1 / 12

Research Funders’ Policy and Practice

Research Funders’ Policy and Practice. Michael Jubb Research Information Network DCC Conference, Glasgow 22 November 2006. Rationale for the RIN Study. UK research funders investing £22bn a year in R&D

xuan
Download Presentation

Research Funders’ Policy and Practice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Research Funders’ Policy and Practice Michael Jubb Research Information Network DCC Conference, Glasgow 22 November 2006

  2. Rationale for the RIN Study • UK research funders investing £22bn a year in R&D • Increasing realisation that information resources are the principal products of that investment • Changes in technology are highlighting the need to focus attention on some of the key implications of that • Aim to provide a comparative overview of policy and practice of major UK funders in managing the information outputs they have funded • Description of policies and practice • Similarities and differences • Explanations of differences • Snapshot precursor to more detailed work on key issues identified as a result of the study • Empirical study, without recommendations

  3. How the Study was Done • Wide-scale literature review, and interviews with • Research Councils • Seven universities from across the HE sector • Government Departments • Research Charities • Major R&D companies • Two main sets of lenses through which key issues were identified • The broad policies of each group of funders • Policy and practice for different kinds of information outputs

  4. Policy Context • Shared by most funders • Rising volume and variety of research information outputs • Growing emphasis on impact and communication of research results, knowledge transfer, and engagement with society • Desire to make information outputs more readily accessible • Changing roles of key players in scholarly communications system • Reluctance to dictate to researchers • Developing understanding of technological opportunities and also challenges • Differences • Different research communities with varied cultures and practices • Differential emphasis on audiences beyond the research community

  5. Published Outputs • The predominant focus of attention in the recent past for most funders • Policy objective for many funders is to make it easy for anyone interested in journal articles to gain access to them • Research Councils and Wellcome Trust policies requiring deposit in repositories not yet matched by other funders, including universities • Only Wellcome has a clear policy to support pay-to-publish • Research Council and university policies lack clarity • Government Departments against providing support • Companies have not thought about it • Some universities keen to include books in their repositories, but practical problems

  6. Unpublished Outputs: Data • Access and re-use of data of increasing importance in research process • NSF Report on long-lived data • OECD Principles and Guidelines • Concerns that lack of co-ordinated policies is putting important datasets at risk • No co-ordinated policy among Research Councils • AHRC, CCLRC, ESRC and NERC support data centres • BBSRC and MRC developing policies • Universities tending to leave management of datasets to researchers themselves and to their departments • Government Departments and companies cede to others responsibility for data created with their funding

  7. Other Unpublished Outputs • Theses now being addressed through the EThoS project; universities in the driving seat • Grey literature • variations in perceived value • important for funders who emphasise influence on practitioners and policy-makers • dilemmas for universities • importance of the web-archiving role of the BL

  8. Repositories • Caution from Research Councils and Wellcome on role of institutional repositories • Universities stimulated to develop repositories by commitment from librarians, by funding from JISC, and by RCUK statement • But motivations vary • showcase for university and its research • improved efficiency of research and scholarly communications • Policy issues • Scope of repository content • Requirement or encouragement to deposit • Mechanisms for deposit • Relationships with subject-based repositories • Linkages with other information systems • Costs and how they are to be met in the long term • Impact on journal subscriptions?

  9. Curation, Metadata and Interoperability • No co-ordinated policies across Research Councils • guidance from AHDS, ESDS, NERC data centres • no prescribed standards for repositories • Universities look to others for guidance; and unclear about the curation and preservation role of repositories • Wellcome addressing the issues through UK PubMed • Government Departments and companies pass the responsibilities on to others

  10. Intellectual Property • Potential for tension between policy aims • Widespread and rapid dissemination for public good • Exploitation of IP • But general view that managing IP does not often conflict with providing access to research outputs • Universities in a pivotal position • Research Councils (except for research in their institutes) pass responsibility to universities • Government Departments increasingly seeking partnership agreements • Companies concerned at risk of patenting by others; and at universities’ unrealistic expectations

  11. Conclusions • Need for greater clarity about • policy objectives • roles and responsibilities of funders and other agents • Need for more co-ordination of policy and practice • Work to be done on costs and benefits • Need for better understanding of the institutional, cultural, ethical and funding contexts within which researchers create and use information

  12. Comments welcome Michael Jubb michael.jubb@rin.ac.uk www.rin.ac.uk

More Related