Findings from the euroCRIS/OCLC Research Survey of ... · Survey of Research Information Management Practices • Joint project between • Report to be published in November 2018

1 November 2018

Findings from the euroCRIS/OCLC Research Survey of Research Information Management Practices

Rebecca Bryant, PhD, Senior Program Officer, OCLC Research

[email protected] @RebeccaBryant18

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2753-3881

Anna Clements, Assistant Library Director, University of St Andrews

[email protected] @AnnaKClements

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2895-1310

Jan Fransen, Service Lead for RIM Systems, University of Minnesota

[email protected]

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0302-2761

mailto:[email protected]

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2753-3881


https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2895-1310


https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0302-2761

Today’s talk

• Introducing OCLC Research, euroCRIS and

their collaboration

• Discuss joint Survey of Research Information

Management Practice: goals, scope, aims

• Share and discuss survey results and findings

• Devoted to challenges facing libraries and archives

since 1978

• Community resource for shared Research and

Development (R&D)

• Engagement with OCLC members and the community

around shared concerns

• Learn more▪ oc.lc/research

▪ Hangingtogether.org blog

oc.lc/rim

OCLC Research publications on Research Information Management

Survey of Research

Information

Management Practices

(report coming November 2018)

>200 Members

45 Countries

15 Strategic Partners

An international not-for-profit association founded in 2002 to bring together experts on research information in general and research information systems (CRIS) in particular

Survey of Research Information Management

Practices

• Joint project between

• Report to be published in November 2018

oc.lc/rim

Rebecca Bryant, PI, OCLC Research

Pablo de Castro, Strathclyde University and euroCRIS

Anna Clements, University of St. Andrews and euroCRIS

Annette Dortmund, OCLC EMEA

Jan Fransen, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Muhammed Javed, Cornell University

Constance Malpas, OCLC Research

Michele Mennielli, DuraSpace and euroCRIS

Maliaca Oxnam, University of Arizona

Rachael Samberg, University of California-Berkeley

Julie Speer, Virginia Tech

Plus a number of valuable collaborators at OCLC

Results we’ll be talking about

• Incentives for RIM Adoption

• Functions/Uses of RIM

• Interoperability

• RIM Stakeholders

• Use of Persistent Identifiers

• Online survey data collection: Oct 2017 – Jan 2018• English and Spanish versions

• Survey promotion through:o OCLC and euroCRIS communications channels and events worldwide

o Communications by CRIS vendors and user communities

o Listservs, social media, and announcements to research & library

organizations

Methodology & promotion

RIM Survey responses: geographic overview

381 survey respondents from 44 countries

Country # Resp. Country # Resp.

United Kingdom 39 (10%) Canada 4 (1%)

United States 39 (10%) South Africa 4 (1%)

Peru 39 (10%) Andorra 3 (1%)

Italy 28 (7%) Colombia 3 (1%)

Australia 24 (6%) Finland 3 (1%)

Germany 14 (4%) India 3 (1%)

Netherlands 10 (3%) Japan 3 (1%)

Portugal 7 (2%) Austria 2 (0.5%)

Poland 6 (2%) Bahrain 2 (0.5%)

Spain 6 (2%) China 2 (0.5%)

Belgium 5 (2%) Denmark 2 (0.5%)

Ireland 5 (2%) New Zealand 2 (0.5%)

1 respondent from each of the following countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan,

Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Hungary, Lebanon, Mexico, Namibia, Russia, Saudi Arabia,

Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab

Emirates and Uruguay

by OCLC Research CC BY 4.0 Research Information Management (RIM) Systems: International Survey of Libraries, preliminary results (2018)

http://www.oclc.org/research

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Live22258%

Implementing51

13%

Procuring134%

Exploring46

12%

Not considering49

13%

Respondents by RIM Status (n=381)

36%

1%

4%

10%

10%

12%

28%

30%

Other

Profiles (Open source)

VIVO (Open source)

Converis (Clarivate Analytics)

DSpace-CRIS (Open source)

Elements (Symplectic)

Developed in-house

Pure (Elsevier)

