Uncovering research - what's the standard - Jisc Digital Festival 2015

Uncovering research – what’s the standard?
Catherine Grout
Head of change -Research

» Introduction – Catherine Grout
» Research Data Discovery Service – Christopher Brown
» ORCID –VerenaWeigert and Janette Colclough
» Organisational Identifiers – Christopher Brown
Session content
09/03/2015 Jisc Digital Festival, 9-10 March 2015, ICC Birmingham 3

» Many institutions and research institutes (within and outside
universities)
» Many research funders (UK Research Councils only 30% of total
research income)
» Varied infrastructure – Institutional Repositories, CRIS’s (one of
these or neither)
» Changing environment
› Mandates effecting research information and research data
› Increasing importance of external (non-governmental) funding
› Interdisciplinary and international focus
UK research context: General

» Research excellence Framework (REF) from the four university
funding bodies* - research impact (REF2014 published,
preparation for 2020 - awaiting guidance)
» REF open access policy - to be eligible authors accepted
manuscripts must be deposited in Institutional Repositories
(journal material)
» Research Councils UK (RCUK) - 7 subject based research councils:
the RCUK Policy on Open Access aims to achieve “immediate,
unrestricted, online access to peer reviewed and published
research papers, free of any access charge”
UK research context: policies and mandates
*Higher Education FundingCouncil for England (HEFCE), Scottish FundingCouncil (SFC), the Higher Education Funding
Council forWales (HEFCW) and the Department for Employment and Learning (DEL)

» To help implementation - new funding policy block grant to
Universities to cover cost of Article Processing charges (APC’s)
» EPSRC Research Data Mandate – universities set in place
processes and practices to ensure curation and preservation of
research data (create roadmap for compliance and act on it)
UK research context: policies and mandates

» Not a shared national reporting infrastructure
» Funders and agencies
› Funder systems’ landscape is complex (and somewhat ad hoc): Je-S;
ResearchFish, Research Outcomes System; Grants on the Web; REF;
HESA
» Universities
› Institutional systems landscape is complex (ad hoc): 60 using
CRIS/Cerif, spreadsheets, repositories used by many, 125 HEIs with an
Institutional Repository
» Information required for both day-to-day management, funding
requirements and strategic decision making
UK research context: RIM

» Supporting adoption and implementation of key standards
» Jisc CASRAI-UK pilot
» ORCID
» Frameworks - CERIF, euroCRIS, UKRISS
RIM – Standards

» Support universities core business and help make research process
more productive
› Developing shared services/infrastructure where appropriate
› Supporting implementation of key standards
› Providing a channel for universities requirements with funders,
vendors etc.
› Getting everyone together
› Research Data – management, policies, discoverability
Jisc – How are we helping?

» Organisational identifiers – Jisc CASRAI-UK working group of
stakeholders to help develop recommendations
» Researcher identifiers – ORCID pilot
» Discoverability of research data – Research data discovery service
(pilot to potential service)
» Open Access reporting working group (Jisc CASRAI-UK pilot)
» Vocabularies for Open Access (V4OA) and key metadata standards
Fitting the pieces together

09/03/2015 11
Research data management and discovery services
for the research data lifecycle
Key Other supportedJisc supported
Data
Clouod
Librarians,research managers & IT
have three interlocking suites of
services, to support researcher
needs and institutional policies
Researchers have a cohesive and
interlocking suite of research data
management, publication and
discovery services
Research data
management and
planning services
Research data storage and archival services
Research data discovery
services
UKDA, BADCICSU / WDSEBI / GenBank
Research data management applications
Journal policies registry
Research data registry / Cross
repository discovery service
DMPonline
DMP Registry
SWORD +
Disciplinary data repositories
(National and International)
Institutional data cataloguesInstitutional data catalogues
Disciplinary research data
Discovery services
Metadata exchange between journals, archives, repositories
Data identifiers and
Metadata schema
Supportfor Research data lifecycle
Cloud/Storage
There is a set of
infrastructure
components that
underpin all three suites
Researcher identifiers Organisation identifiers RegistriesData Identifiers
Research data management applications
Jisc Digital Festival, 9-10 March 2015, ICC Birmingham

Find out more…
Contact…
Except where otherwise noted, this
work is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND
Catherine Grout
Head of change - Research
@catherinegrout

