departments already have provision in place, fine, why rock the boat.

Long tail. Every thing else (not above). No other home, lots of it, Academics asking for it, highly individual (ie unique), hums and sciences.

Things to consider: live or changing data Freely available or restricted? Long term post project?

Showing what looks like a list of random words/letters/strings of chars, an example of some data they were asked to look after from the English department.

Showing a diagram showing that Fedora (a repository system which is strong on metadata/structure but lacks an out of the box UI) is key to the setup. many applications can sit on top of it. Institutional Repository is just one application which runs on top of Fedora.

ORA (IR) for DATA: actual data can be held anywhere in University but ORA is a place of discovery. Allows for referencing of data. Might want to link to ‘DataBank‘ (a proof of concept to show what is possible).

Databank: how do you search/discover? First things added were audio files, perhaps then photos, how do you find them?

Showing Databank. Explaining that everything has a uid so we have cool URLs, and hence you can link to it [yes!]. Explaining how you can group an audio object, a related photo object and a related text object (perhaps explaining it).

End of morning discussion (I’ll just note some points I picked up):

This seems to raise such huge resource implications.

DAF is flexible, you can pick elements of it to use.

Non academic repositories, such as flickr, preservation issues, if they go down. [unlike the AHDS then!]

The Research Data Management Workforce – Alma Swan, Key Perspectives

Study commissioned by JISC, looking at the ‘supply of DS [data scientists] skills’.

NSF Roles:

  • Data Authors – produce data
  • Data Managers – more technical people – often work in partnership with data authors
  • Data Users
  • Data Scientists – expert data handlers and managers (perhaps ‘Data Manager’ was a confusing name).

Our Definitions (but in practice the roles and names are fuzzy):

  • Data creators or authors
  • Data Scientists
  • Data Managers
  • Data Librarians

Data Creators

Using DCC Curation lifecycle model, these are the out ring. But not all of it, and do things not on the ring, such as throw data away.

Shows picture of an academics office. Data is stored in random envelops.

Data Scientists – the focus of this study

Work with the researchers, in the same lab. Do most things in the DCC model. Are computer scientists (or can be one), experts in database technologies, ensure systems are in place, format migration. A ‘translation service’ between Researchers and computer experts.

Lots of facts about this, based on the research. Often fallen in to the role by accident, often started out as a researcher. Domain (maths, chemistry) related or Computer training. Informatics Skills: well advanced in biology and chemistry. Majority have a further degree. Need People skills. Rapidly involving area.

Data Librarians

Only a handful in the UK. specific skills in data care, curation. Bottom half (or bottom two thirds) of DCC model.

Library schools have not yet geared up for training. Demand is low, no established career path. Good subject-based first degree is required.

Things are changing, eg library schools are creating courses/modules around this.

Future Roles of the library

train researchers to be more data aware

Pressing issue inform researchers on data principles, eg ownership.

Open Data : datasets

A growing recognition across all disciplines that articles aren’t enough, datasets are what are needed to be in the open.

Datasets are a resource in their own right.

Publishers do not normally claim ownership of datasets. Some are (usual suspects)

Funder may own Data, Employers may own data. No one seems sure. Several entities may own the data.

In some areas of research journals play role in enforcement.

Some journals are just data.

Using PDF for data is very very not good.

Do we leave preservation of data to publishers [cjk: no! they should have nothing to do with this, the actors are Universities, their employees and their funders]

Simon Hodson – JISC Data Management Infrastructure Programme

Something problem, not easy to tackle. Would be a mistake for institutions to wait. The Call is designed to better understand how its data management facility can be taken forward.

Detailed business cases are needed.

Needs everyone (HEI, funders, data centres, RIN, etc) to be on board.

the Call will have an Advisory Group.

‘Exemplar projects and studies designed to help establish partnership between researchers, institutions, research councils.

See DCC as playing a major role in developing capacity and skills in the sector.

Tools and technologies: tools to help managers make business case internally, institutional planning tools (building on DAT, DRAMBORA, and costing tools). Workshop 1oth June DCC to review progress/outcomes of DAT project.

Two calls planned for the early Autumn.

2 June Call: Infrastructure. To build examples within the sector. Requirements analysis -> Implementation plan -> Execution thereof -> business models.

Bids encouraged from consortia.

Briefing day 6 July. DCC will provide support for bids, including a specific helpdesk.

There may be a Digital Curation course in the next few weeks.

Libraries and Research Data Management; conclusions – Martin Lewis, Director of Library Services and University Librarian, University of Sheffield.

Martin had been chairing all day and here he sums up and bring the various threads together.

