JOINING SYSTEMS: who owns, administers, and links the systems together?

When planning our discussion topic for the RSP event Working Smartly Together, we assumed that people participating in the discussion group would already have a link between a CRIS and repository system - or be well on with planning the link. We also hoped that people would be further down the line in joining systems and could share their experiences with those still thinking about a potential CRIS/repository link.

In fact, to our surprise, the majority of group members were still at an early stage: some considering a CRIS/repository link, some planning to expand an existing repository to offer CRIS type functions and others just interested in the topic but with no current link plans. Although the CRIS/Repository model is becoming more common, institutions that have followed the process through and achieved full integration between the two systems are still few and far between.

Quickly shifting gears from the initial breakout group plan, we discussed some of the potential benefits and challenges of the new model.

Findings are below (transcribed from flip charts and added commentary):

Benefits

• Potentially greater deposit: whether this is true or not depends on where you are starting from with your existing repository. Some are well embedded, but others have struggled to become part of everyday researcher workflows.

• One stop shop: single place of deposit but also a way to draw together many strands of research information. A CRIS can be enhanced by an OA platform and the high standards of data curation which come with it; the repository can be complemented by the administrative data in the CRIS.

• CRIS+repository may be a good model to support researcher compliance with funder OA and reporting requirements.

• CRIS benefits from repository visibility – research becomes more discoverable.

• Web page feeds may include publication lists with links to repository content - but also grants, expertise, activities, impact etc.

• Repository usage stats could be fed back to the CRIS. As well as usage, stats could show non-OA-depositors what traffic they’re missing.

Risks / challenges

• OA takes a back seat.

• Academics don’t care about the depositing system – it’s just another admin system to them. Maybe this doesn’t matter. And it’s not an issue that’s limited to the CRIS+repository model. But perhaps academics are less likely to engage with OA aspects of a CRIS if they don’t see the relevance to their own subject discipline and research.

• REF – a useful driver - but too much REF focus could lead to fewer OA deposits and more limited engagement with repository systems.

• Why have two sets of metadata? Is the repository just a file store? Does it matter?

• Data quality – building the publication database within a CRIS tends to involve importing data from a number of different sources. E.g. Thomson Web of Science, departmental databases, individual publication lists in EndNote, BiBTeX etc. Inevitably there is duplication and a range of data quality issues. Is it worth tidying the records up? Who does this? Is there any resource to do this? Is surfacing publication data on researcher web pages sufficient incentive for them to rectify any issues with their own data?

Wishlist

• The model helps with research publication and research data curation – funder data is tied in with compliance requirements, depositors are advised on these & there is automatic deposit or notification to required external subject / data repositories.

• Effective data exchange between systems & common data standards – probably CERIF.

• Crosswalks between systems are easy to set up and readily tailorable.

• Relevant support departments work together to create an effective system (Research Office, Library, IT, Staff Training). Effective governance mechanisms are put in place.

• Uptake by some researchers exerts peer pressure on others, raising overall take up.

Conclusion:
So long as you have an effective system to deposit, describe, disseminate and preserve you research information, it may not matter too much what the underlying architecture looks like. However, there are many practical issues to be tackled – particularly if you have pre-existing systems which must be linked or phased out – when introducing a CRIS+repository architecture.

Many thanks to the attendees as the comments provided the project with insights that will be written up in the final project report.

submitted by: Rachel Proudfoot and Jodie Double

Repositories in a new CRIS landscape - some discussion points from the RSP Winter School

Six weeks on from the RSP Winter School and time for some reflection on a few Reposit-relevant points we discussed at this very useful event.

1. Workflow. Our current Symplectic to Eprints workflow (Leeds) 'surrenders' control of metadata to the central research management system. Surrender may not be the right word, but we're used to having complete control within EPrints so it feels that way. It’s certainly an important workflow question to consider – and not all institutions have come to the same conclusion. If metadata is incorrect, is it fixed in Symplectic or fixed in EPrints? We fix in Symplectic. This means the Symplectic and EPrints records are in synch, but it means repository staff need to interact with two systems. I’m not suggesting this as an ideal model but it’s our reality at the moment. Where does your ‘master’ record live? Is it/ can it be locked down?
   