Live RIM Systems (n=193)*Base: Institutions with a live RIM

*Note: 29 respondents did not provide their RIM system

EMEA

Americas

APAC

Unknown

Live

222

58%

Research Information Management Systems

Well over half (58%) have a live RIM System




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Europe (exc UK)(n=68)

UK(n=27)

US & Canada(n=22)

Australia (n=21)

Other(n=19)

Unknown (n=35)

Live RIM Systems in Use by Geography

Pure (Elsevier) Developed in-house Elements (Symplectic) Converis (Clarivate Analytics)

DSpace-CRIS (Open source) VIVO (Open source) Profiles (Open source) Other




11

7

7

6

4

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

United Kingdom

United States

Unknown

Netherlands

Australia

Belgium

Finland

Portugal

China

Columbia

Denmark

Italy

Japan

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Live implementations of Pure, by country (n=47)




INCENTIVES FOR RIM ADOPTION

11%

23%

36%

40%

53%

58%

32%

46%

43%

42%

26%

28%

25%

20%

16%

16%

12%

9%

17%

7%

2%

1%

5%

3%

14%

4%

4%

1%

4%

1%

Recording IR facilities and their use

Supporting expertise discovery

Improving services for researchers

Supporting institutional research reputation and strategicdecision making

Supporting institutional compliance

Managing annual academic activity reporting

Importance of Reasons for Pursing RIM Activities (n=222)Base: Institutions with a live RIM

Extremely important Important Somewhat important Not important N/A or Not sure

Reporting and compliance drive RIM adoption




2

3

4

14

18

23

3

2

3

10

1

2

5

1

1

1

2

2

6 5

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

US & Canada(n=21)

Peru (n=6)

Netherlands (n=8)

Italy (n=27)

Australia (n=21)

United Kingdom (n=27)

Importance of External Research Assessment WorkflowsBase: institutions with a live RIM system

Extremely important Important Somewhat important Not important N/A or Not Sure




2

3

5

9

3

3

10

16

15

6

2

3

6

5

3

3

1

2

3

4

2

3

1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Netherlands (n=8)

Australia (n=21)

Italy (n=27)


United States (n=21)

Peru (n=6)

Importance of Supporting Expertise DiscoveryBase: Institutions with a Live RIM System

Extremely Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important N/A or Not Sure




Summary: Incentives for Adoption

• US is an outlier

– No national compliance requirements

– Early emphasis on Research Networking Systems (e.g., Harvard Profiles)

• Action for the next survey

– Different platforms emphasize different capabilities, so…

– Increase promotion to Profiles RNS and VIVO communities

• Research Question for the next survey

– Will incentives for new adopters of RIM shift away from compliance and toward expertise

discovery?

– Most institutions with reporting mandates will have already implemented RIM

RIM functions

20%

22%

28%

27%

29%

32%

35%

45%

44%

52%

56%

77%

33%

36%

26%

39%

26%

42%

31%

29%

34%

37%

19%

16%

29%

26%

21%

19%

15%

20%

15%

14%

11%

8%

11%

4%

6%

5%

13%

5%

14%

3%

7%

7%

3%

7%

1%

12%

10%

13%

10%

16%

3%11%

5%

8%

2%

7%

1%

Reporting societal impact

Identifying collaborators or expertise

Compliance and open access to research datasets

Reuse (in CVs, biosketches, other web pages)

Awards/grants management workflows

Reporting scholarly impact

Annual academic activity reporting workflows

Compliance and open access to publications

Publicly available researcher profiles

Internal reporting

External (e.g., National) research assessment

Registry of institutional research outputs

Important Functions of RIM (n=203)Base: Institutions with a live RIM

Extremely important Important Somewhat important Not important N/A or Not sure




20

21

8

5

25

10

1

6

1

2

8 2 1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Australia (n=21)

Italy (n=27)

Netherlands (n=8)

Peru (n=6)


US & Canada (n=21)

Importance of RIM system as a Registry of Institutional Research Outputs

Base: Institutions with a live RIM system





8

10

4

4

23

3

8

11

4

3

3

2

4

2

8

2

6

1

2

1

1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Australia (n=21)

Italy (n=27)

Netherlands (n=8)

