A researcher perspective: what they want and how to pay for it


Published on

Presentation by RIN's Director, Michael Jubb, at the 12th Fiesole Retreat in Leuven. http://www.libereurope.eu/node/487

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

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

No notes for slide
  • my presentation falls, like Roman Gaul, into three parts nb. Roman Gaul actually was divided into 5 parts, Cisalpine, Narbonsensis, and Comata (the land of the long-haired Gauls), which was then itself divided into 3 parts, Aquitaine, Celtica, and Belgica And Caesar said that the Belgica were the most bellicose…….. So will talk about researchers as users, as creators and authors, and finally about economics
  • attack the moral hazard argument of Schieber, that researchers are insulated from the costs of what they want
  • First three projects now getting under way
  • A researcher perspective: what they want and how to pay for it

    1. 1. A researcher perspective: what they want and how to pay for it Michael Jubb RIN 12 th Fiesole Retreat Leuven 9 April 2010
    2. 3. <ul><li>Researchers as creators </li></ul><ul><li>Researchers as users </li></ul><ul><li>Costs and funding </li></ul>
    3. 4. 1. Researchers as creators
    4. 5. where, when and how to publish? <ul><li>key motivations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>register claim </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>maximise dissemination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>peer recognition (and the rewards that flow from that) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>tensions between effective dissemination and recognition/prestige </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>power of disciplinary cultures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>and some important disciplinary differences </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>mixed messages from funders and institutions </li></ul></ul>
    5. 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
    6. 7. importance of scholarly journals
    7. 8. importance of conference proceedings
    8. 9. importance of monographs
    9. 10. what’s published and what’s submitted to the RAE
    10. 11. three key messages <ul><li>differences between </li></ul><ul><ul><li>what researchers actually produce </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>what they think is important </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>what they submit to be assessed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>increasing dominance of journal articles across all disciplines </li></ul><ul><li>the influence of performance assessment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>individual, departmental, institutional </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>roles of peer review and of (increasingly sophisticated) bilbiometrics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>written policies vs perceptions of how it’s done </li></ul></ul>
    11. 12. ….and an important footnote <ul><li>increasing collaboration more co-authorship </li></ul><ul><ul><li>implications for measures of productivity and impact </li></ul></ul>
    12. 13. prospects of change? <ul><li>publish/disseminate work in progress? </li></ul><ul><li>shifts in scholarly communication practice? </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0? </li></ul>28% 27% 27% 31% 19% No opinion 51% 50% 52% 49% 47% Unlikely 21% 23% 21% 20% 34% Likely Open access online publication supported by an 'author-pays' funding model will predominate 5% 14% 16% 11% 11% No opinion 13% 18% 7% 20% 18% Unlikely 82% 68% 76% 69% 72% Likely New types of online publication, using new kinds of media formats and content, will grow in importance 26% 18% 18% 9% 15% No opinion 38% 41% 38% 54% 42% Unlikely 36% 41% 45% 37% 44% Likely Formal peer review will be increasingly complemented by reader-based ratings, annotations, downloads or citations 5% 18% 11% 14% 6% No opinion 56% 52% 50% 51% 63% Unlikely 38% 30% 39% 34% 31% Likely Existing peer review processes will become increasingly unsustainable Research Fellow Lecturer Senior Lecturer Reader Professor
    13. 14. prospects for change? <ul><li>strong(ish) sense that further change is on the way </li></ul><ul><li>relatively small groups of early adopters </li></ul><ul><li>power of disciplinary cultures </li></ul><ul><li>power of recognition/reward systems </li></ul>
    14. 15. 2. Researchers as users
    15. 16. what do they want to find and use?
    16. 17. e-journal usage in the UK
    17. 18. but access still causes problems….
    18. 19. usage in different disciplines…..
    19. 20. levels of usage in different universities….
    20. 21. profile of journals varies too…….
    21. 22. three key messages…….. <ul><li>we haven’t come to the end of the success story for e-journals </li></ul><ul><li>we haven’t entirely cracked the access issue </li></ul><ul><li>we don’t understand enough about reasons for variations in patterns of usage </li></ul>
    22. 23. 3. Costs and Funding
    23. 24. overall costs of the current system
    24. 25. UK contribution to meeting publishing and distribution costs
    25. 26. Increases in article production over 10 years: funding consequences <ul><li>Sources of funding and other contributions </li></ul>
    26. 27. rising costs for libraries….
    27. 28. but research income rising too…….
    28. 29. and rising usage means that costs per download are falling……..
    29. 30. relationships between usage and research success???
    30. 31. three key messages <ul><li>the costs of scholarly communications fall mainly on universities and on researchers </li></ul><ul><li>costs are rising in real terms </li></ul><ul><li>there are strong but elusive relationships between expenditure, usage and research outcomes </li></ul>
    31. 32. 4. A coda…….
    32. 33. transitions…. <ul><li>policy and financial drivers for change are strong </li></ul><ul><ul><li>but transitions cost money </li></ul></ul><ul><li>behavioural drivers are less strong </li></ul><ul><ul><li>and in difficult economic circumstances, researchers will fight harder for funds to sustain their research than for funds to support the information services on which they depend……………. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>we need to understand more about what transitions might look like </li></ul>
    33. 34. Understanding transitions: a portfolio of work <ul><li>Transitions to e-only publication , to investigate the barriers – from the perspectives of libraries, publishers and users – to moving to e-only publishing, and how those barriers might be overcome; </li></ul><ul><li>Gaps in access , to investigate the extent to which journal articles and other research outputs are available, or not, to different parts of the research and other communities; and to identify priorities in seeking to fill gaps in access, barriers to filling them, and actions that might be taken to that end; </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamics of improving access to research papers , to develop a better understanding of the dynamics of transition towards some plausible end-points, and the costs and benefits (cash and non-cash), opportunities and risks involved.. </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Futures  for scholarly communications , to develop a series of challenging scenarios for scholarly communications in ten years’ time, bearing in mind current trends and underlying drivers in user cultures, needs and expectations; and likely developments in  technologies and services. </li></ul>
    34. 35. Thank you Michael Jubb www.rin.ac.uk