The library research data pyramid. Things at the bottom need to be in place before things higher up. At the bottom, training in library (confidence), Library schools. Then develop local data curation capacity, teach data literacy. Higher up: research data awareness, research data advice, Lead on local policy. At the very top ‘influence national data agenda’.


An excellent day and excellent knowledgeable speakers. Nice venue, and most importantly, I found the only plug socket in the room!

This is clearly an emerging area. Many are in the same posistion, they are aware of the (Opene) Research Data developments, but nothing has yet happened at their university, nor academics queuing up to demand such a service. This is a good thing and it needs to happen, and Universities need to start acting now. But there are many preasures on University resources at the moment. How high on the institutional priority list will this come?

[Very finally, I did another audioboo experiment. On the fly, with no pre-planning, I recorded about 2 minutes of talk during the lunch. It’s random, with no thought, many umms, a pointless ‘one more thing’ and basically wrong. laugh at it here]

Research in the Open: How Mandates Work in Practice

Today I’m at the RSP/RIN Research in the Open: How Mandates Work in Practice at the impressive RIBA 66 Portland Place.

Slides can be found here (not available when I made this post, as semi excuse as to why my notes miss so much). These are rough notes, which I’m making available in case others are interested, apologies for mistakes and don’t take it as gospel!

After an introduction by Stéphane Goldstein, kicking off with Robert Kiley from the Wellcome Trust.

Wellcome trust mandate since 2006, anyone receiving funding from Wellcome Trust must deposit in to pubmed, now uk pubmed central. SHERPA Juliet lists 48 funder policies/mandates.

Two routes to complying to their mandate: (route 1) publisher in open access / hybrid journal (preferred), Wellcome will normally pay any associated fees. However when paying the publisher, they expect a certain level of service in return (deposited on behalf of author, final version available at time of publication, certain level of re-use. Route 2 Author self-archives author’s final version within 6 months of publication. It was stressed that the first option is very much preferred.

“Publication costs are legitimate research costs”. To fund Open Access fees for ALL research they fund would, they estimate. take up 1-2% of their budget.

Risk of ‘Double payment’ (author fees and subscriptions). OUP have a good model here.

Still to do:

  • Improve compliance (roughly 33%, significant increase after letters to VCs),
  • improve mechanisms (Elsevier introduced OA workflow which resulted in significant increase in deposits, but funders/institutions/publishers all need to play a part here),
  • Clarifying Publishers OA Policies  (and re-use rights, didn’t catch this).

Research Councils UK – Astrid Wissenburg, ESRC

Starts of by talking about drivers for OA in the RC. Value for money, ensuring research is used, infrastructure and more.

Principles: Accessible, Quality (peer review), preservation (she’s moving through the slides fast)

April 2009 study in to OA impact, provides options for RC to consider.Findings

  • Significant shift in favour of OA over last decade
  • Knowledge/awareness still limited. Confusion
  • Engagement with OA varies by subject area.
  • Too early to access impact of RCs policies.
  • Drivers
    • Not speed of dissemination
    • principles of free access
    • co-authors views are a big influence (mandates less so!)
    • some evidence that OA increases citation just after publication
    • limited compliance monitoring by finders
    • concern about impact of learned societies (but no evidence of libraries cancelling journals)
    • little evidence of use by non-researchers (CJK comment: interesting, I would imagine this may grow, wish newspapers would link/cite journal articles)

Both models (oa journals/repositories) supported by RCs, level playing field.

Pay to publish findings: limited use, barriers, costs, awareness, not RAE. would lead to redistribution of costs from non-academic to academic areas.

OA Deposit (repositories): from grant application from 1 Oct 2006, so a three year project starting then will only be finished in Autumn 2009. Acknowledges embargos but ‘at earliest opportunity’.

75% researchers were not aware of the mandate. diversity across subjects. ‘In general, no active deposit’.

A slide showing % of awareness broken down by RC, interesting.

From the highest level RCs are committed to supporting OA (this will increase). But change takes time.

Some issues: what do to with embargo periods, difficult for funders to manage (are there incentives we could use), depends on existence of repositories, multiple deposit options confusing to researchers, awareness/understanding.

UKPubMed Central – Paul Davey, Engagement Manager, UKPubMed Central

Aims to become the information resource of choice for biomedical sector.

Principles: freely available, added to UK pubmed central, freely copied and reused.

Departmental of Health have clear policy to make research freely available.

95% of papers submitted are taken care of (deposited?) by the authors. only 0.5% submitted by academics (PIs/colleagues)

1.6 milion papers in uk pubmed central. 366 thousand downloads last month.

Core benefits: transparency, cutting down duplication, greater visibility.