Making research data discoverable
Christopher Brown

» Funder mandates for UK universities to have data
catalogues/registries. Broader mandate to know what research
data assets exist and make sure they are reusable
› For example, “EPSRC expects research organisations to publish
appropriately structured metadata online describing the research data
they hold, normally within 12 months of the data being generated”
See more at: dcc.ac.uk/resources/policy-and-legal/research-funding-
policies/epsrc#sthash.eUvFiSxv.dpuf
» A registry solution that aggregates simple, but textually rich,
metadata records for research data assets
Research data discovery – requirements

» A discovery solution for UK research data collections
» Presents records as web pages and thus promotes the visibility of
data resources to search engines
» Two important related use cases:
› to break down data silos, encouraging linking and reuse of related
data collections, particularly in interdisciplinary research;
› to facilitate linking data to other research outputs, making data
citation and referencing easier, thereby incorporating data in research
achievements and impact
Research data discovery – requirements

» Idea from UKRDS report in 2010
» Modelled on Research Data Australia developed by ANDS
» In order to be re-used, data must be discoverable
» Harvests simple, but textually rich, metadata records for research
data assets
» Piloted with early adopters - 9 HEIs and UK Data Archive,
Archaeology Data Centre and NERC data centres
Phase 1 - DCC pilot / technical evaluation (Oct 2013-Mar 2014)
Research data discovery – From pilot to service

Research data discovery – Phase 1: HEI pilots

» UK Data Archive
» NERC data centres
› British Atmospheric DataCentre (BADC)
› British Oceanographic Data Centre (BODC)
› Environmental Information Data Centre (EIDC)
› National Geoscience Data Centre (NGDC)
› NERC Earth Observation Data Centre (NEODC)
› Polar Data Centre (PDC)
› UK Solar System Data Centre (UKSSDC)
» Archaeology Data Service
Research data discovery – Phase 1: Data centre pilots

» Technical Development
› Trialled Australian National Data Service (ANDS)
– Existingnationalresearch dataregistryserviceresearchdata.ands.org.au/
– Open Source software (Apache License version 2.0)
github.com/au-research/ANDS-Registry-Core
» CentOS Linux instance in Microsoft’s Azure cloud platform
» Harvester – separate Java component
» Crosswalks – imported metadata has to be converted to RIF-CS
(Registry Interchange Format – Collections and Services) format
(from DDI, UK GEMINI 2, Datacite, EPrints, MODS, OAI-PMH
Dublin Core)
Research data discovery – Phase 1

» Technical Recommendations:
› Evaluation of alternatives e.g. CKAN
› Effort to agree more broadly on metadata schemas
» If going with the ANDS software:
› Collaborate to:
– make it more easily adapted to other contexts
– improve documentation
– shape future developments
› Develop associated components (Harvester)
› Further develop and test crosswalks

» HEI/Data Centre Requirements
› Need to have some research
data and expose its metadata
› Harvest the associated
metadata
› Project should incorporate
representation of researchers’
needs
› Service should look into what
will encourage and increase
reuse of datasets
› Software should be easier for
users to understand
› Software should be able to
respond appropriately to
deletions and merge records
› Service should promote
visibility of research datasets
to generic search engines
› Desirable for institutions to
have opportunity to check
quality of harvested output

» Laying the firm foundations for the service, including a service
operation plan and business case for its delivery into the future
» Engaged with early adopters, now moving to possible shared
infrastructure
» Plan for shared service but assessing the best way to deliver this
and key use cases
Phase 2 - From pilot to production (Nov 2014 – July 2016)
Research data discovery – From pilot to service

» Further evaluate potential software solutions (ANDS, CKAN and
any other)
» Collaborate closely with the HEIs and Data Centres from Phase 1
» Identify and finalise the agreement on the metadata schema that
is appropriate for a successful cross disciplinary service
» Produce toolkits and advice/guidance on implementation
Phase 2 - From pilot to production (Nov 2014 – July 2016)
Research Data Discovery – From pilot to service

» Develop and agree sector requirements for a UK Research Data
Discovery Service
» Ingest metadata into a functioning service instance for all
participating Data Centres and HEIs
» Making sure Research Data that is being managed and available
can be found
» Providing a data catalogue solution for institutions
Phase 2 - Further Aims

» Establish and run stakeholder groups to engage with the community
to understand their needs and to help to build an effective solution
» Evaluate the role of this service as providing institutional
infrastructure for data discovery and how it works with universities
» Ensure the service and user interface has undergone
comprehensive usability tests
» Clear articulation of where the UK Research Data Discovery
Service sits within other elements of research data infrastructure
Phase 2 - Further Aims

