What are Researchers Doing?
Michael Jubb
Research 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 problems
identifying relevant existing knowledge
accessing, analysing, and evaluating existing knowledge
and data
designing a methodology for generating new knowledge
applying the methodology and discovering new
knowledge
combining old and new knowledge to answer research
questions and to enhance understanding
disseminating the outcomes of research in a form that is
both sustainable and retrievable
Information in the Research Process
gather
evaluate
create
analyse
manage
transform
present and communicate
The Research Process:
Animal Genetics
The Research Process:
Transgenesis and Embryology
The Research Process:
Epidemiology
The Research Process:
Neuroscience
The Research Process
differs even in apparently similar areas of
work, and also between teams………
Composition of Research Groups
big science vs small science
small teams typical in life sciences
amorphous 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
Interviews with
psychiatrists
Hand written notes from
interviews (3)
Imaging data,
department server and
online resources
Clinical cohort scan
database (5)
Papers (from
internet) (2)
Discussions with
Team leader/ PhD
student / clinical
researcher/Postdocs
/Prof (2)
Internet
database
Researchers verbal
report on studies
Grants (2)
Reports
Lecture on specialist
topic
Server (Image lab)
Digital observations
Image files
Data from:
Imaging resources
(fMRI data)
From WGH [hospital]
(2)
Wiki (statistics)
Manuals
Discussions with
researchers (3)
Publishers
Letters (2)
Clinics (2)
Clinical meetings (4)
Discussion with clinical
groups
(internal and external)
(4)
Online dictionary and
wikipedia
Journal articles
Pubmed– papers (5)
Biomed Central
Home pages and
websites (institutions)
Supervisor (2)
Clinical Journal (2)
Animal imaging data
(qMRI)
Journal articles (3)
Emails (5)
Phone calls (5)
Talks/presentation
(WGH)
Internet accessed
journal articles (2)
Group discussion
(methods) research
team (clinical)
E-mail discussion
Mailbase for SPM (3)
C compiler scans (3)
Published literature
Drafts of sci paper
Peer reviews
E-mail (personal and
team) (4)
My head – 8 years
experience (4)
Protocol
Web search
Conference proceedings
Discussion with
colleagues (6)
Lab meeting
Information Access:
some generalisations
Google
lack of concern about limitations
range of other sites and databases
limited awareness of what is available
limited time and “learning costs”
find a service you like, and stick with it
importance of (very) domain-specific and (highly) specialist services
“informal discussion” a key source of information and advice
relatively little use of blogs, wikis etc
some concerns about barriers to access to full text
resistance to requirement to pay
multiple platforms an inhibiter to take-up and use
even 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
Project progress
Design of experiment
SOPs amendment
Specific techniques
Demonstration of techniques
Lab book notes
Gel image files
Cell data by microscopy
Lab book entries
Images of gels from
experiments
Quantitative data from
Nanodrop equipment
Vector NTi maps
2.2 Research
Technician
Lab book
Writing up daily
experiment
Methods
Order form
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
Emails
Experimental design
Presentation
Powerpoint presentations
Poster
Notes on other people’s work
that may be relevant inc.
cloning, gene signalling &
imaging
Notes on lab group
meeting
Notes on progress
meeting with supervisor
Notes for an upcoming
talk
Slides for an upcoming
talk
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 data
but producing – and sharing - data is not the primary objective
general assumption that data do not have intrinsic meaning until analysed,
interpreted, described…….
ownership and protection
control over knowledge and information
data curation/stewardship/management important to researchers
only (at best) intermittently
belief that only researchers themselves can have the knowledge
necessary to curate their data
data management plans required by funders, but not much sign of adoption
role of publishers?
Data Sharing:
Motivations and Constraints
evidence of benefits
citation
esteem and
good evaluation
explicit rewards
altruism
reciprocity
enhanced visibility
cultural/peer pressures
opportunities for
collaboration, co-authorship
easy-to-do
no clear benefits/incentives
competition; desire to
extract maximum value
desire for/fear of
commercial exploitation
access restrictions desired
or imposed
legal, ethical problems
lack of time, funds,
expertise
sheer size of datasets
nowhere to put it
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
Who
Scientific community
Who
Scottish universities
Industrial/commercial
collaborator
Collaborators
Who
Researcher in China
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
Lab
Collaborators
Collaborators at other UK
institution
Methods – discussion after
seminar
[Seminar attendees]
Colleagues (local)
Team leader
PhD students
University
European network
[research/medical/vets/
science/genetics]
Govt department
Team (local)
Team leader
Project group
Academic/scientific
community/audience
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
How
Presentation
Scientific paper
Discussion – verbal and e-mail
Through publication
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 reciprocity
sharp distinctions between
sharing internally and externally
formal and informal sharing/dissemination
personal relationships and trust
Where, when and how to publish?
key motivation is recognition by peers
peer review critically important
recognition measured by citation
career advancement
secondary motivation is maximising dissemination
tension between targeting best audience and highest quality
journal
increasing collaboration
more co-authorship
significant 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
Mean
Standard error
Bio-medicine
2.32
.188
2008
Mean
4.52
Standard error
.597
Significant?
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
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Bio-medicine
Article
Book
Sciences
Book chapter
Engineering Social studies
Proceedings
Book review
Humanities
Editorial
Education
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
0%
Total inc.