Text mining, grabbing key terms from an article  (a little like  OpenCalais does)

Mentions EBI’s CiteXplore, encouraging academics to ink to other research.

Pubmed UK includes funding/grant facilities search. Can link articles to funding grants.

In short, backing from key funders, will make researchers more efficient, researcher’s visibility will increase.

Beta out in the Autumn, new site in Jan 2012.


Worried about text mining, need for humans to moderate this. response: Limited finding in this area so human intervention also limited. really need specialist to answer this fully.

Question about increasing visibility of UK pubmed central, referring to Google, response: getting indexed by Google very much part of increasing visibility.

Question about Canadian ‘pubmed central’, response confirms this and mentions talk of a European pubmed central. Potential of European funders using UK pubmed central as a place to deposit research (like everything here, not sure if I’ve noted this right).

PEER – Pioneering collaboration between publishers, repositories and researchers – Julia Wallace

Funded by EC, not a ‘publisher project’.

Three key stages of publication: NISO Author’s original, NISO Accepted Manuscript, NISO version of record.

Starts of talking about the project, interesting stuff but failed to take notes.

From the website:

PEER (Publishing and the Ecology of European Research), supported by the EC eContentplus programme, will investigate the effects of the large-scale, systematic depositing of authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts (so called Green Open Access or stage-two research output) on reader access, author visibility, and journal viability, as well as on the broader ecology of European research. The project is a collaboration between publishers, repositories and researchers and will last from 2008 to 2011.

Seven members: including a publisher group, university, funders etc. Various publishers involved, big and small and about six European repositories taking part.

Approach / content:

  • Publishers contribute 300 journals, plus control
  • Maximises deposit and access in participating repositories
  • 50% publisher submitted 50% author submitted.
  • Good quality, range of impact factors. Publishers set embargo periods, up to 36 months.

Publishers will deposit articles in to the repositories via a central depot for their 50% of articles submitted (50% fulltext, metadata for the remaining 50%). Publishers will invite authors to deposit for the ‘author’ 50%

Technical: using PDFA-1 (where possible) and SWORD

Three strands: Behaviour, Usage (looking at raw log files), Economic. Also looking at Model Development (the three strands will look in to this).

Question about why they chose PDF (not very good for text mining). A: wide range of subjects and publishers means that PDF the best fit

Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models, also Loughborough University’s Institutional Mandate – Charles Oppenheim, Loughborough University

‘Houghton report’ looks at costs and benefits of scholarly publishing.

Link to report

Link to main website and models

  • Massive savings by using OA, UK would benefit from this.
  • Savings include: quicker searching, less negotiations, savings not just in library budgets
  • 2,300 activity items costed.
  • This report currently final word in economics of OA.
  • Charles Talks about the various methods and work involved in producng this report.
  • a 5% incease in accessibility would lead to savings (or extra money to spend) in research/he/RCs
  • Hard to compare UK toll/open access publishing costs as one pays for UK access to content from across the world, the other pays for UK content to be world wide accessible.
  • Keen to role this out to other countires
  • Publishers response to report: furious!

Now for something completly different: Loughborough approve a mandae a few months a go, to come in to affect Oct 09. An intergral part of academic personal research plans (only those research items in the IR will be considered at the review). Now have over 4,000 items

Lunch and audioboo

During lunch I did an experiment using audioboo. Would I be able to summarise the morning, on the fly with no planning, in a brief audio recording. The answer, as you can discover, is ‘no’, but fun to try, and made me think of what I had taken in during the morning. Link to audioboo recording. or try the embedded version below.

Institutional Mandates – Paul Ayris, University College London

Paul starts off by shoing a number of Venn diagrams, for example: 90% of its research is available online, 40% available to an NHS hospital

What do UCL academics want

  • as authors: visbility / impact
  • as readers: access
  • delivery 24×7 anywhere

UCL madate, a case study:

Looking global is an important part of UCL (for PIs rankings etc). Number of systems in their publication system: Symplectic, IRIS, eprints, data mart (and portico, FIS, HR). Symplectic (or similar tool) and IRIS seem central in this model. Plan to automatically extra metadata from other external places (publication repositories.

How did they get the mandate? Paul spoke at UCLs senate (Academic Board), the agreed: all academic staff should record they own publication on a UCL publication system, and, teaching materials should all be deposited in their eprints systems.

UCL are going to set up a publication board to over see the OA rollout; to advise, monitor, oversee presentation and more.

Next steps: market/exploit, set standards for online publication, to advise on ongoing resource issues in this area. Also, establish processes, Statistics and management information, advise on multimedia, copyright issues.

