A research information system as a research planning

1
A research information system as a research
planning evaluation tool Recent developments
in Denmark

• Adrian Price
• Faculty of LIFE Sciences Library
• Faculty of Life Sciences
• University of Copenhagen
• CRIS2008, Maribor, June 7th, 2008

2
Introduction Background
The PURE system
National metadata format
Data! Data! Data! Benchmarking is in
PURE cooperation future development
3
Introduction
-From organized chaos to standardization

• Move from research communication to research
  communication research documentation
• Research communication Universities
  researchers required to be accessible
• Research documentation Planning, benchmarking
• From fluffy data to strict data
• A new infrastructure needed Universities for
  once came first!

4
Background for the new era

• In 2004 4 universities applied got a grant
  from DEFF Denmarks Electronic Research Library
• to implement PURE from software company Atira
  A/S
• PURE a CRISystem, in DK quite often synonymous
  with institutional repositories
• PURE now in use by 6 universities their
  faculties
• Foundation for a new era
• Co-operation between universities and preempted
  by CRIS/PURE cooperation

PURE cooperation well in place by the time
universities were merging.
5
The PURE system

• The PURE i-pository a commercial, modular
  system which
• collects, documents, preserves the research
  activities of a research institution
• Content types publications, projects,
  activities, areas of expertise, press releases
• infrastructural modulesto maintain, monitor
  and documentthe system and its content
• Researchers and their organizations the backbone
  of any CRISystem

Lets take a closer look at PURE!
6
Overviewthe PURE system
7
A national metadata format

• Research documentation necessary for this is
  strict metadata quality a way of documenting it
• Controlled metadata, no free text!
• Standardized metadata for all universities i.e.
  use of same publication types
• Tight control of authors/researchers their
  organisations
• Workflow validation to ensure data quality

Oh dear, sloppy metadata always gives problems.
8
A national metadata format

• Common format for all PURE universities
• A complete workover by the initial PURE
  implementers
• Agreed on by all all changes must be
  co-ordinated
• Format covers all content types publications,
  projects, activities, bibliometrics, student
  projects
• Publication types Top level Research,
  Communication, Education, Commissioned
• Lowest level over 100 specific types (very
  traditional)

The Faculty of Life Sciences Library
9
Aggregation at the national level

• In 2005 a national metadata exchange format
  agreed upon by PURE universities, Technical
  University of Denmark The Danish Research
  Database (DDF)
• for moving of metadata (OAI-PMH) to central
  database
• The new DDF (just opened) a vast improvement
  largely due to gigantic PURE-based metadata
  improvement
• But it should be remembered the quality of the
  data cannot be better than that at the local level

10
Data! Data! Data! Benchmarking is in

• Increased funding for universities, but partly
  based on competition
• Bibliometric indicator (the Norwegian model)
  points (i.e. money) given for number of
  publications
• (1) Peer-reviewed articles in recognized
  publication channels, (2) Books from recognized
  publishers (3) Chapters in books from recognized
  publishers (4) Phd/Doctoral theses and (5)
  Patents
• A ceiling as to how much money can be shifted

Can you put a price tag on a peer reviewed
article?
11
Data! Data! Data! Benchmarking is in

• National technical infrastructure
• Auxilliary databases for data validation Danish
  researcher/author database, publication channel
  (journals) and publisher (books) databases
• Aux databases coupled to PURE to ensure strict
  metadata registration, also for non-approved
  channels
• Harvesting (OAI-PMH) back forth to PURE and
  central databases (validation/deduplication)
• Time-table data for 2008 for funding 2010

.
12
PURE co-operation future development

• PURE university stearing group working group
  to ensure
• National metadata format
• Registration guidelines
• Improve data quality
• Cheaper development costs
• Dialogue with Atira A/S to ensure
• Influence on metadata
• Influence on functionality
• A dynamic product!!

We cant afford the adoption of further static
products like library catalogues!
13
Thank you for your patience!

• Comments !
• Questions ?