Phase 2 - Work packages
» Stakeholder engagement
» Requirements gathering
» Software evaluation
» Metadata development
» HEI Pilots implementation
» Data centres pilots implementation
» Service definition and design
» Dissemination
rdds.jiscinvolve.org/wp/
Supported by:
Led by:

Find out more…
Contact…
Christopher Brown
Senior Co-design manager, Jisc
christopher.brown@jisc.ac.uk
@chriscb

ORCID adoption in the UK
VerenaWeigert

» January 2013
Joint statement in support of ORCID (ARMA, HEFCE, HESA, RCUK,
UCISA,WellcomeTrust, Jisc); joint implementation plan
» May 2014 – March 2015
Jisc ARMA ORCID Pilot
Aim: streamline ORCID implementation process at universities
develop the best value approach for a potential UK wide adoption of
ORCID in HE.
» 8 HEI based pilots (May 2014-January 2015)
» Summary Report and Cost-Benefit Analysis (March 2015)

» Preparing to consult with the sector to ask HEIs to express their
interest in participating in consortium, also consulting with funders
and reconvened ORCID implementation group (ARMA, HEFCE,
RCUK, UCISA, HESA, SCONUL, RLUK, WellcomeTrust, BL) to keep
them informed
» Considering what other support we can provide post the Jisc
ARMA ORCID pilot – e.g. technical support
» Working on the dissemination of the results of
Jisc-ARMA ORCID pilot
Next step is to coordinate ORCID consortium membership
for UK Jisc is now:

Find out more…
Contact…
Verena Weigert
Senior technology manager, Jisc
verena.weigert@jisc.ac.uk
@WeigVer

Implementing ORCID iDs at the
University ofYork
Experiences of the JISC-ARMA ORCID Pilot
Janette Colclough, Research support manager,
Information directorate, University ofYork

The University context
» Founded 1963
» Research intensive (14th in REF)
» Member of the Russell Group
andWhite Rose Consortium
» 16,000 students, 1,400
academic and research staff
» >30 departments in humanities,
social sciences, sciences
» High duck density
ORCID iDs at the University ofYork

» Voluntary registration for iDs by researchers, with institutional
support and advocacy
» Backed by institutional policy (University Policy on the Publication
of Research)
» Technology: Integration of ORCID iD functionality into CRIS (Pure)
» Technology: Use EPrints connector to populate the shared
repository (White Rose Research Online) with ORCID iDs
» Joint Information Directorate and Research Strategy and
Policy Office project
Key features of theYork project

» Membership of ORCID
› Basic Creator license enabling one API integration
» Easy to activate once Pure options were available and working
» EPrints connector now working in PureTest (4.20.3)
» SeeYork ORCID blog for more information
Technical set up

» Short trial of technical and advocacy issues with 4 departments
› Monitored uptake, online survey
» Add/Create options in Pure
› Worked but many researchers did not Save their iD into Pure
› More instructions needed
» Wide recognition of need to “Distinguish yourself”
» Expectation that Pure would populate ORCID profile
» Role of research administrators
Pilot stage exercise

» Email from Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research
» Website modified from pilot stage exercise
› york.ac.uk/orcid
› Added instructions, benefits of Pure, iD only
» Pre-launch promotion
› Bookmarks distributed to researchers
› York Research Administrators Forum
» Progress to date
Implementation for academic and research staff

» Complete work on EPrints connector and repository (WRRO)
» Make iDs visible inYork Research Database (Pure portal)
» Consider implementation for postgraduate research students and
staff without Pure profiles
» Work on sustainability issues
› Continuing costs
› New staff and students
Next steps

» SeeYork ORCID blog yorkorcid.blogspot.co.uk/
› Users and use case
› Technical approaches
› Important lessons learned
› Benefits of our approach
» Breakout session at UK Serials group conference
Find out more

Find out more…
Contact…
Janette Colclough
Research support manager,
University ofYork
janette.colclough@york.ac.uk
york.ac.uk/library

Organisational identifiers
Christopher Brown

» Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration
Information (CASRAI)
» International community of leading research funders and
institutions collaborating to ensure seamless interoperability of
research information
» Develop and maintain a common data dictionary and advocate on
best practices
Introduction to CASRAI

» Jisc andCASRAI are piloting three NationalWorkingGroups in theUK
› Data management plans
› Organisational identifiers
› Open Access reporting
» Each at different stage of process but has charter and plan
» Pilot ends March 2015
Jisc CASRAI-UK pilot

