ESF Presentation Statistics

1
Window to Science Information Systems of
European Research Organisations Activities and
Recommendations of anESF - EUROHORCS Working
Group on Joint Research Information System
Dr. Alexis Michel Mugabushaka Science Officer
Corporate Science Policy (ESF)
IUA Workshop RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEMS - A
LOOK AT EU BEST PRACTICE. Dublin 4 Sept. 2008
2
Content

• ESF and EUROHORCS
• Background of the initiative
• ESF EUROHORCS Working Group
• Overview of the RIS of EUROHORCS MOs
• Added value of a joint RIS
• Models for a joint RIS
• Recommendations of the WG

The views expressed in this presentation are to
great extent - those of the ESF-EUROHORCS Working
Group (especially the recommendations) and partly
my own. They do not necessarily reflect neither
the views nor the policies of the European
Science Foundation, its member organizations or
EUROHORCS
3
ESF I
78 MOs in 30 countries Research funding
organisations Research performing
organisations Academies
4
ESF II

• Mission
• The ESF provides a common platform for its Member
  Organisations in order to
• Advance European research
• Explore new directions for research at the
  European level
• Through its activities, the ESF serves the needs
  of the European research community in a global
  context

Strategic Plan 2006 - 2010
5
ESF III

• 1974 2000 2006
• Budget 340 k 20 Mio 44 Mio
• Staff 9 51 128
• Offices in Strasbourg and Brussels (COST)

6
EUROHORCS

• European Heads of Research Councils
• Heads of public Research Funding Organisations
  (RFOs) and Research Performing Organisations
  (RPOs) in Europe
• Established in 1992
• Currently 41 Organisations

7
EUROHORCS Aims and Objectives

• To represent the interest of research nationally
  and internationally
• To give recognition to excellence and to support
  frontier research of the highest quality
• To act as an inter-council platform for
  discussion and joint activities
• To promote international collaboration
• To provide research policy advice in Europe

8
Background of the RIS initiative

• Traditionally, research organizations reported to
  their governing bodies through annual reports and
  other dedicated publications recording their
  activities (and later by listing the projects on
  their internet pages)
• More and more member organizations of
  EUROHORCS/ESF have developed or are developing
  complex Information systems which provide, in
  real time, information on funded projects
  (research funding agencies) and performed
  projects (research performing organizations)
• An idea, a growing sense that, in the context of
  the increasing European cooperation (e.g.
  cross-border research funding.) such system
  might have a potential to facilitate the
  cooperation a potential under- or not utilized

9
EUROHORCS involvement in RIS preparation of
this project
EuroHORCS decides to look into the possibility
of linking up the databases of National Research
Councils
10 .06.2006
11 .10.2006
Proof of Principle by UNICRIS (on behalf of
EuroCRIS)Workshop, den Haag at NWO (EuroHORCS
Secretariat) and recommendation to continue the
project
EuroHORCS asks ESF to set up a Working Group to
draft aproject outline
08.12.2006
12.02 .2007
First draft of the project outline to the
EuroHORCS Steering and Management Committee
Tasks of the Working Group clearly defined and
Start of the activities
10
Report of the Working Group
To be published October 2008 (hopefully)
11
Tasks of the Working Group
Overview of RIS
Make an overview of existing Research
Information Systems (in EUROHORCS Member
Organisations)
Added value
Assess the added value of a joint RIS
Models
Identify appropriate models of a joint RIS
Recommendations
Make recommendations to EUROHORCS on how to
proceed further
12
Working Group
Invited organisations which took part in the
NWO Workshop
Members of the Working Group
Gerry Lawson, RCUK Jesper Aven, SRC (till August
2007) Jürgen Güdler, DFG Ruud Strijp, NWO Neil
Williams, ESF (Chair) Alexis-Michel
Mugabushaka, ESF (Coordinator)
13
Results
Overview of RIS
Make an overview of existing Research
Information Systems (of EUROHORCS Member
Organisations)
Added value
Models
Recommendations
14
Approach

• Questionnaire to EuroHORCS Member Organisations
  (41 organisations)
• Internet-research
• Field phase
• Questionnaire sent 30 April 2007 to EuroHORCS
  members with deadline 15 May 2007
• Reminder 23 May 2007 (and phone calls)
• Replies Internet search
• Information about RIS in 26 Organisations (about
  2/3 of the group targeted)

15
41 organizations contacted 26 replies 3 no
RIS 6 planning a RIS 17 RIS
16
RIS Internet access
17
Comparing the RIS example
Level 1
Level 1
Not a name and shame exercize, anonymous
18
Comparing the RIS major dimensions
Autonomy
Language (Inteface and content)

• Search modalities
• Datamodel
• CERIF
• Other
• Technical Platform
• Database system

content
The RIS Systems of euroHORCS Organisations share
basic common features, but a close look shows
that they are far from convergent
19
Comparing the RIS Autonomy

• Stand alone RIS
• - Information from one Organisation
• - Dedicated System to provide information on
  funded projects
• - Embedded in a wider Research Information
  Portal
• - National Portal - together with
  other organisations

