Repositories: Researcher Perspective

1,118 views

Published on

Presentation given at the DINI/Helmholtz Repositories Workshop 30 November 2010.

Repositories: Researcher Perspective

  1. 1. Repositories: Researcher Perspective Martin Fenner Department of Hematology, Hemostaseology, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation
  2. 2. Gargouri 2010. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013636 Do researchers self-archive? Mandated vs. self-selected
  3. 3. Do we need mandates?
  4. 4. Why do we publish our work? f their work (Swan and Brown, 2005). Several reasons are considered very important but the ne that comes out top is to communicate my results to my peers. Researchers consider it a op priority to report their results to their peer community so that others can read and build upon hem. They wish to make an impact. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %respondents Communicate results to peers Advance career Personal prestige Gain funding Financial reward nsert Figure 7.1] igure 7.1: Researchers’ reasons for publishing their workSwan 2006. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/12428/
  5. 5. Should we all become RoMEOs?
  6. 6. Can we easily search repositories? Kim 2006. doi: 10.1002/meet.1450420173
  7. 7. Peter Murray-Rust ILI2009: Why scientists can't search institutional Repositories http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/ murrayrust/?p=2125 Can we easily search across institutional repositories?
  8. 8. Shouldn‘t we rather search disciplinary respositories?
  9. 9. Preprint and/or postprint?
  10. 10. Are repositories silos?
  11. 11. Are repositories linked to institutional bibliographies?
  12. 12. !! !! !! !! Are repositories linked to journals?
  13. 13. Are repositories integrated in application platforms?
  14. 14. Are repositories social?
  15. 15. Dorothea Salo This disconnect (from scientists) is the number-one threat to science librarianship today. Are librarians and researchers talking to each other?
  16. 16. August 3, 2010 Too Many Researchers Are Reluctant to Share Their Data By Felicia LeClere And what about data?
  17. 17. Will we see the same discussion all over again?
  18. 18. Some suggestions
  19. 19. Better integration tools
  20. 20. Identifiers for researchers and their contributions
  21. 21. VIVO is a resource that provides information about: • people • departments • facilities • courses • grants • publications vivoweb.org
  22. 22. Cameron Neylon Beyond the Impact Factor: Linking funder needs to the development of new research metrics New ideas on how to evaluate researchers
  23. 23. Involve researchers at every step
  24. 24. http://www.flickr.com/photos/babycreative/3654840791/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/hildeengwenverbouwen/ 4743936514/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/runesteiness/4983827599/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/zoomzoom/304135268/ http://www.slideshare.net/ORCID/cerninspire-perspective- on-orcid http://www.flickr.com/photos/msiebuhr/987572658/ http://scienceblogs.com/bookoftrogool/2010/01/ science_online_2010_scientists.php http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/ nasaNAS~5~5~24355~127738:Original-Members-of-GIRD http://cameronneylon.net/blog/three-minutes-of-audio- hacking-research-reputation/ Credits
  25. 25. This presentation can be copied and distributed provided that proper credit is given.

×