research_systems
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
research_systems [2020/02/21 11:54] 86.158.250.31 |
research_systems [2020/02/21 12:15] 86.158.250.31 |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ====== Institutional Repositories (IRs) ====== | ====== Institutional Repositories (IRs) ====== | ||
| - | ===== NEWS : Repository Purchasing Framework (February 2020) ===== | + | ===== NEWS : Repository Purchasing Framework (February 2020) ===== |
| "Jisc is creating a Repository Purchasing Framework (a Dynamic Purchasing System), following feedback from the UK research sector and our members about the difficulties of procuring repository services, and the need for leadership and minimum standards in this area.\\ | "Jisc is creating a Repository Purchasing Framework (a Dynamic Purchasing System), following feedback from the UK research sector and our members about the difficulties of procuring repository services, and the need for leadership and minimum standards in this area.\\ | ||
| - | How will it work? \\ | + | How will it work?\\ |
| - | The framework will set out minimum standards that suppliers must comply with in order to have their product included. Suppliers will apply to be included, with the first wave of awards completed in the Spring. Additional suppliers can be added at any time. \\ | + | The framework will set out minimum standards that suppliers must comply with in order to have their product included. Suppliers will apply to be included, with the first wave of awards completed in the Spring. Additional suppliers can be added at any time.\\ |
| - | Our members will be able to use the framework to run mini competitions with suppliers, using standard templates provided, and adding additional requirements of their own, if necessary. The Jisc framework team will administer the process, sending clarifications and responses to the member, who will then use their criteria to identify the preferred supplier. If a supplier is selected, Jisc notifies all bidders of the result and contracts are between the preferred supplier and member are drawn up. \\ | + | Our members will be able to use the framework to run mini competitions with suppliers, using standard templates provided, and adding additional requirements of their own, if necessary. The Jisc framework team will administer the process, sending clarifications and responses to the member, who will then use their criteria to identify the preferred supplier. If a supplier is selected, Jisc notifies all bidders of the result and contracts are between the preferred supplier and member are drawn up.\\ |
| **Benefits and opportunities for members** | **Benefits and opportunities for members** | ||
| - | * The framework will reduce the procurement burden for members: it will facilitate a light touch procurement process for members, as the due diligence and OJEU requirements will have already been fulfilled. Members can focus solely on their specific requirements. | + | * The framework will reduce the procurement burden for members: it will facilitate a light touch procurement process for members, as the due diligence and OJEU requirements will have already been fulfilled. Members can focus solely on their specific requirements. |
| * Many members are undertaking research systems reviews with possibility of re-procuring for post-REF 2021, so this is a good moment to introduce this framework. | * Many members are undertaking research systems reviews with possibility of re-procuring for post-REF 2021, so this is a good moment to introduce this framework. | ||
| * Members can be confident that the services included use a clear set of sector standards | * Members can be confident that the services included use a clear set of sector standards | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| ===== Overview ===== | ===== Overview ===== | ||
| - | From : Fixing the UK repository landscape. By Neil Jacobs Jisc. Open access briefing paper, 23.10.18 | + | Neil Jacobs.[[http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/7087/1/2018JiscOABriefingFixingUKRepositoryLandscape.pdf|Fixing the UK repository landscape]] Jisc Open access briefing paper, 23.10.18 \\ \\ |
| + | **Introduction** \\ "This paper outlines the current state of the organisational, cultural and technical landscape related to OA repositories in the UK, trends and recent developments, and suggestions for improvement" | ||
| - | Repositories in the UK today \\ According to the global directory OpenDOAR5, there are 258 repositories in the UK, of which 180 hold research articles and, of these, 160 are institutionally-based (as opposed to being departmental or disciplinary). | + | **"Software** \\ Of the 160 institutional repositories, 27 use the DSpace open source software, 98 use the EPrints open source software, and 13 use Elsevier’s PURE product. A sizeable minority of those using open source software in fact pay for a hosted solution managed by a third party. Those with local installations are often running rather old software, perhaps because an accretion of local configurations makes it difficult to upgrade " \\ |
| - | + | ||
| - | According to the Universities UK 2017 Monitoring report , some 48% of articles with a UK author were openly available online other than on the publisher site, of which 15% were in institutional repositories, 13% in subject repositories, and 50% (likely illegally) on ResearchGate. The submission of items into institutional repositories is often mediated (or at least checked) by library staff, whereas that into subject repositories is usually direct by the author. While the REF policy has prompted many universities to increase the investment in their repositories, for others staffing for repository support remains rather low. \\ Software \\ Of the 160 institutional repositories, 27 use the DSpace open source software, 98 use the EPrints open source software, and 13 use Elsevier’s PURE product. A sizeable minority of those using open source software in fact pay for a hosted solution managed by a third party. Those with local installations are often running rather old software, perhaps because an accretion of local configurations makes it difficult to upgrade. | + | |
| ====== A Tour of the Research Data Management (RDM) Service Space ====== | ====== A Tour of the Research Data Management (RDM) Service Space ====== | ||
| Line 38: | Line 37: | ||
| //"Research data management (RDM) has emerged as an area of keen interest in higher education, leading to considerable investment in services, resources and infrastructure to support researchers’ data management needs. This is the first in a series of reports by OCLC Research which examines the context, influences and choices higher education institutions face in building or acquiring RDM capacity—in other words, the infrastructure, services and other resources needed to support emerging data management practices. Our findings are derived from detailed case studies of four research universities, hailing from four distinct national contexts: the University of Edinburgh (UK), the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (US), Monash University (Australia) and Wageningen University & Research (the Netherlands). In this introductory report, we provide some brief background on the emergence of RDM as a focus for research support services within higher education; present a simple framework for navigating the contours of the RDM service space; describe the methodology we employed for assembling our findings and discuss the key elements of RDM capacity acquisition these findings address; and offer a preview of the next report in the series"// \\ \\ For a list of the Research Management Systems used in each UK Higher Education Institution see the [[:he_systems_review|Who uses what system page]] | //"Research data management (RDM) has emerged as an area of keen interest in higher education, leading to considerable investment in services, resources and infrastructure to support researchers’ data management needs. This is the first in a series of reports by OCLC Research which examines the context, influences and choices higher education institutions face in building or acquiring RDM capacity—in other words, the infrastructure, services and other resources needed to support emerging data management practices. Our findings are derived from detailed case studies of four research universities, hailing from four distinct national contexts: the University of Edinburgh (UK), the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (US), Monash University (Australia) and Wageningen University & Research (the Netherlands). In this introductory report, we provide some brief background on the emergence of RDM as a focus for research support services within higher education; present a simple framework for navigating the contours of the RDM service space; describe the methodology we employed for assembling our findings and discuss the key elements of RDM capacity acquisition these findings address; and offer a preview of the next report in the series"// \\ \\ For a list of the Research Management Systems used in each UK Higher Education Institution see the [[:he_systems_review|Who uses what system page]] | ||
| - | ====== Research //Management// Systems in use in the UK ====== | + | ====== Research Management Systems in use in the UK ====== |
| include: \\ [[http://symplectic.co.uk/products/elements/|Elements]] (Symplectic) \\ | include: \\ [[http://symplectic.co.uk/products/elements/|Elements]] (Symplectic) \\ | ||
research_systems.txt · Last modified: 2024/03/06 05:11 by paul
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC0 1.0 Universal