   Symplectic is now our only deposit route for White Rose Research Online content for University of Leeds. Will it continue to be? Are there other places we need to capture deposits?
   
   Overall, as CRIS/repository models roll out, I’d really like to see some more discussion around the pros and cons of different workflows and how life can be made easier for both depositors and repository staff. One comment that stuck with me was the high expectations researchers have (well, I suppose we all have) that systems should be simple and easy to use. Obvious – but difficult to achieve. And how do we (should we?) avoid systems which are simpler for the depositor but result in extra work for someone else further along the workflow (library/repository staff)?
   
   
2. CRIS/Repository landscape. We discussed the importance of being aware of – or even pre-empting – the CRIS discussion at your institution. If you’re not involved already, does this mean the discussion has started without you? .. or should you be starting the discussion?
   
   We’ve discussed for many a long year how institutional repositories fit with other repositories – arXiv; SSRN; RePec; UKPMC; ESRC etc – do we push data to them or pull data from them or both? Is the mechanism for this located within the CRIS, the repository, somewhere else? I was very happy to see progress with Repository Junction; we really need something to help rationalise multiple location deposit.
   
   
3. Relationship with Research Office. Knowing a/the key person can make all the difference. If you’re not already talking to your research office, start! We have several areas of shared interest even if we don’t always talk the same language.
   
   
4. Repository visibility vs invisibility. Not a new question, but should the repository be high profile and obvious – or so well integrated depositors don’t even know it’s there? One questions was raised – if everything is deposited via a CRIS won’t the CRIS get credit for all the behind the scenes work the library and repository staff may do? I don’t think this is an issue – or is it? Seems to me there’s a quid pro quo here – the Library is a trusted, established service – and I think Library involvement increases the credibility of CRIS type systems with researchers. (Discuss?!) Of course, this only works if the depositors know there’s a Library role – be it quality control, copyright advice, copyright checking, version advice, file format advice, preservation, user testing. From the Library perspective we need to understand our new role but we also need to publicise this – not something we’re always good at.
   

Developing training materials

At the start of the RePosit project (and probably even before then), one of the planned outputs was a set of generic training materials (user based) to help other repository managers should they head down the route of linking their CRIS to their repository.


There is a huge assumption implicit in this however, and one which we as a project group have found difficult to resolve and reconcile. In essence, regardless of the software you are using for either CRIS or repository, there is an assumption that the underlying process is at least similar if not the same. This is perhaps a little naive and has certainly been a bit of a stumbling block.


On a very basic level, when you present this model to your users, what you want to get across is:
Login
Upload
All done through the same interface, no need to toggle between CRIS and repository, all done at the same time in one simple set of steps


In technical terms, this is broadly the case (login, find publication, browse to find file, upload file). However, when attempting to apply this to a simple (generic) how-to guide, it turns out it's not so simple afterall. Really obvious, really basic actions become really important: logging in, for example. How do you describe what actions constitute the logging in process? If everyone used the same CRIS software, this wouldn't be an issue (other than for the Competition Commission), log in would just be 'log in', simply because there would only be one way to do it. Similarly, getting to the point of browsing for the file to upload would be just 'find publication', all actions could be illustrated with a few snappy screenshots and you'd be done. When you're not using the same software though, it's hard to provide a simple set of instructions that doesn't become obsolete by its very vagueness.


There's also the problem of what the 'link' between your systems is called (if it has a name other than 'link thingy') and the fact that we're all using different repository software too.


In reality, whilst it would be nice to say we could produce glossy guides and materials that will just provide you with a complete package for your CRIS-Repository set up project, the honest truth is, some things you'll just have to do yourself or need to be software and local implementation specific and best dealt with by you or your vendors.


We love collaboration, but now and again, it can make something simple really, really complicated!


