Alpsp Conf 10 Sep 09


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Alpsp Conf 10 Sep 09

  1. 1. Perspectives from Funders and from Universities Michael Jubb Research Information Network ALPSP International Conference 10 September 2009
  2. 2. The Political Context
  3. 3. Political Context <ul><li>“ developing the UK’s knowledge base and translating this knowledge into business and public service innovation” </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>UK Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Governments can improve information flows and support innovation and economic efficiency by encouraging disclosure, and by ensuring that the information and other content that they fund is freely available to maximise its use and the value that others can add to it” </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Venturous Australia, 2008 </li></ul></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Political Context <ul><li>OECD Ministerial Committee for Scientific & Technological Policy 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Three key issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>promotion of stronger relationships between science and innovation systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>sustained development of human resources in science and technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>enhancing international co-operation in science and technology </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Two key conclusions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>improve accountability through more systematic evaluation exercises </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>co-ordinated efforts to broaden access to data from publicly-funded research </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Political Context <ul><li>OECD Report on Scientific Publishing, 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>“ policies for research and innovation are evolving, in response to broader reforms to boost productivity and economic growth as well as to address national concerns ( e.g. jobs, education, health) and, increasingly, global challenges such as energy security and climate change. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Governments would boost innovation and get a better return on their investment in publicly-funded research by making research findings more widely available ……….And by doing so they would maximise social returns on public investments” </li></ul>
  6. 6. Research Funders <ul><li>Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) Strategic Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Aim </li></ul><ul><li>To develop and sustain a dynamic and internationally competitive research sector that makes a major contribution to economic prosperity and national wellbeing and to the expansion and dissemination of knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>To maintain a research sector with a strong position among the world leaders, which can respond flexibly to the changing needs of stakeholders and lead in developing new and innovative fields of enquiry. </li></ul><ul><li>To work with Government and the sector to develop a system for assessing research which informs funding and demonstrates the power of the national research base, helping institutions to identify and foster excellence. </li></ul><ul><li>To ensure that research can be supported without prejudice to the sustainability of the sector’s long-term financial, physical and human resources, or the delivery of other activities in the public interest. </li></ul>
  7. 7. HEFCE Strategic Plan (continued) <ul><li>The UK’s record of excellence in creating new knowledge has not always been matched by achievements in disseminating and applying the results. </li></ul><ul><li>To retain more of the benefits of research undertaken in the UK, we need to ensure that effective dissemination and application of research findings are accepted as integral parts of the research process. ……… ensuring that knowledge and expertise …. are made rapidly and effectively available to potential research users, both in industry and public services, and across the wider community. </li></ul><ul><li>We will continue to encourage the effective sharing of research findings, both to support research and teaching within HE and to inform the wider public. </li></ul><ul><li>We will work with partners to improve systems for researchers to share information and disseminate outputs as widely as possible, including through new technology. </li></ul><ul><li>We will support measures to ensure that researchers nationally continue to have access to a full range of printed resources. </li></ul><ul><li>We will look for opportunities to encourage and support a dialogue between researchers and the public, so that the development of research activities and policies can reflect more effectively the changing needs of a more informed society. </li></ul>
  8. 8. UK Research Council Strategies <ul><ul><li>AHRC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To strengthen the impact of arts and humanities research by encouraging researchers to disseminate and transfer knowledge to other contexts where it makes a difference </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To raise the profile of arts and humanities research and to be an effective advocate for its social, cultural and economic significance. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>BBSRC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accelerating the translation of research outputs into business and policy applications to increase social and economic impact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MRC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Advance and disseminate knowledge to improve the quality of life and economic competitiveness of the UK </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Non-UK Funder Missions and Strategies <ul><li>NIH (USA) </li></ul><ul><li>expand the knowledge base in medical and associated sciences in order to enhance the Nation’s economic well-being and ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research </li></ul><ul><li>NWO (Netherlands) </li></ul><ul><li>enhancing researchers' awareness of research utilisation by integrating communication and knowledge dissemination in programme development </li></ul><ul><li>ARC (Australia) </li></ul><ul><li>capturing and quantifying the outcomes of research and knowledge transfer and the contribution of research to the economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being of Australians </li></ul>
  10. 10. Research Councils UK’s Four Principles <ul><li>Ideas and knowledge derived from publicly-funded research must be made available and accessible for public use, interrogation, and scrutiny, as widely, rapidly and effectively as practicable. </li></ul><ul><li>Effective mechanisms are in place to ensure that published research outputs must be subject to rigorous quality assurance, through peer review. </li></ul><ul><li>The models and mechanisms for publication and access to research results must be both efficient and cost-effective in the use of public funds. </li></ul><ul><li>The outputs from current and future research must be preserved and remain accessible not only for the next few years but for future generations. </li></ul>
  11. 11. Some Themes