» Identify main candidate sources of OrgIds
» Subject them to common use cases which are relevant to
universities and other parts of the RIM and RDM workflow
» The main output will be a common statement about how the UK
research community should use OrgIds and the policy requirement
in order for harmonised OrgIds to work
» Develop a sustainable process for maintaining authoritative lists of
organisations in the CASRAI dictionary
» The membership of this working group includes representatives
fromARMA, Research Councils, HEDIIP, BL, CrossRef,
WellcomeTrust, CRIS system vendors and UK HEIs
OrgId working group - objectives

» Organisational Id landscape study – a report to inform the working
group on the current use of organisational identifiers was
commissioned and delivered (Sept 2013)
» Organisational Id review – commissioned by the working group to
review a core set of organisational identifiers (ISNI, Ringgold,
Digital Science and UKPRN) (Dec 2014)
» Use cases – based on key use cases from the Research lifecycle,
these have been identified by the working group and further
developed under the OrgId Review (Dec 2014)
OrgId working group - outputs

» Examined the landscape of organisational identifiers in the UK and
identified 23 different IDs
» Based on interviews with key individuals
» Stakeholders interviewed for this study typically described
identifying organisations as “a nightmare”, specifically
disambiguation and deduplication
Landscape Study: Summary

» Benefits from effective unique identifiers are truly realised when
data is shared
» Key aspects of identifiers that support the widest range of uses:
› Governance, trust, transparency, temporal, appropriate metadata
› Of these, the “temporal” information is perhaps the most challenging
to address
Landscape study: Summary

» None of the identifiers investigated fulfils the role of being an
“authoritative list” of organisations involved in research.They are
all constrained in scope
» ISNI and UKPRN both warrant particularly careful consideration by
the working group
» The Research Councils, as major funders of research in the UK,
should be closely involved in the development of any new
identifier system
Landscape study: Recommendations

» Given the range of existing identifiers, any new identifier system
should only be developed and introduced if there is clear evidence
of demand, and sufficient buy in to ensure that it is universally
adopted
» The authority can remain separate from the identifier (for
example, it would be feasible to establish an authority list with
appropriate metadata but using the ISNI as the identifier)
Landscape study: Recommendations

» Clarify a representative but not comprehensive set of use cases for
the UK research community to use organisational identifiers
» Survey and interview a small number of well-informed people in the
field in order to create and prioritise a list of desirable features for
the provision of OrgIDs and potential services built around them
» Check the use cases and these required features against four*
possible candidate OrgIDs and their providers
» Inform the Working Group of the review’s conclusions and, if
appropriate, make recommendations for adoption by the UK
research community
*Four candidates = ISNI, Ringgold, UKPRN, Digital Science
OrgId review:Terms of reference

» UC1 - Researcher applying for funding As a Researcher applying for funding, I need to list multiple organisations related
to my proposal in order to enable the target funder to uniquely identify previous employers and other funders, collaborators or
industry partners and beneficiaries.
» UC2 - Funder: minimising conflicts of interest As a funder preparing to find referees or reviewers, I need to be able to
identify suitable people in order to minimize conflicts of interest (through potential co-location at host institution).
» UC3 - Funder - tracking published outputs As a Funder, collating outputs in end-of-research reports, I need to be able
to track published outputs in order to understand our contribution & successful collaborations.
» UC5 - Researcher or research manager - reporting academic impacts to funders As a research producer,
I need to report academic impacts to different funders with different requirements.
» UC6 - Researcher - tracking organisations across time As a researcher I need to preserve the historical integrity of
organisational names at the time of data creation, collection or deposit (and other, specified times); it is similarly important, however,
to record and retain the links between these differing names, so that any user can see which data came from which organisation, even
if the organisation name has changed.
» UC7 - Repository manager - populating repositories, managing automation As a repository manager I
need to be able to uniquely identify my repository, whether or not its location or URL changes; this will enable me to control semi-
automated population of repository records.
» UC8 - Developer - directory services As a developer for research funders, I need to link an OrgID within my application to
a directory service.This will allow an end user or a machine to verify identity and contact details.
N.B. UC4 was deleted early in the review
OrgId Review – Use Cases

» UKPRN
› ukrlp.co.uk
› UK Register of learning providers is a register of legally verified
learning providers in UK
› Each verified provider will be assigned with a unique provider
reference number UKPRN
› Information shared across sector with agencies (e.g. Skills Funding
Agency, Higher Education Statistics Agency, HE Funding Council for
England and Universities and Colleges Admissions Service)
OrgId review: Candidates