Sarah Molloy, Research Support Librarian (Repository and Publications System Manager) Queen Mary, University of London

User Stories

In a previous post we discussed the fact that there are many reasons why someone might care about a link existing between their CRIS and their Digital Repository. We identified upwards of 20 such reasons, and alluded to the fact that each of these reasons resonates more with some people than it does with others, and emphasises more the CRIS or the Repository.

In this post we're going to have a look at some concrete examples of the user stories that we have developed from the "Whys", to give you a flavour of what the project outputs will contain.

A story for academic authors: how can this help me raise my research profile?

CRIS and Digital Repository integration is all about raising your research profile. This happens by enhancing your research's visibility through your digital repository and increasing your potential for being cited. This is not only in the public interest - the people who ultimately funded your work - but it also increases how easy it is to find and read your work, and therefore also increases its re-usability. By ensuring that your research information and full-text content is available, it will be easier for your institution to assemble high-quality REF returns, while also making it easy for you to meet your funder mandates on open access deposit. As an additional advantage, your research will be cared for and preserved for future readers. As a result your research presence is significant, and remains so for longer.


A story for librarians: using research information management to drive institutional strategy

Shrinking library budgets mean that it is important to find cost-effective solutions to support your institution's strategy, and to participate in the global research economy. By providing public access to publicly funded research through your Digital Repository, you are provisioning for long-term storage and preservation across time and software advances of institutional assets, which are valuable in this economy. This benefits the institution's standing by increasing the amount of research content which can be made available through the repository, the CRIS and any other systems which build institutional web-presence from the information held there.


A story for senior staff: increasing citations in support of the REF

Increasing the visibility of your research is going to be extremely important in the next round of metrics-based research evaluation. You can increase the visibility of your research by improving its online discoverability. This is not just in the public interest (although it is), but will provide you with the opportunity to raise your institution's profile in areas such as HE rankings, and Student Surveys. Ultimately, this increased discoverability and visibility increases the opportunity for citations to your researcher's work, which will support a high quality REF return.


There are a number of other stories that we are working on, and as you can see from the above we are still in the early period of refining them into something which can be clearly presented. In time we will develop and make available advocacy material wireframes and slide-decks in support of these stories, and we will shortly be publishing blog posts on those topics.

- Richard Jones, Symplectic Ltd.

What can we learn from Prof Weasel and Kooey the Goose: project chat with Gareth Johnson

In our Exeter project meeting, we discussed different ways of promoting a CRIS (or choose your preferred term!) to repository link. Readers may be familiar with the (in)famous library education video series created by Gareth Johnson (University of Leicester aka llordllama). In particular, “The Professional Librarian’s Guide to Understanding Academic Copyright” is well known and has been used in repository training sessions – I’ve used it on occasion (with permission!) as an icebreaker and a painless way of explaining the consequences of academic authors’ tendency to sign away rights to their work. Would this type of video be a useful advocacy or educational tool in the CRIS to Repository context?

Although a lot of our advocacy work will be focussed on our home institutions, communicating RePosit findings to the wider repository and library community is very important – particularly to maximise awareness of the training materials produced during the project. We will want to explore the pros and cons of the emerging deposit method and hope to facilitate a community of practice around the new CRIS/repository model.

I had a very helpful discussion with Gareth around a couple of key issues (i) whether videos in this field were feasible and what form they might take (ii) community building.

(i) of course, whether Gareth produces videos in this area is very much his call. Having produced many videos, he’s learned that it can pay to focus a video on one main issue or message e.g. “what is a CRIS?”. So a possibly approach would be a series of videos from which to pick and mix according to the specific requirements of a training session. This could fit very well with the emerging RePosit approach of a slide bank from which “stories” can be pulled together to appeal to a specific audience. From us (RePosit – or anyone else promoting this type of deposit model), Gareth would like any specific quotations or opinions from researchers, librarians, administrators which could be used to inform any videos he puts together. As Gareth says, it’s useful for the videos to provide food for thought and look at a topic from several angles.