  12. 12. Research Excellence <ul><li>key theme for Governments, funders and universities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>national and institutional rankings and league tables </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>influence of research assessment regimes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>routes to (and consequences of) excellence </li></ul><ul><ul><li>co-operation and competition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and the tensions between them </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Research Excellence and OA <ul><li>means of enhancing research speed and efficiency </li></ul><ul><li>means of fostering collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>showcase for high-quality research </li></ul><ul><li>interoperability and linkages with data </li></ul><ul><li>because other high-performers are doing it (leaders and followers) </li></ul><ul><li>But </li></ul><ul><li>quality assurance through peer review has to be maintained </li></ul><ul><ul><li>but dissemination of preprints and working papers raises question of when it’s done: pre-publication or pre-dissemination? </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Dissemination and Access <ul><li>Governments, funders and universities all want to maximise dissemination </li></ul><ul><ul><li>increasing tendency to see dissemination (and more) as an integral part of the research process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>visibility, exploiting the full potential of the web, including speed of dissemination and access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>access for and exchange between all researchers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>enhance visibility and access beyond the research/academic communities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>promote public outreach and engagement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>publicly-funded research as a public good(?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>frustrations with subscription toll barriers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>attractions of OA as a means of addressing all these issues </li></ul>
  15. 15. Socio-economic impact <ul><li>desire to translate new knowledge into innovation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>economic growth </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>national well-being </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>public policy……. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>particular focus on SMEs in commercial, voluntary and public sectors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>maximise returns from public investment in research </li></ul><ul><li>some tension between desires to make research results available as public goods and to ‘exploit’ IPR </li></ul><ul><li>attractions of OA as part of the means of addressing these issues (see OECD statement) </li></ul>
  16. 16. Research Assessment and Evaluation <ul><li>relentlessly-growing feature of most funding regimes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>assessing and evaluating research productivity, performance and quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>demonstrating (measuring?) socio-economic impact </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>role of metrics in general and bibliometrics in particular </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>KPIs for universities, funders, and nations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>funding and reputational implications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>impacts on institutions’ and researchers’ behaviours </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Research Assessment and OA <ul><li>bibliometrics and game-playing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>chasing the citation advantage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>gaming the KPIs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>universities’ interest in managing research activity and in maximising assessment scores </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ managing the university’s research information assets” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>links between databases of publications and institutional repositories </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ to ensure that research outputs are prepared and curated in a way which helps maximise the value that they have for the university in terms of the external use of bibliometric data, eg league tables, post-2008 RAE” ( University of Glasgow Publications Policy, June 2008 ) </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Stewardship and Preservation <ul><li>role of universities and the research community as stewards of scholarly information and knowledge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>helping researchers to maintain up-to-date records of their publications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>preservation and access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>data as well as publications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>role of learned societies? </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Costs and Sustainability <ul><li>past decade of increases in investment in research, and in volumes of research outputs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>rise in unit costs of research too, giving rise to “over-trading” and sustainability concerns </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>challenges for libraries, and the legacy of the ‘journals crisis’ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>fears arising from current, and foreseeable, financial pressures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>impacts on research </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>impacts on library budgets (what’s the library for ?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>increasing interest in shared services, but also dislike of top-slicing </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Costs, Sustainability and OA <ul><li>incomplete understanding of costs and benefits of moving to OA </li></ul><ul><ul><li>intuitively it looks as if the benefits should outweigh the costs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>but winners and losers in different parts of the research landscape </li></ul></ul><ul><li>incomplete understanding of the costs of transition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>now may not be the best time to make an ‘invest-to-save’ case </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>or to try to shift costs borne by libraries onto the research budget </li></ul></ul><ul><li>doubts about the sustainability of the current system </li></ul><ul><li>vs </li></ul><ul><li>doubts about the sustainability of OA (particularly the green route) </li></ul>
  21. 21. Conclusions? <ul><li>OA in principle ticks lots of boxes for Governments, funders, and universities </li></ul><ul><li>the momentum towards OA is likely to increase </li></ul><ul><li>unanswered questions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>who pays, how much, and how? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>how to make the system sustainable? </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Thank you Michael Jubb