what researchers want, and how to pay for it
TRANSCRIPT
What researchers want, and how to pay for it.....
Michael JubbUK Research Information Network
Charleston Conference5 November 2010
Some propositionsthe volume of research undertaken worldwide has increased, is increasing, and will continue to increase
and more of it will be done collaboratively
researchers are both producers and consumers of research outputs
but they don’t necessarily share the same interests
Governments invest in research because they believe it has a positive impact on society and the economy
and they want to maximise that impact
the costs of research, and of higher education, have increased, are increasing (and ought to be diminished?)
cost-effectiveness an increasingly-dominant theme in current economic climate
1. Researchers as creators2. Researchers as users3. Costs and funding
1. Researchers as creators
where, when and how to publish/disseminate?
key motivationsregister claimmaximise disseminationpeer recognition (and the rewards that flow from that)tensions between effective dissemination and recognition/prestigepower of disciplinary cultures
and some important disciplinary differences
mixed messages from funders and institutions
publications by type
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%20
03
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
Biosciences &-medicine
Physical sciences
Engineering Social sciences
Humanities Education Total
Article Book Book chapter Proceedings Book review Editorial Meeting abstract Other
importance of scholarly journals
201
103
73
158
127
29
92
5
3
8
5
14
1
8 1
2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Biosciences
Physical sciences.
Engineering
Social sciences.
Humanities
Education & Sport
Interdisciplinary
Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable
importance of conference proceedings
82
42
46
45
24
11
33
100
55
32
86
87
55
18
3
9
23
34
26
14
1
1
1
1
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Biosciences.
Physical Sciences
Social. Sciences.
Humanities
Education
Interdisciplinary
Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable
Engineering /Computing
importance of monographs
10
20
10
68
126
5
28
48
23
47
14
29
9
9
1
33
11
34
1
34
107
42
34
9
36
7
11
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Biosciences.
Physical sciences
Engineering
Social sciences.
Humanities
Education & Sport
Interdisciplinary
Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable
What’s published and what’s submitted to the RAE
What’s published and what’s submitted to the RAE
What about data?
increasing interest from funders, and some researchers, in data management and sharingmost researchers spend much of their time searching for, gathering, organising, and analysing databut producing – and sharing - data is not the primary objective
general assumption that data do not have intrinsic meaning until analysed, interpreted, described…….
data curation/stewardship/management important to researchers only (at best) intermittently
Data sharing: ownership, protection and trust
responsibility, protectiveness and desire for controllack of rewards for data sharingconcerns about inappropriate use preference for co-operative arrangements and direct contact with potential usersdecisions on when and how to sharecommercial, ethical, legal issues
belief that only researchers themselves can have the knowledge necessary to take care of their data
intricacies of experimental design and processes data management plans required by funders, but not much sign of adoptionrole of publishers?
trust in other researchers’ data?“I don’t know if they have done it to the same standards I would have done it”
Sharing data?Percentage of researchers sharing data online
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Privately, within a smallnetwork of collaborators
Openly, within my researchcommunity
Publicly, on a website, blogetc
Level of sharing
Per
cen
tag
e o
f re
sear
cher
s
Humanities Life sciences Physical sciences
Data sharing: benefits and constraints
increasing the efficiency of research, promoting scholarly rigour and enhancements to the quality of researchenhancing visibility and scope for engagementenabling researchers to ask new research questionsenhancing collaboration and community-buildingincreasing the economic and social impact of research
lack of evidence of benefits and rewards. lack of skills, time and other resourcescultures of independence and competitionconcerns about quality. ethical, legal and other restrictions on accessibility.
prospects of change?publish/disseminate work in progress?shifts in scholarly communication practice?Web 2.0?
Professor ReaderSenior
LecturerLecturer
Research Fellow
Existing peer review processes will become increasingly unsustainable
Likely 31% 34% 39% 30% 38%
Unlikely 63% 51% 50% 52% 56%
No opinion 6% 14% 11% 18% 5%
Formal peer review will be increasingly complemented by reader-based ratings, annotations, downloads or citations
Likely 44% 37% 45% 41% 36%
Unlikely 42% 54% 38% 41% 38%
No opinion 15% 9% 18% 18% 26%
New types of online publication, using new kinds of media formats and content, will grow in importance
Likely 72% 69% 76% 68% 82%
Unlikely 18% 20% 7% 18% 13%
No opinion 11% 11% 16% 14% 5%
Open access online publication supported by an 'author-pays' funding model will predominate
Likely 34% 20% 21% 23% 21%
Unlikely 47% 49% 52% 50% 51%
No opinion 19% 31% 27% 27% 28%
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 over 65 Write a blog Never 79% 80% 85% 91% 100% Occasionally 6% 12% 10% 6% 0% Frequently (At least once a week) 4% 6% 2% 0% 0% I do this outside of work 11% 2% 3% 3% 0%
Comment on others’ blogs Never 69% 68% 81% 82% 93% Occasionally 17% 22% 16% 15% 7% Frequently (At least once a week) 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% I do this outside of work 15% 8% 3% 3% 0%
Contribute to a private wiki Never 80% 75% 78% 85% 86% Occasionally 18% 17% 17% 14% 7% Frequently (At least once a week) 2% 8% 4% 1% 7% I do this outside of work 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Contribute to a public wiki Never 69% 74% 75% 80% 80% Occasionally 22% 21% 23% 18% 13% Frequently (At least once a week) 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% I do this outside of work 10% 4% 2% 3% 7%
Add comments to online journal articles Never 81% 76% 80% 73% 93% Occasionally 17% 21% 14% 27% 7% Frequently (At least once a week) 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% I do this outside of work 2% 2% 4% 0% 0%
Post slides, texts, images, code, algorithms, videos etc on an open sharing site Never 65% 56% 52% 52% 93% Occasionally 19% 30% 40% 30% 7% Frequently (At least once a week) 8% 10% 5% 11% 0% I do this outside of work 8% 4% 3% 6% 0%
Disseminating and communicating: some conclusions
dominance of traditional forms of publicationdriven by career rewards and incentives
disciplinary differences and power of disciplinary culturesstrong influence of performance assessment regimes
written policies vs perceptions of how it’s done
Web 2.0 as a supplement to traditional channels of communication
relatively small groups of early adopters
increasing interest in data curation and sharingbut constraints on openness
strong(ish) sense that further change is on the way
2. Researchers as users
what do they want to find and use?
