What researchers want, and how to pay for it...

2,298 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,298
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • I’ve already mentioned the uphill struggle we have in many disciplines to get researchers to take the management and curation of data seriously
    But funders of research are showing much more interest in the value of data as one of the key outputs from research, and in the importance of sharing it with other researchers and indeed more widely
    The problem is that researchers tend to see data as a by-product rather than the primary product of their research, and that the data themselves are meaningless until they (the researchers) have manipulated and analysed them
    And they are the only ones who really understand their data,
  • So many of them are very reluctant to share their data with others
  • So while we hear a good deal about moves towards more openness in the research process, we need to recognise that there is some way to go before we reach the promised land where everything is open
    There are undoubted benefits to be gained
    but from the researchers’ perspective there are real constraints as well
  • And that differential is even sharper when you normalise for size and look at usage per head
  • But there are of course differences in patterns of use by discipline and (perhaps more surprisingly) between institutions.
    On the left hand table we show differences in patterns of usage across five disciplines of Elsevier and Oxford Journals
    Note that researchers in physics and chemistry view around the same number of journals, but that in chemistry the top 20 journals accounted for just under 40% of use, whereas in physics they accounted for only 26% of use
    On the right hand chart we map volumes of downloads against university size, in this case in physics.
    If you take Cambridge as the base, what is interesting here is that Manchester is three-fifths the size of Cambridge in physics, but has nearly 30% more usage.
    But UCL is 70% of the size of Cambridge, but has only just over a third of the usage.
    Usage per head is four times higher at Manchester than at UCL.
    Why???
  • What researchers want, and how to pay for it...

    1. 1. What researchers want, and how to pay for it..... Michael Jubb UK Research Information Network Charleston Conference 5 November 2010
    2. 2. Some propositions the volume of research undertaken worldwide has increased, is increasing, and will continue to increase and more of it will be done collaboratively researchers are both producers and consumers of research outputs but they don’t necessarily share the same interests Governments invest in research because they believe it has a positive impact on society and the economy and they want to maximise that impact the costs of research, and of higher education, have increased, are increasing (and ought to be diminished?) cost-effectiveness an increasingly-dominant theme in current economic climate
    3. 3. 1. Researchers as creators 2. Researchers as users 3. Costs and funding
    4. 4. 1. Researchers as creators
    5. 5. where, when and how to publish/disseminate? key motivations register claim maximise dissemination peer recognition (and the rewards that flow from that) tensions between effective dissemination and recognition/prestige power of disciplinary cultures and some important disciplinary differences mixed messages from funders and institutions
    6. 6. publications by type 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008 Biosciences &-medicine Physical sciences Engineering Social sciences Humanities Education Total Article Book Book chapter Proceedings Book review Editorial Meeting abstract Other
    7. 7. importance of scholarly journals 201 103 73 158 127 29 92 5 3 8 5 14 1 8 1 2 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Biosciences Physical sciences. Engineering Social sciences. Humanities Education & Sport Interdisciplinary Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable
    8. 8. importance of conference proceedings 82 42 46 45 24 11 33 100 55 32 86 87 55 18 3 9 23 34 26 14 1 1 1 1 1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Biosciences. Physical Sciences Social. Sciences. Humanities Education Interdisciplinary Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable Engineering /Computing
    9. 9. importance of monographs 10 20 10 68 126 5 28 48 23 47 14 29 9 9 1 33 11 34 1 34 107 42 34 9 36 7 11 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Biosciences. Physical sciences Engineering Social sciences. Humanities Education & Sport Interdisciplinary Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable
    10. 10. What’s published and what’s submitted to the RAE
    11. 11. What’s published and what’s submitted to the RAE
    12. 12. What about data? increasing interest from funders, and some researchers, in data management and sharing most researchers spend much of their time searching for, gathering, organising, and analysing data but producing – and sharing - data is not the primary objective general assumption that data do not have intrinsic meaning until analysed, interpreted, described……. data curation/stewardship/management important to researchers only (at best) intermittently
    13. 13. Data sharing: ownership, protection and trust responsibility, protectiveness and desire for control lack of rewards for data sharing concerns about inappropriate use preference for co-operative arrangements and direct contact with potential users decisions on when and how to share commercial, ethical, legal issues belief that only researchers themselves can have the knowledge necessary to take care of their data intricacies of experimental design and processes data management plans required by funders, but not much sign of adoption role of publishers? trust in other researchers’ data? “I don’t know if they have done it to the same standards I would have done it”
    14. 14. Sharing data? Percentage of researchers sharing data online 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Privately, within a small network of collaborators Openly, within my research community Publicly, on a website, blog etc Level of sharing Percentageofresearchers Humanities Life sciences Physical sciences
    15. 15. Data sharing: benefits and constraints increasing the efficiency of research, promoting scholarly rigour and enhancements to the quality of research enhancing visibility and scope for engagement enabling researchers to ask new research questions enhancing collaboration and community-building increasing the economic and social impact of research lack of evidence of benefits and rewards. lack of skills, time and other resources cultures of independence and competition concerns about quality. ethical, legal and other restrictions on accessibility.
