Jisc fringe: the future of managing research outputs by Dr Tamsin Burland, Senior co-design manager, Digital Futures, Jisc. The need to have oversight and manage the whole portfolio of research outputs (articles, data, theses, software etc.) is becoming more pressing for universities. This is in part driven by funder mandates (including Plan S), but also by open research initiatives, such as FAIR and guidelines for new generation repositories. In this workshop, Dr Tasmin Burland feeds back to the sector on recent outreach work undertaken by Jisc on research data management and open access practices. She presented Jisc’s current and planned development work around repositories. She also looked at current open access workflows and pain points, discussed what was required as we transition to new practices and systems, and invited input from practitioners.

1. The future of managing research outputs 12 June, 2019
Working with the sector

2. A key challenge for universities
#JiscRDM3
The current ‘open research’ agenda is important to universities:
Repository Preservation Reporting

3. A shared service
#JiscRDM4
Input from
>70 UK
universities
Multi -
content
Modular
and inter-
operable
Reporting
Compliance
Ease the
digital
preservation
pain
Enhanced
UX
Community
led
Cost
effective
A single solution to meet the
requirements of universities to
enable better management,
sharing and preservation of
research outputs

4. Jisc Open Research Hub
#JiscRDM5
https://Jisc.ac.uk/open-research-hub

5. Service Data Model
#JiscRDM6
https ://github.com/J is cRDSS/rdss
-canonical-data-model

6. Research data lifecycle & Open research hub scope
#JiscRDM8

7. ORH and the active data research life cycle?
#JiscRDM9
 DMPs
 Open science
platforms
 E-lab notebooks
 Active data storage
 Practice research
 Reproducibility

8. Current Practices in Research Data
Management and Sharing
#JiscRDM13
Dr Ian Carter, Carter Research Navigation
• Informal, semi-structured interviews with a wide range of
institutions
• Exploring:
• Appetite and status
• Practical issues
• Financial and commercial considerations
• 41 institutions interviewed so far
Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com

9. Findings – RDM practices
#JiscRDM14
• Conflation of good data management and Open Data
• Policy + Repository ≠ RDM or Open Data
• More focus on compliance than enabling research
• Academic behavioural motivations and leadership often lacking
• Relatively small, isolated capacity to support active RDM and data
sharing
• Missing full spectrum of functionality and hence benefits across
the data lifecycle
• Data management important, but OA mandates take precedence
Icon made by Eucalyp from www.flaticon.com

10. Continual development and delivery
#JiscRDM15
https ://res earchdata.jis cinvolve.org/
wp/2 019/05/22/going-off-road/
https ://blog.cris p.s e/2016/01/25/henrikkniberg/making-sense-of-mvp

11. Sector mandates and good practice - OA
#JiscRDM16

12. JORH4OA– repositories interviews and surveys
#JiscRDM17
11 interviews (1:1)
+ 31 SCONUL survey
responses
Technical
• Organisation
• Workflows
• Technology – systems, interface,
content
• Future repository plans
Strategic
• Drivers to change (case for change)
• Timing and phasing of change
• Risks and benefits
• Suppliers and options
• Current costs
• Future budget
Icon made by Freepik from
www.flaticon.com

13. Findings – OA repositories
#JiscRDM18
• Case for changing output repository exists
• Benefits of a shared platform – beyond economies of scale
• Blockers to change
• Combined (multi-content) repository preferred (78%)
• Recognition of cost savings
• No appetite for change pre-2021
• 70% were satisfied or very satisfied with current supplier
Icon made by Eucalyp from www.flaticon.com

14. PlanS/NGR OA repository guidance
#JiscRDM19
 Diversity of resources  Open APIs  Machine friendly
 Resource centric  Networked  Versioning
 Sustainable  Distributed governance  Public good
 Helpdesk  Continuous availability  Accessible
 Full text stored in XML in
JATS standard (or
equivalent)
 Common behaviours,
functionalities and
standards
 Automatic exchange
between publishers and
institutions
 Quality assured
metadata in standard
interoperable format
 Automated manuscript
ingest facility
 Promoting a range of
unique identifiers (eg
ORCID)

15. Requirements
#JiscRDM20
1. Administration
capabilities
2. Integration
3. Compliance
• Plan-S
• REF post 2021
4. Metadata
• Organisation
• Content types
• Metadata profiles
• Taxonomies
5. Workflows
Administration capabilities
• Audit log/history view
• Cost and billing management
• Data Import/Export
• Delete items
• Display Systems status
• Faceted search
• Manage configuration
• Reporting
• User management
Workflows
• Maintain deposit date
• (semi)automated update of
metadata following publication
• De-duplication
• Multiple workqueues
• Look and feel supporting Art &
Design outputs
• Display appropriate forms for
deposit of each content type
• Multiple deposit workflows

16. jisc.ac.uk
15 Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1BW T:
07468 727061
Dr Tamsin Burland
tamsin.burland@jisc.ac.uk
@tamsinburland
www.jisc.ac.uk/staff/tamsin-burland

17. Multiple-choice poll (Multiple answers)
Which of these five areas of repository
functionality of are important to your
work? (Choose as many as relevant)
0 2 3
Administration capabilities
74 %
Integration
78 %
Compliance
91 %
Metadata
74 %
workflow development or maintenance
70 %

18. Multiple-choice poll
In which of these five areas do you
experience most difficulty with your
current repository? (Choose one)
0 2 3
Administration capabilities
57 %
Integration
9 %
Compliance
4 %
Metadata
4 %
workflow development or maintenance
26 %

19. Wordcloud poll
Using 1-2 words, which features are most
important to you in an institutional
repository (multiple answers allowed)
0 2 3
discoverability
ease of use
visibility use
integration
ease
flexibility
usability integration
usability
source
reporting
preservation
open
license
intuitive
interoperable
access
experience
accessibilty
user
discoverability;
discoverability intuitive
ux access
dicoverability
cris integration
comprehensiveness
branding
attractive easy
academic
easy deposit

20. Open text poll
Survey (2/2)
Briefly describe your current repository
pain points (please submit multiple
answers for different pain points) -
answers will be displayed
(1/2)
0 1 8
The front end UX for
academics is really very
dreadful :( The repo has been
built for librarians with deep
metadata knowledge rather
than academic and
administrative colleagues. Drag
and drop or a "one button"
solution is the dream
Academics find it clunky or
difficult
Integration/interoperability
with other systems
organisational commitment not
indexed by google
Pure an improvement on
dspace
Availability of staff to work on
records
Out of date architecture
UX front end; integration with
CRIS -

21. Open text poll
Survey (2/2)
Briefly describe your current repository
pain points (please submit multiple
answers for different pain points) -
answers will be displayed
(2/2)
0 1 8
Reporting
Poor reporting
Don't know
Reporting
Self deposit time consuming
Getting MI from it that is
useful
Na
Time available
Discovery