What are Researchers Doing?

Michael JubbResearch Information

Network

3rd Bloomsbury E-Publishing Conference

26 June 2009

The Role of Information in Research: a crude model

defining a set of research questions, issues or problemsidentifying relevant existing knowledgeaccessing, analysing, and evaluating existing knowledge and datadesigning a methodology for generating new knowledgeapplying the methodology and discovering new knowledgecombining old and new knowledge to answer research questions and to enhance understandingdisseminating the outcomes of research in a form that is both sustainable and retrievable

Information in the Research Process

gatherevaluatecreateanalysemanagetransformpresent and communicate

The Research Process:Animal Genetics

The Research Process:Transgenesis and Embryology

The Research Process:Epidemiology

The Research Process:Neuroscience

The Research Processdiffers even in apparently similar areas of work, and also between teams………

Composition of Research Groups

big science vs small sciencesmall teams typical in life sciencesamorphous and overlapping associations with other teams“primary research engagements tend to be local”

divisions of expertise, labour and knowledge exchange

PI/leader, senior researchers/lecturers, associates, computational specialists, postdocs, PhDs, technicians……… dangers of surveys that look at individual responses divorced from context

Different roles and activities:who or where is your information coming from?

4.2 Team leader 4.4 Senior researcher

4.5 Senior lecturer 4.6 Postdoc scientist

4.1 PhD student

Imaging Lab Group Meeting Researchers verbal report on studies Grants (2) Reports Lecture on specialist topic Journal articles (3) Emails (5) Phone calls (5) Discussions with researchers (3) Publishers Letters (2) Clinics (2) Clinical meetings (4) Discussion with clinical groups (internal and external) (4)

Interviews with psychiatrists Hand written notes from interviews (3) Server (Image lab) Digital observations Image files Wiki (statistics) Manuals Online dictionary and wikipedia Journal articles Pubmed– papers (5) Biomed Central Home pages and websites (institutions) Drafts of sci paper Peer reviews E-mail (personal and team) (4) My head – 8 years experience (4)

Imaging data, department server and online resources Data from: Imaging resources (fMRI data) From WGH [hospital] (2) Animal imaging data (qMRI) Talks/presentation (WGH) Internet accessed journal articles (2)

Clinical cohort scan database (5) Discussions with Team leader/ PhD student / clinical researcher/Postdocs /Prof (2) Clinical Journal (2) Group discussion (methods) research team (clinical) E-mail discussion Mailbase for SPM (3) C compiler scans (3) Published literature Web search Conference proceedings

Papers (from internet) (2) Internet database Protocol Supervisor (2) Discussion with colleagues (6) Lab meeting

Information Access: some generalisations

Googlelack of concern about limitations

range of other sites and databaseslimited awareness of what is availablelimited time and “learning costs”find a service you like, and stick with itimportance of (very) domain-specific and (highly) specialist services“informal discussion” a key source of information and advicerelatively little use of blogs, wikis etc

some concerns about barriers to access to full textresistance to requirement to pay

multiple platforms an inhibiter to take-up and useeven Grid users want to work simply on the desktop

Different roles and activities:types of information being created

2.1 Postdoc RF 2.4 PhD student 2.3 PhD student 2.2 Research Technician

Project progress Design of experiment SOPs amendment Specific techniques Demonstration of techniques Experimental Cell culture techniques Repeats of previous experiments Analysis of data Results Visualised under microscope Photographs Plasmids information for sequencing Sequencing Alignment of sequencing results with original sequence Orders for supplies Feedback of some products Discuss institute’s IT system for IT committee meeting Plan student’s project. Poster

Lab book notes Gel image files Cell data by microscopy Vector NTi maps Experimental design Presentation Powerpoint presentations Poster Notes on other people’s work that may be relevant inc. cloning, gene signalling & imaging

Lab book entries Images of gels from experiments Quantitative data from Nanodrop equipment Emails Notes on lab group meeting Notes on progress meeting with supervisor Notes for an upcoming talk Slides for an upcoming talk

Lab book Writing up daily experiment Methods Order form

Creating information: some points about data

a language problem: what do we mean by data and information?most researchers spend much of their time searching for, gathering, organising, and analysing databut producing – and sharing - data is not the primary objective

general assumption that data do not have intrinsic meaning until analysed, interpreted, described…….

ownership and protectioncontrol over knowledge and information

data curation/stewardship/management important to researchers only (at best) intermittentlybelief that only researchers themselves can have the knowledge necessary to curate their data

data management plans required by funders, but not much sign of adoptionrole of publishers?

