Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Rim2 tech-synthesis


Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Rim2 tech-synthesis

  1. 1. UKOLN is supported by: RIM2 technical synthesis (work in progress) 11 January 2012 RIM3, Edinburgh Rosemary Russell, UKOLN, University of Bath
  2. 2. Overview: technical synthesis <ul><li>Based (mainly) on project reports </li></ul><ul><ul><li>also September workshop </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>blogs, RIM meetings etc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Aiming to identify common threads running through the 4 projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>plus significant individual project findings </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. RIM2 <ul><li>4 projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>BRUCE </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CERIFy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IRIOS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MICE </li></ul></ul><ul><li>February to July 2011 (with some extensions) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>short timescale… </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. RIM2 v RIM1 <ul><li>RIM2 united by CERIF! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>aimed to: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>expand the community of HE institutions and organisations using CERIF </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>realise some of the projected benefits </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>support an emerging community of practice in RIM </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>so all projects based on CERIF as core </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RIM1 had broader remit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>only CRISPool and BRIM used CERIF (and only implemented by CRISPool) </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Some project features worth highlighting… moving things fwd <ul><li>open source CERIF-based reporting tool (BRUCE) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>new analysis of research data possible </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CERIF-based demonstrator ‘interrogation’ tool for RC funded projects and outputs (IRIOS) </li></ul><ul><li>extending CERIF to incorporate impact indicators and measures (MICE) </li></ul><ul><li>business process mapping – revealed many RIM similarities between institutions; data exchange between CERIFy CRIS and Thomson Reuters InCites (CERIFy) </li></ul>
  6. 6. Common threads: <ul><li>CERIF engagement issues and what might help future projects </li></ul><ul><li>euroCRIS/JISC training, advice, resources </li></ul>
  7. 7. CERIF (1): endorsement <ul><li>generally does the job… </li></ul><ul><li>considered fit for purpose - works as interchange language (IRIOS) </li></ul><ul><li>has hidden benefits (BRUCE) </li></ul>
  8. 8. CERIF (2): issues/findings <ul><li>steep learning curve for majority [some views differ] </li></ul><ul><li>improved awareness and understanding of CERIF and its application needed </li></ul><ul><li>mapping is difficult! </li></ul><ul><li>but semantics even more difficult! </li></ul><ul><li>extensions to the standard often needed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>eg esteem measures, bibliometric data </li></ul></ul><ul><li>inaccurate CERIF compliance claims - often not tested </li></ul>
  9. 9. CERIF (3): recommendations <ul><li>More promotion of CERIF needed [JISC?] </li></ul><ul><li>More initial training needed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>include input from previous projects </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Need to build on CERIF quickly (before proprietary formats emerge) </li></ul><ul><li>Standard mappings should be developed … </li></ul>
  10. 10. Working with euroCRIS <ul><li>euroCRIS found to be receptive </li></ul><ul><li>and supportive (although also a partner in IRIOS and MICE) </li></ul><ul><li>CERIF should be free at the point of use </li></ul><ul><li>euroCRIS requires further support/ partnerships (ISO?) </li></ul><ul><li>projects need: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>more initial training </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>more integrated working across projects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>best practice guidelines </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. CERIF use v engagement <ul><li>lots of use in UK now (JISC supported and beyond) </li></ul><ul><li>real engagement increasing little by little… </li></ul>
  12. 12. Non-CERIF related issues… <ul><li>Identifiers [BRUCE, CERIFy] </li></ul><ul><ul><li>need to be ‘built into’ CERIF </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Inconsistent source data - creates major problems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>incl commercial bibliographic databases </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Report <ul><li>Due early Feb… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CERIF ‘landscape’ first </li></ul></ul>