We noted that researchers have told us *very* clearly that they do not want to enter research project admin data/outputs metadata twice in multiple systems, either internally or externally to institution.

This requires us to understand some of the systems the RDC may need to exchange metadata with that have existing information already entered. These could be local research group metadata catalogues, local/national repositories and other online systems (for example, we would need to outline the technical protocols (standards) for interoperability with national funder research output systems our researchers have been using).

1. Possible external connectivity needs?

i) ROS?
- http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/Pages/ResearchOutcomesProject.aspx
- example -> https://logon.rcuk.ac.uk/
Schema: ?
API: ?

iii) MRC e-Val/Research Fish?

- https://www.researchfish.com/

“Can I integrate the data from e-Val with other systems?

At Researchfish we want to reduce the burden on researchers required to provide information to their Funders and other organisations. As such we offer an API to allow you to use the data in other systems and the data is available for you to download at any time. We are also working with a number of organisations such as EuroCris to ensure future compatibility of our data with other research information systems”

Schema: ?
API: Yes, need details.

iii) Je-S?

- https://je-s.rcuk.ac.uk/JeS2WebLoginSite/Login.aspx
Schema: ?
API: ?

2. Possible internal connectivity needs?

i) A future desktop tool?

ii) Sakai VRE?

iii) e-Science Central?

iii) Most likely research group data set/outputs catalogues/’repositories’ (at least 1 possible example  identified), but many have not been discovered yet, so a standard interoperable feed (in and out) are important i.e. OAI-PMH, SWORD2, (CERIF/XML, RSS maybe ?)

NB: ‘JISC and Research Councils UK work to reduce reporting burden on Universities‘ post from August 2012 is topical.

These results came from a research paper published by Prof Anastassios Pouris, director of the Intsitute for Technological Innovation at the University of Pretoria, in the South African Journal of Science.

The paper, titled, Science in South Africa: the dawn of a new renaissance? shows an increase in paper publications from 3617 in 2000 to 7468 in 2010.

To read more go to Wilma den Hartigh’s article on BIZCommunity.com by clicking here!

To read more go to Charl Blignaut’s article in City Press by Clicking here!

To read Prof Anastassios Pouris’ paper Click Here!

I have asked Dale Heenan, Web Project Manager, ESRC
what/how this is used at Research Council’s.   I will also discuss with IRIOS2 colleagues (including representatives of two Research Council’s)  if this is something that might be possible and useful for Research Organisations’s to get from RCUK.

We are still pondering the issue of how to categorise research inputs and outputs by theme – rather than a list of themes at person level that may not all be relevant for a specific paper or award. Matt has developed some algorithms that nicely suggest appropriate categorisation. We could default these rather than leave the outputs unattributed to themes. Further discussion on-going.

We talked about impact and it’s definition and agreed we would refer back to MICE http://mice.cerch.kcl.ac.uk/ findings and could also keep an eye out on the new DESCRIBE project at Exeter which is looking at definitions for impact. This does not complete till well after Engage but it will still be of general interest to the University of Glasgow.

I have been discussing issues of impact definition with library. REF have one definition and collect the information at quite a high level. RCUK collect at award level. We need to establish an efficient method of collecting and re-using data where possible within the bounds of Data Protection, Freedom of Information, and other requirements.

The problem is, of course, that reasons for not producing good work are highly variable. It could be that you’re on the brink of some big breakthrough and the focus of this has taken many years to complete. It may be that you’ve had bad luck with papers getting accepted, or have been doing good work, but maybe aiming to high up the journal league table. It could be that you have had a run of poor luck on grant funding, and have not had the support to do your work and write up results, in terms of PhD students, postdocs, or simply a lack of equipment. Maybe a series of experiments didn’t work, but the next one will (and it will win a Nobel Prize). Maybe your research output is highly subjective (think works by artists) and the critics didn’t like your last show. Maybe your research rivals knew about your employment conditions and decided to reject your last paper (to make it to the magic four) to get you sacked. Or maybe, just maybe you didn’t feel the need to publish every last little bit of work to avoid saturating the journals and keep the overall quality of published work high enough to make it bearable to read them. Maybe you published one Nature paper a year over the last three years and nothing else, and they each got 500 citations. Sounds like that might not have been good enough.

These are just a few reasons you might not publish four papers or make four things in three years (any more?). If this report is true and this was the sole condition for dismissal, then shame on the University of Sydney, but maybe it’s a wake up call to the rest of us – coming to a department near you soon. Right, back to writing my next grant next paper.

The framework is currently in draft and will be further refined and tested throughout the BASTRA project. Beyond the project the framework provides a nationally consistent basis for comparison of beach and surf assets. This approach enables portfolio management of beach and surf assets by Local Governments and will facilitate the transfer of this projects valuation studies to other sites across the country.

Comments and feedback on the draft report are much appreciated

Click here to access draft report

The paper presented the findings of a travel cost method analysis of data collected in a 2009 survey of Gold Coast residents use of beaches and foreshore areas.

Click here to access full paper

http://irios2.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/research-output-discussion-group/

The Department of Higher Education and Training has allocated R1,8bn to research “outputs” for 2010-11 and recently put R1,6bn into infrastructure improvements in higher education, with a special focus on science, engineering, technology and education, according to acting deputy director-general, Kirti Menon.

Minister Blade Nzimande is also seeking advice from the Council on Higher Education about the possibility that the 80% higher education budget for research outputs be distributed on the basis of the actual research outputs produced by universities. The balance of 20% would be used for research development grants.

To read Sue Blaine original article on allAfrica.com Click Here!