Different roles and activities:who or where will information be shared with and

how?1.3 Team Leader 1.4 Computational Geneticist

1.1 Postdoc 1.2 PhD student

Who Funders Industrial collaborators Academic collaborators and colleagues European collaborators and colleagues Scientific audience Secondary school students Examining committee/school How Report to funders Final report via JeS Presentation to industrial collaborators List of genes shared with collaborators and colleagues [in dept] International conference/ publish paper in peer reviewed journal/ publish a book General scientific outputs Research proposal shared with colleagues/collaborators across Europe Report to examining committee (Thesis) Feedback to students Podcast to secondary schools

Who Scientific community Lab Collaborators Collaborators at other UK institution Methods – discussion after seminar [Seminar attendees] Colleagues (local) Team leader PhD students University How Peer reviewed paper for publication Admin/procedures with lab and collaborators Discussion after seminar Informal with colleagues (local) Team leader discussion PhD student discussion Discussion by e-mail Discussion with university purchase and costs of equipment

Who Scottish universities Industrial/commercial collaborator Collaborators European network [research/medical/vets/ science/genetics] Govt department Team (local) Team leader Project group Academic/scientific community/audience How Presentation Scientific paper Discussion – verbal and e-mail Through publication

Who Researcher in China Team leader Supervisor How Discussion [regular weekly meetings and informal discussion] Presentation to other PhD students /colleagues E-mail

Sharing and disseminating information

local altruism and reciprocitysharp distinctions between

sharing internally and externallyformal and informal sharing/dissemination

personal relationships and trust

Where, when and how to publish?

key motivation is recognition by peerspeer review critically importantrecognition measured by citationcareer advancement

secondary motivation is maximising dissemination

tension between targeting best audience and highest quality journal

increasing collaboration more co-authorshipsignificant rise in proportion of multi-authored works between 2003 and 2008

research assessment affects choices signs of increase in productivity

small rise in no. of articles per author 2003-2008

Productivity?

Figure 4 Average number of publications

2003 2008 Mean Standard error Mean Standard error Significant?

Bio-medicine 2.32 .188 4.52 .597 p<0.01

Sciences 4.29 .851 4.51 .609 no

Engineering 3.22 .659 3.31 .474 no

Social studies 2.00 .198 2.69 .266 p<0.05

Humanities 1.93 .303 1.70 .124 no

Education 2.17 .631 1.88 .245 no

Total, inc. Arts 2.50 .170 3.19 .206 p<0.05

Publications by type

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%20

03

2008

2003

2008

2003

2008

2003

2008

2003

2008

2003

2008

2003

2008

Bio-medicine Sciences Engineering Social studies Humanities Education Total inc.Arts

Article Book Book chapter Proceedings Book review Editorial Meeting abstract Other

Importance of types of output

Very important

Quite important

Not important

Not applicable

Total

Peer reviewed journals 790 48 1 4 843

93.7% 5.7% 0.1% 0.5%

Professional journals 159 249 297 116 821

19.4% 30.3% 36.2% 14.1%

Monographs 275 205 263 76 819

33.6% 25.0% 32.1% 9.3%

Book chapters 191 504 130 11 836

22.8% 60.3% 15.6% 1.3%

Conference presentations/posters 289 439 111 4 843

34.3% 52.1% 13.2% 0.5%

Reports 71 287 365 105 828

8.6% 34.7% 44.1% 12.7%

Working papers 37 222 415 147 821

4.5% 27.0% 50.5% 17.9%

Datasets 68 161 321 269 819

8.3% 19.7% 39.2% 32.8%

Open Access Repository 83 232 336 165 816

10.2% 28.4% 41.2% 20.2%

Internet blog/forum 14 85 574 143 816

1.7% 10.4% 70.3% 17.5%

Creative works (including exhibitions & performances)

21 66 325 406 818

2.6% 8.1% 39.7% 49.6%

Other 41 32 116 432 621

6.6% 5.2% 18.7% 69.6%

Importance of professional journals

46

14

11

28

33

7

17

73

16

27

60

20

14

36

8

12

36

38

63

64

47

37

13

38

21

25

4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Medical & Bio. Sci.

Physical Sci. & Maths

Eng'ring & Computing

Soc. Sci., Bus. & Econ.

Humanities

Education & Sport

Interdisciplinary

Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable

Importance of monographs

10

20

10

68

126

5

28

48

33

23

47

14

29

9

9

111

34

1

34

107

42

34

9

36

7

11

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Medical & Bio. Sci.

Physical Sci. & Maths

Eng'ring & Computing

Soc. Sci., Bus. & Econ.

