New project on value of IL for employers

InformAll, in association with the University of Manchester, has been awarded a grant to undertake a small-scale study on determining the value of information literacy for employers. The award, from the CILIP IL Group Research Bursary scheme, will fund a project which will run from March to June 2015. Its purpose is to develop a methodology that will allow for the identification of quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate the benefits of developing information literacy in workplace settings and assess the return on investment  of such initiatives.

For further information, click here.

Impact of Jisc Managing Research Data programme

In collaboration with Loughborough University, RIN has undertaken a high-level analysis of the initial impact of the Jisc Managing Research Data (MRD) programme. This takes the form of a mapping between the deployment of research data management (RDM) policies and practices in UK universities (as described in a recent Loughbrough study covering 38 institutions), and the incidence of institutional project funding from the Jisc MRD programme.

The brief analysis is described in a series of posts on Loughborough University’s Research Data Management blog (see entries dated 8, 26 and 27 November). Not surprisingly, this suggests correlation between the RDM-readiness of institutions and those that have received Jisc funding from the programme over its duration, between 2009 and 2013.

This is no more than an initial assessment, and we welcome reactions about how further work might be undertaken to provide robust evidence on the benefits of the Jisc programme. For further information, please contact [email protected] .

Implementing the recommendations of the Finch report


Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: A Review of Progress in Implementing the Recommendations of the Finch Report

The Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings – the Finch Group – has today published a review of progress in implementing the recommendations of its original Report which was published in June 2012. That original Report  – Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: how to expand access to research publications  – recommended a series of measures to accelerate and manage a transition to open access (OA) over an extended period that would be characterised by a mixed economy that would provide OA via a variety of routes, along with extensions to current licensing arrangements.

The review is based on a rigorous analysis of evidence from a wide range of sources. It finds that research funders, universities, libraries, learned societies and publishers have all made substantial moves to facilitate and promote the transition to the kind of mixed economy we advocated. The policy positions adopted by the Government, Research Councils UK, and the UK Funding Bodies – and the responses to those policies from universities, publishers and learned societies – mean that there is now real momentum behind the moves to OA across all parts of the scholarly communications system.

Much still remains to be done, of course; and in some areas, as we anticipated, the progress in implementing our recommendations has been mixed, and has given rise to issues and problems that have not as yet been fully resolved. It is important that all the key stakeholders should continue to work together to resolve those issues and to ensure that the UK continues to benefit from world-leading research communications services. Our key recommendation is that a formal co-ordinating structure should be established to avoid duplication of effort and divergent work-streams; to deal with problems as they arise; to develop an interoperable system of repositories and an infrastructure that supports both Gold and Green OA; to monitor the impact of OA policies on  learned societies; to co-ordinate communications with the research community;  and to oversee the collection and analysis of data from different parties in order to create the evidence base that is essential to the further development of effective policies.

Dame Janet Finch said, “I am delighted that our review demonstrates the rapid progress that has been made over the past year, and the co-operation that is evident across all the major players involved in research publications. It is pleasing that all parties agree on the need to continue and cement that co-operation in a formal framework  that I am sure will bring further progress towards the kind of open access environment that we all wish to see.”

Implementing RCUK OA requirements

On behalf of RCUK, RIN has completed a report on policies and procedures adopted by universities in implementing RCUK open access (OA) requirements. This reflects developments in the university sector following the introduction of new RCUK’s policies on open access.  Universities have moved rapidly to set up policies and procedures to comply with RCUK requirements, and what is reported in the document is changing fast. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the findings and recommendations point to some useful lessons for the sector as a whole; and that the experiences presented in the report will provide valuable pointers to further action for the benefit of individual universities, RCUK, and the sector as a whole.

Click here for further details and a copy of the report.

Finch report: response to Select Committe

On 10 September 2013, the House of Commons Select Committee on Business, Innovations and Skills published its report on Open Acess publishing.

Dame Janet Finch, chair of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings (the Finch Committee) has issued the following statement in response:

“I have read the Select Committee report with interest. Many of the conclusions are the same as those in the Finch report. We agree that there should be a carefully managed transition to the open access world, and that there should be a mixture of so called Green and Gold routes during this transition. This was the cornerstone of our own report.

 However there are issues where the Select Committee appears to have misread our report, and others where we simply took a different view of the evidence and of stakeholder concerns. There are some unfortunate gaps in the Select Committee’s consideration. In particular their comments on the publishing industry take no account of Learned Societies, whose publishing and other roles have been a major concern of our working group.

I am disappointed that the Select Committee did not invite me to meet them, as I might have assisted them to take into account the full range of issues which our working group had to consider.

The original Working Group is meeting again shortly to review progress on our recommendations over the past year, and we will be happy to take the Committee’s views into account.”