Yes No journal articles 99.5% 0.5%
chapters in multi-authored books 97.0% 3.0%
organization’s web sites 90.8% 9.2%
expertise of individuals 90.1% 9.9%
conference proceedings 85.8% 14.2%
monographs 83.3% 16.7%
datasets – published or unpublished 62.0% 38.0%
original text sources, e.g. newspapers, historical records 61.5% 38.5%
preprints 54.7% 45.3%
non-text sources, e.g. images, audio, artifacts 47.0% 53.0%
other 18.0% 82.0%
e-journal usage in the UK
but access still causes problems….
Intensity of use
Patterns of usage vary………..between disciplines between institutions
profile of journals varies too…….
What do they do with the articles they download?
three key messages……..we haven’t come to the end of the success story for e-journalswe haven’t entirely cracked the access issuewe don’t understand enough about reasons for variations in patterns of usage
3. Costs and Funding
overall costs of the current system
115.8
6.42.1
16.4
33.9
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
Researchproduction
Publishing &Distribution
Access provision User search andprint cost
Reading
£ B
illio
ns
UK contribution to meeting publishing and distribution costs
132.0
32.88.6
117.5
45.6 56.0
16.0
408.5
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
academic (non-cash) peer
review
other (non-cash) peer
review
author pays academicsubscriptions
othersubscriptionsand revenues
academiclibrary access
provisionfunding
special accessprovisionfunding
Total cost
£ M
illi
on
s
1.9
3.4
0.70.1 0.2 0.1
6.4
0.53
0.82
0.17
0.03 0.05 0.03
1.63
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Researchfunders (peerreview noncash cost)
Academicsubscriptions
Othersubscriptions
Author-sidepayment
Advertising Membershipfees &
individualsubscriptions
Total cost
£ B
illio
ns
Current Funding Difference between scenarios
Increases in article production over 10 years: funding consequences
Sources of funding and other contributions
The last decade for UK librariesexpenditure on libraries has risen in real terms rise sharpest in research-intensive universities
Chart 1: Indexed real terms expenditure on libraries 1999-2009
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Exp
end
itu
re (
1999
=10
0 fo
r ea
ch d
ata
seri
es)
RLUK Pre-92 universities All post-92 All SCONUL members
The last decade for UK libraries
but universities have increased in size, and so has their overall expenditure
student numbers and teachingresearch activity
so libraries represent a declining share of university budgets
Chart 2: Real terms library expenditure per FTE student 1999-2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Exp
end
itu
re p
er s
tud
ent
(£;
1999
=b
ase
year
)
RLUK Pre-92 universities All post-92 All SCONUL members
Chart 3: Library expenditure as a proportion of overall institution expenditure 1999-2009
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Pe
rce
nta
ge
RLUK Pre-92 universities All post-92 All SCONUL members
Usage and costas usage goes up, so cost per usage has fallendownloads of e-journals rose by 160% in UK between 2004 and 2008
250% in research-intensive universities
cost per download fell by 40%
60% in research-intensive universities big differences between individual libraries
Levels of usage and indicators of research outcomes
Usage and outcomes: research income
Usage and outcomes: publications
Linking expenditure, usage and outcomes?
Six hypotheses:levels of library expenditure influence subsequent levels of use of e-journalslevels of e-journal use influence subsequent levels of library expenditurelevels of library expenditure influence subsequent research performancesuccessful research performance influences subsequent levels of library expenditurelevels of e-journal use influence subsequent research performancesuccessful research performance influences subsequent levels of use of e-journals
Linking expenditure, usage and outcomes?
Linking expenditure, usage and outcomes?
some conclusions…….we should really look at the bigger picture
costs of research and scholarly communications as a whole
but for librariesthe decade to 2009/2010 a good oneusage up, unit costs downhow to sustain this in difficult times
increasing interest in links between expenditure, usage and outcomes
statistical relationships indications of causal relationships?
Questions?
Michael Jubbwww.rin.ac.uk