(A useful tip from Gareth: why not email all your keen depositors and ask them to provide an attributable quote for use in promotion – this can yield surprisingly rich results.)

(ii) Perhaps we could offer the emerging “community” multiple options/ discussion venues and see where the traffic goes? So if the RePosit Google Group doesn’t take off, maybe try a Facebook page – this may be more user friendly. Are there any established groups we could piggy back on?

“The Professional Librarian’s Guide to Understanding Academic Copyright”

What data can Research Management Systems and Repositories exchange for mutual benefit?

We're thinking about our stakeholder groups and how and when to target them about the Symplectic to repository connector. Understanding how users interact with a CRIS or similar (in this case Symplectic but could be other platforms) may help target advocacy materials more effectively. From the CRIS it would good to profile:

• what proportion of content is deposited or approved/declined by authors and what proportion is deposited/approved/declined by delegates (ie someone "impersonating" the author)?
• usage patterns over time, by department - do some departments interact regularly whilst others batch up work to deal with once or twice a year?
• what proportion of staff in a department have logged in to the CRIS - ever/in the last six months/this month? Are there many known "non-users"?
• proportion of research outputs in a department which have been "harvested" automatically and which have been added manually

What data would a CRIS be looking for from a repository? Perhaps download statistics could be fed back for incorporation in CRIS reports or displayed as part of the author's publication list - ideally not just downloads but some geographical and domain data as well.
Would it be interesting to compare the journal impact factor - often included in a CRIS - with individual paper hits and downloads?

Are there other areas of data exchange that would help improve the service we offer to depositors?

Conversation with Pablo de Castro

I had a very interesting conversation with Pablo de Castro about the Sonex initiative last Wednesday (6th October 2010). Our discussion centred around crossover in research between our two projects into ways of depositing into repositories from other information sources, and this how model of deposit could be used as an advocacy tool.

Pablo and I discussed whether we might approach advocacy in different ways, not just in the context of a specific audience but also to the content itself; for example, would the emphasis of any advocacy materials need to be different if all publications data were to be deposited into a repository, including metadata-only records, as opposed to full text only?

We discussed the slow uptake of deposit to repositories in Spain, and how it was hoped that initiatives and projects like ours might help to engage more researchers and demonstrate the benefits of repositories, and the ease with which content can be deposited using different sources to automate and facilitate metadata creation and file upload.

We also talked at the new BioMed Central Automated Article-Deposit feed which uses the SWORD protocol to deposit content automatically into institutional repositories from BioMed Central, increasing deposit to compliant repositories, and decreasing workload for repository staff.

For me, this was particularly interesting because it threw up questions about whether this model would work with our own deposit model. Could these models be made to work together, and indeed should they? Thoughts?

It was a fascinating conversation, serving to highlight for me how the same issues around engagement are repeated, regardless of country. A big thanks to Pablo for taking the time to speak to me, before heading off to the 10th Rebiun Workshop (for those of you able to read Spanish!). It was a real pleasure.

Sarah Molloy (Queen Mary, University of London)

Help - I'm in acronym hell ...... CRIS, RIS, or RMS?

Just went to update my recent post - to use 'RMS' (Research Management System) rather than 'RIS' (Research Information System).

Then I had a brief look at various websites ..... which made me think that the wider community (ie JISC/standards/euro-Uni community) has adopted 'CRIS' (Current Research Information System....... why the 'c'?).

I think, since we're often referring to 'Symplectic Elements', 'RMS' makes more sense to me/our project, or perhaps it should be 'Next Generation Publications Database' (Pub DB v2.0)...... I think because I see Symplectic Elements as being a subset of a RIS/CRIS functionality - it currently helps to manage the publications part of 'research information' and not all the other information created, or which needs to be managed at other stages of the research lifecycle.

Anyway, now I'm thinking of changing every reference on our blogs to 'CRIS' - perhaps we should standardise on that even though 'Current Research Information System' doesn't really fit with Symplectic Elements/Symplectic repository tools.

aarrgh

Bo Middleton (University of Leeds)