Neil Jacobs Research Information in the UK why no CRIS?

First steps of the argument 1.UK science is good 2.UK science-innovation link is not so good 3.A national (network of) CRIS should help

1. UK science is good “British research produced 13% of the world’s top –..most cited – papers in 2003, measured across a wide spectrum of disciplines.” (DTI 2005) “UK researchers are among the most prolific in the world, producing 16 research papers per $1 million of research funding compared to 9.2 in the USA and 3.6 in Japan.” (DTI 2005) “[w]ith around 1% of the world's population, the country produces 8% of the world's scientific publications, attracting over 9% of citations in other papers” (Randerson, 2004)

And UK innovation is strong “ The United Kingdom presents a relatively strong innovation performance both in absolute terms for specific indicators and in terms of recent trends” (EC 2005)

But, 2, UK science-innovation link is not so good UK CIS-3 survey; responses by over 8000 manufacturing / service firms: –“universities and government research organisations were amongst the least likely of these sources to be identified as being of ‘high importance’. –It is also the case that they were amongst the least likely of the sources to be used at all.” (Tether & Swann 2003)

3. A (system of ) CRIS would help (Source: Tether and Swann, 2003)

3. A (system of ) CRIS would help (Source: Tether and Swann, 2003) Projects

3. A (system of ) CRIS would help (Source: Tether and Swann, 2003) People

3. A (system of ) CRIS would help (Source: Tether and Swann, 2003) Organisation Units

3. A (system of ) CRIS would help (Source: Tether and Swann, 2003) Research outputs

Recap, argument so far 1.UK science is good 2.UK science-innovation link is not so good 3.A national (network of) CRIS should help

The next steps in the argument 4.Some background about UK funding 5.Comparisons with other countries 6.What systems do thrive in the UK?

The Science Budget’s role within the Research Base Source: DTI Science Budget Allocations 2005

The Science Budget’s role within the Research Base Source: DTI Science Budget Allocations 2005

UK university research / support funding

Innovation

Comparison 1: Netherlands What?: –National CRIS – NOD –University research management systems – METIS –Service / portals – NARCIS Why? –Size – 13 universities –Single main source of public research funding –Active intermediary level (eg SURF, KNAW)

Comparison 2: Belgium What? –CERIF-compliant CRIS in Flemish part –Development projects now exploring opportunities to build on this –No significant CRIS in French-speaking part Why? –Size – relatively small university sector –Active intermediary layer - influential CRIS advocate

Comparison 3: Germany What? –No national CRIS –Some Länder have CRIS –Some federal funders (eg DFG) have CRIS Why? –Size – large, comparable to UK –Dual funding structure [Länder + Federal, eg DFG], again, like the UK

From comparisons CRIS success factors –Simple research funding structure –Small scale? –Active intermediary layer –CRIS advocates

What systems do thrive in the UK?

Institutional Repositories of research outputs Project databases

Other CERIF entities?

People? UK has no national CV service (cf Brazil) or systematic name authority

Other CERIF entities? People? UK has no national CV service (cf Brazil) or systematic name authority Organisations? UK has no authoritative, standardised list of publicly- funded research organisations

Other CERIF entities? People? UK has no national CV service (cf Brazil) or systematic name authority Organisations? UK has no authoritative, standardised list of publicly- funded research organisations Why? because there is no clear sponsor for them in current dual funding environment

Recap of the argument 1.UK science is good 2.UK science-innovation link is not so good 3.A national (network of) CRIS should help 4.Some background about UK funding 5.Comparisons with other countries 6.What systems do thrive in the UK?

It seems that A (system of) CRIS would help UK innovation One reason why such a holistic system has not emerged is because of the non-holistic way research and research infrastructure is funded Jostein Hauge, CRIS 1997, Bergen: –“monolithic systems are out, de-centralised systems are rapidly emerging”

But CERIF takes a holistic approach …benefits accrue by joining up the lifecycle…

But CERIF takes a holistic approach …benefits accrue by joining up the lifecycle…

Challenge: building holistic systems in a fragmented world Nurture a UK CRIS ecology by 1.Planting the seed –CERIF

Challenge: building holistic systems in a fragmented world Nurture a UK CRIS ecology by 1.Planting the seed –CERIF 2.Looking after the environment –Strategic partnerships –brokering relationships - CRIS are about joining things up –Including research / support funders –OA and IR communities –Other (people, organisations?)

Challenge: building holistic systems in a fragmented world Nurture a UK CRIS ecology by 1.Planting the seed –CERIF 2.Looking after the environment –Technical interoperability –brokering relationships - CRIS are about joining things up –CERIF- Research Councils’ Joint Electronic Submission format –CERIF-OAI –CERIF-Shibboleth

Challenge: building holistic systems in a fragmented world Nurture a UK CRIS ecology by 1.Planting the seed –CERIF 2.Looking after the environment –Strategic partnerships –Technical interoperability 3.Marketing the produce –Especially the low-hanging fruit –working with members