    16. 16. prospects of change? publish/disseminate work in progress? shifts in scholarly communication practice? Web 2.0? Professor Reader Senior Lecturer Lecturer Research Fellow Existing peer review processes will become increasingly unsustainable Likely 31% 34% 39% 30% 38% Unlikely 63% 51% 50% 52% 56% No opinion 6% 14% 11% 18% 5% Formal peer review will be increasingly complemented by reader-based ratings, annotations, downloads or citations Likely 44% 37% 45% 41% 36% Unlikely 42% 54% 38% 41% 38% No opinion 15% 9% 18% 18% 26% New types of online publication, using new kinds of media formats and content, will grow in importance Likely 72% 69% 76% 68% 82% Unlikely 18% 20% 7% 18% 13% No opinion 11% 11% 16% 14% 5% Open access online publication supported by an 'author-pays' funding model will predominate Likely 34% 20% 21% 23% 21% Unlikely 47% 49% 52% 50% 51% No opinion 19% 31% 27% 27% 28% 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 over 65 Write a blog Never 79% 80% 85% 91% 100% Occasionally 6% 12% 10% 6% 0% Frequently (At least once a week) 4% 6% 2% 0% 0% I do this outside of work 11% 2% 3% 3% 0% Comment on others’ blogs Never 69% 68% 81% 82% 93% Occasionally 17% 22% 16% 15% 7% Frequently (At least once a week) 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% I do this outside of work 15% 8% 3% 3% 0% Contribute to a private w iki Never 80% 75% 78% 85% 86% Occasionally 18% 17% 17% 14% 7% Frequently (At least once a week) 2% 8% 4% 1% 7% I do this outside of work 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% Contribute to a public w iki Never 69% 74% 75% 80% 80% Occasionally 22% 21% 23% 18% 13% Frequently (At least once a week) 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% I do this outside of work 10% 4% 2% 3% 7% Add comments t o online journal articles Never 81% 76% 80% 73% 93% Occasionally 17% 21% 14% 27% 7% Frequently (At least once a week) 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% I do this outside of work 2% 2% 4% 0% 0% Post slides, texts, images, code, algorithms, videos etc on an open sharing site Never 65% 56% 52% 52% 93% Occasionally 19% 30% 40% 30% 7% Frequently (At least once a week) 8% 10% 5% 11% 0%
    17. 17. Disseminating and communicating: some conclusions dominance of traditional forms of publication driven by career rewards and incentives disciplinary differences and power of disciplinary cultures strong influence of performance assessment regimes written policies vs perceptions of how it’s done Web 2.0 as a supplement to traditional channels of communication relatively small groups of early adopters increasing interest in data curation and sharing but constraints on openness strong(ish) sense that further change is on the way
    18. 18. 2. Researchers as users
    19. 19. what do they want to find and use? Yes No journal articles 99.5% 0.5% chapters in multi-authored books 97.0% 3.0% organization’s web sites 90.8% 9.2% expertise of individuals 90.1% 9.9% conference proceedings 85.8% 14.2% monographs 83.3% 16.7% datasets – published or unpublished 62.0% 38.0% original text sources, e.g. newspapers, historical records 61.5% 38.5% preprints 54.7% 45.3% non-text sources, e.g. images, audio, artifacts 47.0% 53.0% other 18.0% 82.0%
    20. 20. e-journal usage in the UK
    21. 21. but access still causes problems….