• The System of the Belgian FWO in Belgium is
  part of IWETO (research System for
  Flanders)
• The RIS of the Estonian Science Foundation are
  a subset of the National Research Portal
  (ETIS)
• SICRIS, the RIS of the Slovenian Research
  Agency aims to be a national Research
  Information Portal (contains EC FP Projects and
  records also data from other all research
  organisations in Slovenia)

By Stand alone, a difference can be made
between RIS embedded in operational information
Systems and separate RIS
20
Tasks of the Working Group
Overview of RIS
Added value
Assess the added value of a joint RIS
Models
Recommendations
21
ADDED VALUE of a joint RIS

• CAVEATS
• The Task of the WG was not to imagine a radically
  new system but a LINKING OF EXISTISTING RIS (Nemo
  dat quod non habet, freely translated ... What
  you do not have, you cant give)
• The Focus who needs a joint System ? What for ?
  And not can it be technically built ?

Not Just build it, they will come !
22
ADDED VALUE of a joint RIS
Trust me ! this dog wont hunt (as they say in
the deep South of US)
A joint RIS will help avoid duplication and
fragmentation
A joint RIS will advance the European Research
Area and help deliver the Lisbon Agenda
YES, but HOW ?
23
ADDED VALUE of a joint RIS

• The case for a joint RIS has not been
  convincingly established in the preparatory phase
  (my opinionThe discussion emerged later
• Very few (if at all) RIS track systematically the
  usage and have little insight on who the users
  are (result of the survey of the WG)
• Any benefit of a joint RIS builds on features of
  EXISTING Sytems.
• Examples of limits
• (1) Potential use in search for Refereers (for
  Peer Review )
• Only possible if the systems other information
  (e.g. Principal investigators publications)
• Yes, this feature can be built, but most RIS do
  not have it currently (yet)
• (2) Use in statistics/evaluation the current
  data quality likely to be a problem

24
ADDED VALUE the assessment of the WG
The main benefit of a joint system is to make
maximal use of information currently made
available on the web, but scattered in a range of
systems and formats. The joint system would allow
multinational search of different systems and can
be used alongside other well established systems
such as bibliometric databases, Google and Google
scholar, etc
Its unique feature is that it will provide a
single point of entry to information about
projects (and related researchers and
organizations) which have successfully undergone
a competitive selection through peer review.
25
ADDED VALUE potential users

• Researchers who would like to find others
  working in similar fields, or institutions with a
  strong research portfolio in a specific field or
  topic (In addition to other means they use such
  as publications, scientific conferences and EC
  databases).
• Administrators from research funding agencies
  that wish to compare their research portfolios
  with those of other organisations. This can help
  to identify and compare research profiles of
  researchers, institutions and even countries in
  specific fields to identify hot topics and
  gaps and provide input in discussions on
  potential European collaborative programmes. With
  a common classification system, it can also be
  used to map resources (funding, number of
  researchers ) devoted to different research
  areas in different countries.
• Administrators from research funding agencies can
  also use this system to find experts on a given
  topic. This information can be used (in
  combination with other sources of information) to
  identify referees or to see any potential
  conflict of interest (collaboration in a project,
  similar research topics likely to be a source of
  competition).
• Journalists and the general public to identify
  experts on a given topic across Europe.

26
Tasks of the Working Group
Overview of RIS
Added value
Models
Identify appropriate models of a joint RIS
Recommendations
27
Three Models for a Joint RIS
Central model
Web crawling
Distributed model
28
Three Models for a Joint RIS
In the Web Crawling Model, a crawler would be
used to interrogate individual research
information systems, and retrieve information on
given search words. Administrators of national
systems would need to make their information
accessible to such a crawler
29
Three Models for a Joint RIS
In the Central Database Model, data from
different systems would be transferred
periodically to a central database (either by
manual batch-transfer or via automatic
machine-to-machine upload).
30
Three Models for a Joint RIS
In the Distributed Model, access to the data held
in different systems is provided by a central hub
(or node) which sends structured queries to the
contributing databases in each country or
institution and formats the output information to
give an integrated report. Copies of the datasets
would not be maintained centrally.
31
Three Models for a Joint RIS
WG Model of choice
32
Tasks of the Working Group
Overview of RIS
Added value
Models
Recommendations
Make recommendations to EUROHORCS on how to
proceed further
33
Tasks of the Working Group
34
Tasks of the Working Group
35
EUROHORCS Decision and Future Steps
In its Steering Committee Meeting on 29 January
2008 (Zürich) and General Assembly on 18 April
(Istanbul) , EUROHORCS went along with
recommendation 2 (more or less) EUROHORCS
will not continue with the Linking of the RIS
initiative for the time being
36
Outlook towards convergence of the RIS
For exchange of information and experience among
officials of ESF / EUROHORCS member
organizations Two possibilities (not mutual
exclusive but different approaches) - an ESF
MO Forum on Research Information System -
regular meetings in the frame of other
events/conferences that they are likely to
attend ESF can facilitate the process if
requested by member organizations
37
Lessons learnt
A joint System without convergence of the
underlying systems makes little sense
Efforts should be put in exchange of information,
experiences to achieve a convergence perhaps
here the whole is the sum of its parts
Case for a Joint System should be put before its
technical implementation and clearly and
convincingly established
38
Thank you for your attention
amugabushaka_at_esf.org