1. JOINT EUROPEAN RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEM (RIS) Activities and Recommendations of an ESF - EUROHORCS Working Group Dr. Alexis – Michel Mugabushaka, Science Officer Corporate Science Policy (ESF) EuroCris 2008, 5-7 June 2008, Maribor, Slovenia

2. www.esf.org 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. www.esf.org 3 78 MOs in 30 countries Research funding organisations Research performing organisations Academies ESF – I

4. www.esf.org 4 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 Values –Excellence –Openness –Responsiveness –Pan European –Ethical awareness and human values ESF – II

5. www.esf.org 5 197420002006 Budget:340 k€ 20 Mio €44 Mio € Staff: 951128 Offices in Strasbourg and Brussels (COST) ESF – III

6. www.esf.org 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. www.esf.org 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. www.esf.org 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. www.esf.org 10.06.2006 EUROHORCS involvement in RIS – preparation of this project EuroHORCS decides to “look into the possibility of linking up the databases of National Research Councils” 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 08.12.2006 EuroHORCS asks ESF to set up a Working Group to draft a project outline 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. www.esf.org Assess the added value of a joint RIS Make an overview of existing Research Information Systems (in EUROHORCS Member Organisations) Tasks of the Working Group Added value Overview of RIS Identify appropriate models of a joint RIS Models Make recommendations to EUROHORCS on how to proceed further Recommendations

11. www.esf.org 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)

12. www.esf.org Make an overview of existing Research Information Systems (of EUROHORCS Member Organisations) Results Added value Overview of RIS Models Recommendations

13. www.esf.org 13 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) Approach

14. www.esf.org 41 organizations contacted 26 replies 3 no RIS 6 planning a RIS 17 RIS

15. www.esf.org 15 RIS – Internet access 1FWFwww.fwf.ac.at/de/projects/projekt_suche.html 2FWOwww.vlaanderen.be/iweto 3GA CRpala.gacr.cas.cz/web/Seznam_php-en.htm 4SNFwww.projectdb.snf.ch//webforms/Frameset.aspx 5DFGwww.dfg.de/gepris 6ETFwww.etis.ee 7NWOwww.nwo.nl/projecten.nsf/pages/losearch_eng/ 8FCTwww.fct.mctes.pt/pt/apoios/projectos/bd/ 9TÜBITAKmistug.tubitak.gov.tr/proje 10SRCvrproj.vr.se 11SRAsicris.izum.si 12EPSRCgow.epsrc.ac.uk 13NERCgotw.nerc.ac.uk 14AHRCwww.ahrc.ac.uk/awards 15ESRCwww.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk 16STFCwww.so.stfc.ac.uk/gow/intro.asp 17RCNhttp://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Project+database/11841503 64215

16. www.esf.org 16 Comparing the RIS – major dimensions Other Dimensions Autonomy content Language (Inteface and content) -Search modalities -Datamodel - CERIF -Other - Technical Platform -Database system The RIS Systems of euroHORCS Organisations share basic common features, but a close look shows that they are far from convergent

17. www.esf.org 17 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

18. www.esf.org Assess the added value of a joint RIS Tasks of the Working Group Added value Overview of RIS Models Recommendations

19. www.esf.org 19 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 can’t give) The Focus: who needs a joint System ? What for ? And not “can it be technically built ?” Not: Just build it, they will come !

20. www.esf.org 20 ADDED VALUE of a joint RIS „Trust me ! this dog won‘t 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 ?

21. www.esf.org 21 ADDED VALUE of a joint RIS The case for a joint RIS has not been convincingly established in the preparatory phase (my opinion:The 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

22. www.esf.org 22 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.

23. www.esf.org 23 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.

24. www.esf.org Tasks of the Working Group Added value Overview of RIS Identify appropriate models of a joint RIS Models Recommendations

25. www.esf.org 25 Three Models for a Joint RIS Web crawling Central model Distributed model

26. www.esf.org 26 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

27. www.esf.org 27 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).

28. www.esf.org 28 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.

29. www.esf.org 29 Three Models for a Joint RIS WG Model of choice

30. www.esf.org Tasks of the Working Group Added value Overview of RIS Models Make recommendations to EUROHORCS on how to proceed further Recommendations

31. www.esf.org Tasks of the Working Group NrRecommendation 1To encourage the exchange of experiences (and independently of any ‘joint information system’), EUROHORCs is recommended to maintain a web-page of links to research information systems of their members and to facilitate the networking of their specialist staff who are involved in the development of research information systems. 2The Working Group recommends not launching a pilot phase at this stage. 3The Working Group recommends EUROHORCS to encourage member organizations to develop their systems in a more convergent way. The issue of a joint system’ should be discussed again at the first EUROHORCS general assembly in 2010.

32. www.esf.org Tasks of the Working Group NrRecommendation 4The Working Group recommends close collaboration with EuroCRIS to facilitate the convergence of research information systems of research funding and research performing organizations. 5The Working Group recommends that the interest and commitment of EUROHORCS member organizations (in working toward the convergence of their research information systems) is assessed prior to launching the initiative. The initiative should only go ahead as a EUROHORCS initiative if there is critical mass of organizations which indicate their interest and commitment. The Working Group recommends at least 8 organizations as a threshold. 6The Working Group presents two options for the EUROHORCs General Assembly to consider as on how to implement the recommendations made in this report: (1) By setting up a Working Group or a Task Force or (2) By asking the ESF office to implement the recommendations, in which case ESF will be assisted by a ‘reference group’ drawn among representatives of EUROHORCs interested member organizations.

33. www.esf.org 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 The Working Group is preparing a report of its activities (to include the results of the survey, the recommendations etc …) after which it will terminate its activities. ESF –EUROCRIS Memorandum of Understanding to formalize the existing cooperation and pave the way for collaboration in exchange of information / experiences on CRIS of ESF Members

34. www.esf.org Outlook EUROCRIS is a uniquely placed player to advance debates on information exchange and develop standards/formats for the interoperability of their research information systems. (1)EUROCRIS – ESF MoU will ensure that no parallel structures are created as existing EUROCRIS meetings, conferences, working groups …. suit the needs of ESF MOs wishing to exchange information on their CRIS. (2) EUROHORCS request : how can CRIS be used in the management of Intellectual property rights. Perhaps ESF can work with CERIF Task force to draft a recommendation for a generic data collection/exchange format.

35. www.esf.org Lessons learnt Efforts should be put in exchange of information, experiences to achieve a convergence – perhaps here the whole is the sum of its parts A joint System without convergence of the underlying systems makes little sense Case for a Joint System should be put before its technical implementation and clearly and convincingly established

36. www.esf.org Thank you for your attention amugabushaka@esf.org