» Digital Science Institute Database
› Public beta Feb 2015 idb.datasci.it
› Global coverage of organisations that feature in the scientific lifecycle
› 25,ooo organisations expected to be indexed by release
› Metadata includes names, aliases, urls, wikipedia pages, types,
relationships and addresses, with all address data linked to geonames
› Substantial amount of this database available for free under a CC-BY
licence

» ISNI www.isni.org/
› Holds public records of over 7.49 million identities including 7M
individuals (800K are researchers) and 490,000 organisations
› ISNI database is a cross-domain resource, contributed to by 29
institutions and databases, and 40 major national and research libraries
› Part of the suite of ISO identifiers (along with ISBN, ISSN, etc.)
› Its governance infrastructure is designed with the purpose of ensuring
the long-term viability of the identifier
› ISNI is a bridge identifier, designed to provide interoperability between
different proprietary identifiers, such as the Ringgold ID and a critical
component in Linked Data and Semantic Web apps

» Ringgold ringgold.com
› A registration agency for ISNI
› Identify database contains 400,000 organisation records with organisational
identifiers and associated metadata
› The database is global and covers all market sectors, including universities,
research centres, funders, corporations, non-profit organisations, government
entities and organisations, healthcare and hospitals, schools and public libraries
› It contains basic location metadata and is not designed to replace existing
identifiers but to provide a bridge between them across multiple parts of the
wider creative industries
› Not replacing the Ringgold ID with the ISNI number, but will provide the ISNI
number along with the Ringgold ID.The ISNI number is designed to sit above
the proprietary identifier to link systems of identifiers together as a
bridge identifier

OrgId review: Candidate check against use cases

OrgId review: Recommendations

» A hybrid approach with ISNI as the backbone. Institutions and others needing to register and use
OrgIDs should use a solution which relies on and feeds the minimum data set curated by ISNI
» In considering registration solutions and value-added services, organisations should bear in mind
that, in the short term, Ringgold is the most developed agency conforming to the above
» Expect that soon there will be other service providers working to deliver value added services on top
of ISNI and the Working Group should do what they can to encourage such competition by, for
example, Digital Science, who should consider the possibility of acting as a registration agency for
ISNIs in a similar way to Ringgold
» CrossRef should consider creating and maintaining a crosswalk or table of equivalence between
FundRef IDs and ISNI, either through a direct relationship with ISNI or through a third party /
registration agency. Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) has recently become a registration
agency for ISNI and the review recommends that HEFCE and the British Library discuss whether it
would be appropriate for there to be a UK-based registration agency and how bulk
creation/checking of ISNIs (and bulk registration and/or the creation of a table of equivalence for
UKPRNs) might take place for UK academic institutions and other organisations involved in research
OrgId Review – Key recommendations

» Statement of Agreement – currently being drafted
› A draft statement based on the recommendations from the OrgId
Review Report and discussions with the OrgIdWorking Group.The
purpose of this statement is for key organisations such as Jisc, RCUK,
HEFCE, etc. to sign up to
OrgId working group:What next?

» Testing
› A merged list of organisations, created from UCL's interactions with
Wellcome, should be submitted to ISNI to test the quality of the
UCL/Wellcome data and the quality and timeliness of the existing ISNI
data and their response
› "sandbox" experiments should be set up with Ringgold, Digital Science
and ISNI to look at whether the data tested in [i] (or a subset) is
capable of providing the basis for a value added solution with the
present state of orgID services
» Post-pilot Working Group
› Pilot ends March 2014 -> future relationship with CASRAI
› Review working groups
OrgId working group:What next?

» CASRAI/Jisc National Network: Jisc.ac.uk
» CASRAI website casrai.org
» Jisc CASRAI-UK pilot blog jisccasraipilot.jiscinvolve.org/
» Organisational Identifiers
› Landscape study - repository.jisc.ac.uk/5381/
› Review & use cases - repository.jisc.ac.uk/5853/
Links

Uncovering research - what's the standard - Jisc Digital Festival 2015

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Uncovering research - what's the standard - Jisc Digital Festival 2015

Similaire à Uncovering research - what's the standard - Jisc Digital Festival 2015 (20)

Plus de Jisc

Plus de Jisc (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Uncovering research - what's the standard - Jisc Digital Festival 2015

Notes de l'éditeur