Humanities

Education & Sport

Interdisciplinary

Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable

Importance of book chapters

27

9

9

35

75

7

22

127

71

56

95

65

64

3

22 1

13

1

29

50

22

14

2

1

1

2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Medical & Bio. Sci.

Physical Sci. & Maths

Eng'ring & Computing

Soc. Sci., Bus. & Econ.

Humanities

Education & Sport

Interdisciplinary

Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable

Importance of conference presentations

82

42

46

45

24

11

33

100

55

32

86

87

55

1

18

3

9

23

34

26

14

1

1

1

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Medical & Bio. Sci.

Physical Sci. & Maths

Eng'ring & Computing

Soc. Sci., Bus. & Econ.

Humanities

Education & Sport

Interdisciplinary

Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable

Citation behaviours

Citation behaviours

Citation behaviours UK

Citation behaviours UK

Interim findings?

Do you publish your WORK IN PROGRESS?

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Privately, within asmall network of

collaborators

Openly, within myresearch

community

Publicly, on awebsite, blog etc

No

Yes

No, but I intend to in future

Interim findings?

Do you publish your WORK IN PROGRESS?

Answer Options Professor Reader Senior

Lecturer Lecturer

Research Fellow

Privately, within a small network of collaborators No 51% 36% 44% 53% 38% Yes 48% 61% 52% 42% 57% No, but I intend to in future 1% 3% 4% 5% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Openly, within my research community No 76% 79% 79% 86% 76% Yes 24% 18% 15% 12% 22% No, but I intend to in future 0% 3% 6% 2% 3% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Publicly, on a website, blog etc No 83% 81% 87% 86% 84% Yes 16% 13% 7% 12% 11% No, but I intend to in future 1% 6% 6% 2% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Web 2.0?How often do you do the following in the course of your research activities?

Answer Options 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 over 65

Write a blog Never 79% 80% 85% 91% 100% Occasionally 6% 12% 10% 6% 0% Frequently (At least once a week) 4% 6% 2% 0% 0% I do this outside of work 11% 2% 3% 3% 0% Comment on other people's blogs Never 69% 68% 81% 82% 93% Occasionally 17% 22% 16% 15% 7% Frequently (At least once a week) 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% I do this outside of work 15% 8% 3% 3% 0% Contribute to a private wiki Never 80% 75% 78% 85% 86% Occasionally 18% 17% 17% 14% 7% Frequently (At least once a week) 2% 8% 4% 1% 7% I do this outside of work 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% Contribute to a public wiki (e.g., Wikipedia) Never 69% 74% 75% 80% 80% Occasionally 22% 21% 23% 18% 13% Frequently (At least once a week) 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% I do this outside of work 10% 4% 2% 3% 7% Add comments to online journal articles or more general media publications Never 81% 76% 80% 73% 93% Occasionally 17% 21% 14% 27% 7% Frequently (At least once a week) 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% I do this outside of work 2% 2% 4% 0% 0% Post slides, texts, images, code, algorithms, videos or other media on an open content sharing site Never 65% 56% 52% 52% 93% Occasionally 19% 30% 40% 30% 7% Frequently (At least once a week) 8% 10% 5% 11% 0% I do this outside of work 8% 4% 3% 6% 0%

Futures?Please rate the likelihood of the following changes in scholarly communications within your field over the next 5 years

Answer Options Professor Reader Senior

Lecturer Lecturer

Research Fellow

Existing peer review processes will become increasingly unsustainable Likely 31% 34% 39% 30% 38% Unlikely 63% 51% 50% 52% 56% No opinion 6% 14% 11% 18% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Formal peer review will be increasingly complemented by reader-based ratings, annotations, downloads or citations Likely 44% 37% 45% 41% 36% Unlikely 42% 54% 38% 41% 38% No opinion 15% 9% 18% 18% 26% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% New types of online publication, using new kinds of media formats and content, will grow in importance Likely 72% 69% 76% 68% 82% Unlikely 18% 20% 7% 18% 13% No opinion 11% 11% 16% 14% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Open access online publication supported by an 'author-pays' funding model will predominate Likely 34% 20% 21% 23% 21% Unlikely 47% 49% 52% 50% 51% No opinion 19% 31% 27% 27% 28% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Some tentative conclusionsresearchers vary

by disciplineby role

discovery and access still present challengesattitudes towards research data are not what funders, employers (and publishers?) think they should bewe need to know more about citation behaviourresearchers’ views of the importance of different types of output do not always correlate with what and how they publishWeb 2.0 and related developments are small scale as yet, but have the potential to take off

Questions?

Thanks

Michael Jubbwww.rin.ac.uk