‘Open Access is the natural way for a global university to achieve its objectives’

Question about blurring the line between dissemination and publication, and that some of UCLs aims seem more fitting of ‘publication’. Paul agrees, still trying to figure this out.

HEFCE – Paul Hubbard, Head of Research Policy, HEFCE

Policy: Research is a process which leads to insights for sharing. So Scholarly Communication matters to HEFCE. Prompt and accessible publishing is essential for a world class research system.

Supporting research: JISC, RIN, Programmes to support national research libraries (UKRR), UKRDS. Mentions Boston Spa (BL) document centre as an example of our world class sharing.

Internet opens up new ways of scholarly communication and sharing.

What do HEFCE want to see:

  • Widest and earliest dissemination of public research.
  • IP shared effectively with the people best placed to exploit it (CJK comment, i don’t think it is publishers!)

Committed to: UK maintaining world leading research, funding that fosters autonomy and dynamism, research quality assessment regime that supports rather than inhibits new developments.

As we move forward, things may be unclear those HEIs with repositories will be at an advantage.

Paul finishes up with a personal view of scholarly communications in 2030. He sees to forms of communication: discussion (building up ideas), and writing up a formal firm idea/conclusion based on these. HEFCE supports – through the likes of JISC – a range of tools and systems to enable this. (sorry that was an awful summary, he said much more than that!).

Answered a question as to why IRs, HEIs are the places to administrate/manage. Websites people go to see research for a particular subject need to be overlay systems harvesting from IRs.

[hmm, does ‘university requirement’ sound better than mandate?]

Institutional Policies and Processes for Mandate Compliance – Bill Hubbard, SHERPA, University of Nottingham

99.9% of academics do not object to Open Access, but need to show it will not change how they work. Librarians going to be much more part of the research process. Most people (including most publishers) are in favour of Open Access.

Other pressures on the systems, lack of peer reviewers, rising prices of journals, growing need for different forms of scholarly communications (e-lab books, multimedia), public demand for highest value for money ‘public should get what they pay for’,

Not if we change, but how we change. Research has to change seamlessly. Mandates have a value-added basis with fast delivery of benefits. Need integrated processes, need integrated support (we don’t want researchers to hear different messages from their Uni, funder, publisher, etc).

Authors need to know ‘what do i meed to do’. Need to make it less confusing, need to make it clear when they can get help.

First step compliance: how can funders improve compliance, how can authors be supported?

All 1994 and Russel Group now have IR (Reading, I think, just setting one up now).

Compliance for mandates makes it better for us admin/support staff, and for the University generally.

Institutions need a compliance officer (perhaps repository manager). Funders need to ensure these people have the information they need. Share compliance information

I’ve missed so much of Bill’s talk here, he moves fast (and passionately) and lots of points.

After Bill’s talk there was a panel session.


Finally check out some of the useful tweets from the day. (Twitter search only goes back about a month or so, so this link may not work after a certain date). Jim Richardson also created a permanent copy with the (new to me) webcitation website.


With such dodgy note taking I feel some concise summary is in order!

  • Mandates are happening, by Universities and by Funders.
  • HEFCE want research to be accessible to as many as possible as quickly as possible.  Coming from HEFCE, this holds a lot of weight.
  • Funders (Research Councils / Wellcome) put mandates in place several years a go. They have not sat back and said ‘job done’. They are building on this foundation. How can they check? How can they enforce/encourage? How can they assist? How can they automate? How can they work with publishers and HE to share this information? Expect more to come in this area.
  • Wellcome Trust prefers submission to Open Access Journals rather than author depositing in to a repository at a later date.
  • HE Mandates are coming, we alreay have a few in the UK. Making them an intergral part of an academic’s review seems like a good idea. My opinion is that this is reasonable – even if there are those who disagree – surely an employer can (and does in every other sector) ask for a record of what an employee has been working on, and a copy of the end output, i.e. the full text in an IR.
  • The report ‘Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models : exploring the costs and benefits. JISC EI-ASPM Project‘ is a thourough comprehensive look at the economic costs of Open Access and new forms of Scholorarly Communications.
  • I think we are starting to see the larger Universities developing sophisticated network of systems to manage research/publications/OA/research-funding. See slide 10 of Paul Ayris presentation, and this article about Imperial’s setup as two examples.
  • It makes sense to share information (between IT systems) between funders, HE and publishers. Examples: Funders sharing (bibliographic) information to a University about publications from its researchers, Universities (or publishers) passing information to funders linking publications to funding (or even the other way round?).
  • This is an area which is still developing, fast, and will of course involve a culture change. Publishers seem unsure how to handle this new world.