    22. 22. Intensity of use
    23. 23. Patterns of usage vary……….. between disciplines between institutions
    24. 24. profile of journals varies too…….
    25. 25. What do they do with the articles they download?
    26. 26. three key messages…….. we haven’t come to the end of the success story for e-journals we haven’t entirely cracked the access issue we don’t understand enough about reasons for variations in patterns of usage
    27. 27. 3. Costs and Funding
    28. 28. overall costs of the current system 115.8 6.4 2.1 16.4 33.9 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 Research production Publishing & Distribution Access provision User search and print cost Reading £Billions
    29. 29. UK contribution to meeting publishing and distribution costs 132.0 32.8 8.6 117.5 45.6 56.0 16.0 408.5 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 academic (non- cash) peer review other (non- cash) peer review author pays academic subscriptions other subscriptions and revenues academic library access provision funding special access provision funding Total cost £Millions
    30. 30. 1.9 3.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 6.4 0.53 0.82 0.17 0.03 0.05 0.03 1.63 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7 .0 8.0 9.0 Research funders (peer review non cash cost) Academic subscriptions Other subscriptions Author-side pay ment Adv ertising Membership fees & individual subscriptions Total cost £Billions Current Funding Difference between scenarios Increases in article production over 10 years: funding consequences Sources of funding and other contributions
    31. 31. The last decade for UK libraries expenditure on libraries has risen in real terms rise sharpest in research-intensive universities Chart 1: Indexed real terms expenditure on libraries 1999-2009 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Expenditure(1999=100foreachdataseries) RLUK Pre-92 universities All post-92 All SCONUL members
    32. 32. The last decade for UK libraries but universities have increased in size, and so has their overall expenditure student numbers and teaching research activity so libraries represent a declining share of university budgets Chart 2: Real terms library expenditure per FTE student 1999-2009 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Expenditureperstudent(£;1999=baseyear) RLUK Pre-92 universities All post-92 All SCONUL members Chart 3: Library expenditure as a proportion of overall institution expenditure 1999-2009 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year Percentage RLUK Pre-92 universities All post-92 All SCONUL members
    33. 33. Usage and cost as usage goes up, so cost per usage has fallen downloads of e-journals rose by 160% in UK between 2004 and 2008 250% in research-intensive universities cost per download fell by 40% 60% in research-intensive universities big differences between individual libraries
    34. 34. Levels of usage and indicators of research outcomes
    35. 35. Usage and outcomes: research income
    36. 36. Usage and outcomes: publications
    37. 37. Linking expenditure, usage and outcomes? Six hypotheses: levels of library expenditure influence subsequent levels of use of e-journals levels of e-journal use influence subsequent levels of library expenditure levels of library expenditure influence subsequent research performance successful research performance influences subsequent levels of library expenditure levels of e-journal use influence subsequent research performance successful research performance influences subsequent levels of use of e-journals
    38. 38. Linking expenditure, usage and outcomes?
    39. 39. Linking expenditure, usage and outcomes?
    40. 40. some conclusions……. we should really look at the bigger picture costs of research and scholarly communications as a whole but for libraries the decade to 2009/2010 a good one usage up, unit costs down how to sustain this in difficult times increasing interest in links between expenditure, usage and outcomes statistical relationships indications of causal relationships?
    41. 41. Questions? Michael Jubb www.rin.ac.uk

    ×