James ToonUniversity of Edinburgh

@jamestoon

SURVEY RESULTS AND EXTENDED USE CASES

(CIA AND ROS)

1. Researcher moving to another research organisation

2. Researcher uploading data to research council at end of project

CIA SCENARIOS

HEI => HEI

HEI => ROS

To collect data that would allow a before/after comparison for data exchange

Two surveys, one for each use caseTo use the findings to try and test

scenarios to see if previously held effi ciency claims are realistic

To try and identify any clear gaps and possible extensions to CIA use cases.

SURVEY SCOPE

20 institutional responses. PoorSurvey open 28th Aug – 5th OctDistributed across number of lists, but

particularly interested in ARMA respondents.

Why the poor response? Don’t really know, but maybe lack of understanding of the area??

Produced using Bristol Online Surveys

ABOUT THE CIA SURVEY

Q1. RESPONDENT ROLE TYPES

37%

26%

11%

5%5%

11%

5%Research AdministratorRepository or CRIS managerResearcher/Academic staff memberResearch OfficerResearch Council evaluation teamHead of Research SupportResearch Support Co-ordinator - research administration and CRIS role

Don

't k

now

Gra

nts

Ad

min

istr

ato

r

No id

en

tifi

ed

resp

on

sib

ilit

y

Rep

osit

ory

or

CR

IS m

an

ag

er

Researc

h A

dm

inis

trato

r

Researc

her/

Acad

em

ic s

taff

m

em

ber

Tech

nic

al/S

yste

ms A

dm

inis

trato

r

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

5%

37%

11%

21%

32% 32%26%

Q2 Distribution of responses

Distribution

Q2. WITHIN YOUR INSTITUTION, WHO HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRANSFERRING

RESEARCH INFORMATION TO OR FROM CORE SYSTEMS?

HR

Data

(ow

n a

nd

resea...

Gra

nts

/Con

tracts

in P

rog

...

Past p

roje

ct in

form

atio

...

Pu

blic

atio

ns R

ecord

Este

em

ind

icato

rs (s

uc...

Evid

en

ce o

f Imp

act

Don

't kn

ow

Oth

er

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

37%

84%

47% 53%

37% 37%

11%21%

Q3. Distribution of responses

Distribution

Q3. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF RESEARCH INFORMATION DATA ARE TYPICALLY

REQUESTED BY STAFF MEMBERS FOR TRANSFER BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS?

No a

ccess t

o r

esearc

h in

form

ati

on

(i

.e.

researc

her

has n

ever

record

ed

it

as a

form

al re

cord

Form

at

com

pati

bilit

y

Havin

g t

he t

ime t

o g

ath

er

the d

ata

Don

't k

now

Oth

er

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

53%63%

37%21% 21%

Q4. Distribution of responses

Distribution

Q4. WHAT ARE THE TYPICAL CHALLENGES FACED WHEN WORKING ON THE TRANSFER OF RESEARCH INFORMATION DATA IN OR OUT OF

AN INSTITUTION?

Yes No Don't know0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1

15

3

Count

Q5 DO YOU HAVE FORMAL INFORMATION TRANSFER SERVICE

Q6/7 asked for indication of process, time and effort for effecting transfer of data

In general results indicate no clear approach, and low frequency ad-hoc activity

Different role responses suggest not too much ‘joined up thinking’

For example;

Q6/7PROCESS AND FREQUENCY

CRIS/Repository Manager

Q6/7 SIGNIFICANT VARIATION

Research Support Offi cer

“Research Support office does this. I expect it takes around 5 minutes in

total to find, extract, format and send data.”

“Download from Research Information System plus additional

download of grants information from research grants database and/or

finance system. Estimate of effort: 0.5 day”

Q8(Final Question) asked for any additional comments on the transfer of data.

Respondents painted a picture of a developing requirement

A need to understand local contextThat the desire to standardise is very

welcome, but that it’s also very early days..

Q8 ADDITIONAL COMMENT

It's primarily about the moneyThere is a demand for non-publication

output data - such as esteem indicators, impacts etc.

Requests to transfer data in or out of an institution for HE-HE transfer are ad hoc at best

For the HEI-HEI We seem to be asking about a problem that's not seen as a problem.

SURVEY SYNOPSIS

Lack of any clear HEI to HEI demand identified. Want to investigate this more. (discussion on demand/lack of demand invited)

Obvious demand in bulk importing identified from the ROS survey work - HEI-RCUK (50% submissions by bulk approach)

Also obvious lack of structured data management for non-publication impact/esteem data from CIA survey.

IMMEDIATE THOUGHTS FOR EXTENDED USE CASES

Practical adoption of CERIF now a reality

Leadership needs identified as critical1. Now coming from RCUK members/HEFCE

The barriers to adoption are now diminishing - mainly practical i.e. REF more important at the moment, capital outlay.

Some barriers still substantial – for example standardisation of data types/classifications needs to be agreed and cascaded down to HEI installations

ROADMAP

The Business Case for the Adoption of a UK Standard for Research Information Interchange. Stuart Bolton Report to JISC July 2010

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2010/Businesscasefinalreport.pdf

Complete mapping of RCUK ROS/Researchfish entities to CERIF and implementation in local systems.

Define taxonomy of common RIM data types and establish as data sources

Benchmarking – data re-ingest in local systems from RCUK/HEFCE to institutions

Information sharing for public/researcher use Subject or Geographic Aggregations (engagement with

Gateway to Research) Dynamic Linking of data at the institutional level (to

support collaboration opportunities)

WHAT NEXT FOR CIA – EXTENDED USE CASES

236 replies

79.2%    Principal Investigator11.9%    Research Offi ce Manager / Administrator5.9%      Delegate (Co-investigator , associate

researcher)3.0%      Institute Manager / Administrator

RCUK ROS SURVEY

ROS Ease of use 64.2% satisfactory or better

Look up services (useful or very useful) DOI - 51.9% ISBN/ISSN - 44.7% ROMEO guidance - 28.2% Pubmed - 27.3%

67.8% said that they use an Institutional Repository or CRIS No Research Offi ce Managers answered this question!

HEADLINES

Even split between single submission through the website vs bulk upload

 Submit by lookup reference ie DOI = average 1 minute

to submitSubmit through web = 4 and 8 minutesBulk submit = 1 and 3 minutes per outcome to prepare  Total Community eff ort per month

If 5 minutes per single outcome then 214 "working" days If 2 minutes per bulk outcome then 90 "working” days A 57% reduction in effort through using a bulk submit feature

ANALYSIS OF UPLOADING METHOD

 The “reporting” cost per grant per year

£15.40 using single method £6.50 using bulk submit

 CERIF business case was based on application

submission savings but… £0.50p for CERIF?

REPORTING COSTS..…

Note: Have temporarily re-opened survey until 26th October to encourage further responses.

https://www.survey.ed.ac.uk/cia_r2/

QUESTIONS?