Arts
Meeting abstract
Other
Importance of types of output
Very
important
Peer reviewed journals
Professional journals
Monographs
Book chapters
Conference presentations/posters
Reports
Working papers
Datasets
Open Access Repository
Internet blog/forum
Creative works (including
exhibitions & performances)
Other
Quite
important
Not
important
Not
applicable
Total
790
48
1
4
93.7%
5.7%
0.1%
0.5%
159
249
297
116
19.4%
30.3%
36.2%
14.1%
275
205
263
76
33.6%
25.0%
32.1%
9.3%
191
504
130
11
22.8%
60.3%
15.6%
1.3%
289
439
111
4
34.3%
52.1%
13.2%
0.5%
71
287
365
105
8.6%
34.7%
44.1%
12.7%
37
222
415
147
4.5%
27.0%
50.5%
17.9%
68
161
321
269
8.3%
19.7%
39.2%
32.8%
83
232
336
165
10.2%
28.4%
41.2%
20.2%
14
85
574
143
1.7%
10.4%
70.3%
17.5%
21
66
325
406
2.6%
8.1%
39.7%
49.6%
41
32
116
432
6.6%
5.2%
18.7%
69.6%
843
821
819
836
843
828
821
819
816
816
818
621
Importance of professional journals
0%
20%
46
Medical & Bio. Sci.
Physical Sci. & Maths
14
Eng'ring & Computing
11
Soc. Sci., Bus. & Econ.
80%
25
37
60
38
36
8
36
Not important
12
38
14
Quite important
4
63
20
7
Very important
21
47
27
17
100%
64
16
33
Education & Sport
60%
73
28
Humanities
Interdisciplinary
40%
Not applicable
13
Importance of monographs
0%
Medical & Bio. Sci.
20%
10
100%
36
33
10
42
23
7
34
68
11
47
34
126
Humanities
Interdisciplinary
80%
107
20
Soc. Sci., Bus. & Econ.
Education & Sport
60%
48
Physical Sci. & Maths
Eng'ring & Computing
40%
5
14
11
28
Very important
9
29
Quite important
9
34
Not important
Not applicable
1
1
9
Importance of book chapters
0%
20%
27
Medical & Bio. Sci.
Physical Sci. & Maths
Eng'ring & Computing
Soc. Sci., Bus. & Econ.
40%
60%
80%
127
9
50
71
9
56
35
95
75
Humanities
Education & Sport
7
Interdisciplinary
22
100%
1
22
1
14
2
29
3
65
1
22
64
Very important
Quite important
Not important
1
13
Not applicable
2
Importance of conference presentations
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Medical & Bio. Sci.
82
100
Physical Sci. & Maths
42
55
46
Eng'ring & Computing
Humanities
Education & Sport
Interdisciplinary
23
86
24
87
11
Very important
3
34
1
26
1
18
33
1
55
Quite important
Not important
1
9
32
45
Soc. Sci., Bus. & Econ.
100%
14
Not applicable
1
Citation behaviours
Citation behaviours
Citation behaviours UK
Citation behaviours UK
Interim findings?
Do you publish your WORK IN PROGRESS?
350
300
250
No
200
Yes
150
No, but I intend to in future
100
50
0
Privately, within a Openly, within my
Publicly, on a
small network of
research
website, blog etc
collaborators
community
Interim findings?
Do you publish your WORK IN PROGRESS?
Answer Options
Professor
Privately, within a small network of collaborators
No
51%
Yes
48%
No, but I intend to in future
1%
100%
Openly, within my research community
No
76%
Yes
24%
No, but I intend to in future
0%
100%
Publicly, on a website, blog etc
No
83%
Yes
16%
No, but I intend to in future
1%
100%
Senior
Lecturer
Lecturer
Research
Fellow
36%
61%
3%
100%
44%
52%
4%
100%
53%
42%
5%
100%
38%
57%
5%
100%
79%
18%
3%
100%
79%
15%
6%
100%
86%
12%
2%
100%
76%
22%
3%
100%
81%
13%
6%
100%
87%
7%
6%
100%
86%
12%
2%
100%
84%
11%
5%
100%
Reader
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
79%
80%
85%
91%
100%
Never
6%
12%
10%
6%
0%
Occasionally
4%
6%
2%
0%
0%
Frequently (At least once a week)
11%
2%
3%
3%
0%
I do this outside of work
Comment on other people's blogs
69%
68%
81%
82%
93%
Never
17%
22%
16%
15%
7%
Occasionally
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
Frequently (At least once a week)
15%
8%
3%
3%
0%
I do this outside of work
Contribute to a private wiki
80%
75%
78%
85%
86%
Never
18%
17%
17%
14%
7%
Occasionally
2%
8%
4%
1%
7%
Frequently (At least once a week)
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
I do this outside of work
Contribute to a public wiki (e.g., Wikipedia)
69%
74%
75%
80%
80%
Never
22%
21%
23%
18%
13%
Occasionally
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
Frequently (At least once a week)
10%
4%
2%
3%
7%
I do this outside of work
Add comments to online journal articles or more general media publications
81%
76%
80%
73%
93%
Never
17%
21%
14%
27%
7%
Occasionally
0%
1%
2%
0%
0%
Frequently (At least once a week)
2%
2%
4%
0%
0%
I do this outside of work
Post slides, texts, images, code, algorithms, videos or other media on an open content
sharing site
65%
56%
52%
52%
93%
Never
19%
30%
40%
30%
7%
Occasionally
8%
10%
5%
11%
0%
Frequently (At least once a week)
8%
4%
3%
6%
0%
I do this outside of work
Futures?
Please rate the likelihood of the following changes in scholarly communications within your
field over the next 5 years
Senior
Research
Lecturer
Lecturer
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%
Answer Options
Professor
Reader
Some tentative conclusions
researchers vary
by discipline
by role
discovery and access still present challenges
attitudes towards research data are not what funders,
employers (and publishers?) think they should be
we need to know more about citation behaviour
researchers’ views of the importance of different types of
output do not always correlate with what and how they publish
Web 2.0 and related developments are small scale as yet, but
have the potential to take off
Questions?
Thanks
Michael Jubb
www.rin.ac.uk