Peru (n=6)


US & Canada (n=21)

Importance of Compliance and Open Access to PublicationsBase: Institutions with a live RIM system





6

6

2

4

14

6

7

3

1

8

3

4

7

3

1

3

5

2

1

2

9

3

6

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Australia (n=21)

Italy (n=27)

Netherlands (n=8)

Peru (n=6)


US & Canada (n=21)

Importance of Compliance and Open Access to Datasets Base: Institutions with a live RIM system





Summary: RIM uses

• For most, RIM is valuable as a registry of the institution’s

research outputs

• RIM has multiple uses at most institutions▪ External & internal assessment are among the most important (and unsurprising)

▪ Managing OA compliance is also important

▪ Supporting the discovery of potential research collaborators is less important

• As expected, some of these differences appear to vary by

region

Interoperability

11%

16%

4%

7%

10%

24%

29%

47%

65%

76%

0% 100%

None of the above

Other

Aggregated research data portals

Organization ID registry/database

Government/private grants award system

Aggregated research portals

National or regional reporting system

Research metrics sources

Researcher/author ID registry/database

Publication metadata sources

External Systems that Interoperate with your RIM (n=178)Base: Institutions with a live RIM

Note: Respondents could select more than one answer

RIM systems interoperate with multiple internal and

external systems

Institution's website

(n=6)

Faculty activity system

(n=5)

National

publication

database

(n=20)


3%

16%

3%

5%

16%

20%

22%

24%

26%

32%

36%

42%

43%

76%

78%

0% 100%

None of the above

Other

Active data management system

Tech/knowledge transfer

Research data repository

Electronic Thesis/Dissertation (ETD)…

Library management system

Project management system

Analytics system

Grants management system

University finance and accounting system

Student information system

Institutional repository

Institutional authentication system

Human resources system

Internal Systems that Interoperate with your RIM (n=184)Base: Institutions with a live RIM




14%

11%

4%

4%

6%

7%

7%

9%

10%

11%

12%

26%

37%

44%

61%

63%

72%

0% 50% 100%

None of the above

Other (Please specify):

SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System

Scielo

dbpl

MLA International Bibliography

WorldCat

RePEc

SSRN

CiNii

Google Books

Europe PubMed Central

ArXiv

CrossRef

PubMed

Web of Science

Scopus

EBSCOhost (n=4)

Mendeley (n=4)

Espacenet (n=3)

Publication Metadata

Sources that Populate

your RIM system

(n=185)Base: Institutions with a live RIM system

Note: Respondents could select more than one

answer




24%

37%

54%

64%

52%

41%

3%

2%

3%

9%

9%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Research Data Repository

ETD Repository

Institutional Repository

Does your RIM system serve as your default...Base: Institutions with a live RIM system

Yes No Don't know N/A

29%

29%

58%

60%

51%

38%

2%

4%

2%

9%

16%

2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Resesrch Data Repository

ETD Repository

Institutional Repository

Does Pure serve as your default...Base institutions with live Pure n=47

Yes No Don't know N/A

Use of RIM

Systems to

support

repository

functions




69%

23%

48%

14%9% 0%

33%

14%

24%

47%

53%

42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Institutional repository Research data repository ETD repository

Does your RIM system serve as your default...Base: Institutions with a Live RIM system

Europe (n=95) US & Canada (n=22) Australia (n=21) Other (n=19)




43%

16%20%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Instiutional repository Research data repository ETD repository

Interoperability between RIM and repository systems (n=184)

Base: Institutions with a live RIM system




42%

15%17%

27%

48%

14%

19%

68%

47%

42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Institutional repository(e.g., via a connector between DSpace

and Pure)

Research data repository ETD repository

Which of the following internal systems interoperate with your RIM system(s)?

Base: Institutions with a Live RIM system

Europe (n=93) US & Canada (n=22) Australia (n=21) Other (n=19)by OCLC Research CC BY 4.0 Research Information Management (RIM) Systems: International Survey of Libraries, preliminary results (2018)



14%

29%

14%

14%

21%

29%

45%

20%

7%

7%

12%

36%

40%

45%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

None of the above

Field of Science (FOS) Classification

CASRAI

Other

Shibboleth

CERIF/CERIF XML

OAI-PMH

Protocols/Standards/Vocabularies RIM Relies OnNote: Respondents could select more than one answer

Live RIM (n=169)

Implementing RIM(n=42)




Some summary findings

• Fairly high degree of RIM system interoperability with other institutional

systems – including IRs

• Significant workflows for funding information exchange both internally and

externally

• Institutions leverage publications metadata harvesting

• OAI-PMH & CERIF-XML important standards

Stakeholders

18

15

17

36

131

73

130

205

17

75

168

191

325

479

744

1,044

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Human Resources

External Agency/Vendor

Other

Academic Units

Provost/Chancellor

IT/Systems

Library

Research Office

Stakeholders with "Primary Responsibility" for 14 Specific RIM Activities

by # of mentions




50% 39%

28%24%

15%

8%

25%

9%

5%5%

4%

14%

18%

24%

48%48%

30%

49%

16%

12%

17%

16%

20%

26%

10%

8%

4%6%

15%

8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Netherlands US & Canada UK Australia Italy Peru

Library Academic Units Research Office IT/Systems Provost/Chancellor Other Human Resources Don't know

Stakeholders with Primary Responsibility for RIM Activities by CountryBased on # of Mentions (Decreasing Importance of Library)

Base: Institution with a Live RIM system




Persistent identifiers

15%

21%

0%

3%

7%

9%

29%

35%

60%

73%

0% 50% 100%

None of the above


VIAF

ISNI

National authority files

ArXiv ID

PubMed ID

ResearcherID

Scopus ID

ORCID

Google Scholar ID (n=4)

SSRN (n=3)

Codice fiscale (Italy) (n=19)

Researcher Identifiers Used in Your RIM system (n=182)Base: Institutions with a live RIM system





5%

1%

2%

5%

6%

6%

77%

0% 50% 100%


ISNI

CrossRef Funder Registry

Ringgold

GRID

National authority files

None of the above

Organization Identifiers Used in Your RIM system (n=162)Base: Institutions with a live RIM system





Some summary findings

• Congruent with our qualitative

Convenience and Compliance

findings

• Strong adoption of person

identifiers

o ORCID becoming a de facto

standard in scholarly literature,

but other identifiers also needed

and used

o Organizational identifiers

largely unused

oc.lc/rim

Discussion

Rebecca Bryant, PhD, Senior Program

Officer, OCLC Research

[email protected] @RebeccaBryant18

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2753-3881

Anna Clements, Assistant Library Director,

University of St Andrews; euroCRIS

[email protected] @AnnaKClements

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2895-1310

Jan Fransen, Service Lead for RIM Systems,

University of Minnesota

[email protected]

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0302-2761

• Survey results and data to

be published as an OCLC

Research Report in

November 2018

• More information at

oc.lc/rim

oc.lc/rim


https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2753-3881


https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2895-1310


https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0302-2761

Bryant, Rebecca, Anna Clements, Carol Feltes, David Groenewegen, Simon Huggard, Holly Mercer, Roxanne Missingham, Maliaca Oxnam, Anne Rauh and John Wright. 2017. Research Information Management: Defining RIM and the Library’s Role. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research. doi:10.25333/C3NK88

Bryant, Rebecca, Annette Dortmund, and Constance Malpas. 2017. Convenience and Compliance: Case Studies on Persistent Identifiers in European Research Information. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC Research. doi:10.25333/C32K7M

euroCRIS & OCLC Research. International Survey on Research Information Management Practices. Publication of results as an OCLC Research report expected in 2018

Ribeiro, Lígia, Pablo De Castro, and Michele Mennielli. “EUNIS-EuroCRIS Joint Survey on CRIS and IR,” 2016. http://www.eurocris.org/news/cris-ir-survey-report.

References

https://doi.org/10.25333/C3NK88

https://doi.org/10.25333/C32K7M

http://www.eurocris.org/news/cris-ir-survey-report

Documents

Findings from the euroCRIS/OCLC Research Survey of ... · Survey of Research Information Management Practices • Joint project between • Report to be published in November 2018