Dias 1 A research information system as a research planning & evaluation tool: Recent developments in Denmark Adrian Price Faculty of LIFE Sciences Library Faculty of Life Sciences University of Copenhagen CRIS2008, Maribor, June 7th, 2008

Dias 2 Introduction & Background The PURE system ”National” metadata format Data! Data! Data! Benchmarking is in PURE cooperation & future development

Dias 3 Introduction Move from research communication to research communication & research documentation Research communication: Universities & researchers required to be accessible Research documentation: Planning, benchmarking From fluffy data to strict data A new infrastructure needed: Universities for once came first! -From organized chaos to standardization

Dias 4 Background for the new era In universities applied & got a grant from DEFF – Denmark’s Electronic Research Library …to implement PURE from software company Atira A/S PURE a CRISystem, in DK quite often synonymous with institutional repositories PURE now in use by 6 universities & their faculties Foundation for a new era: Co-operation between universities and preempted by CRIS/PURE cooperation PURE cooperation well in place by the time universities were merging.

Dias 5 The PURE system The PURE i-pository: a commercial, modular system which …collects, documents, preserves the research activities of a research institution Content types: publications, projects, activities, areas of expertise, press releases ”…infrastructural modules”…to maintain, monitor and document…the system and its content Researchers and their organizations: the backbone of any CRISystem Let’s take a closer look at PURE!

Dias 6 Overview…the PURE system

Dias 7 A “national” metadata format Research documentation: necessary for this is strict metadata quality & a way of documenting it Controlled metadata, no free text! Standardized metadata for all universities i.e. use of same publication types Tight control of authors/researchers & their organisations Workflow & validation to ensure data quality “Oh dear, sloppy metadata always gives problems.”

Dias 8 A “national” metadata format Common format for all “PURE universities” A complete workover by the initial PURE implementers Agreed on by all & all changes must be co-ordinated Format covers all content types: publications, projects, activities, bibliometrics, student projects Publication types Top level: Research, Communication, Education, Commissioned Lowest level over 100 specific types (very traditional) The Faculty of Life Sciences Library

Dias 9 Aggregation at the national level In 2005 a national metadata exchange format agreed upon by “PURE universities”, Technical University of Denmark & The Danish Research Database (DDF) …for moving of metadata (OAI-PMH) to central database The new DDF (just opened) a vast improvement largely due to gigantic PURE-based metadata improvement But it should be remembered: the quality of the data cannot be better than that at the local level

Dias 10 Data! Data! Data! Benchmarking is in Increased funding for universities, but partly based on competition Bibliometric indicator (the “Norwegian model”): points (i.e. money) given for number of publications (1) Peer-reviewed articles in recognized “publication channels”, (2) Books from recognized publishers (3) Chapters in books from recognized publishers (4) Phd/Doctoral theses and (5) Patents A ceiling as to how much money can be shifted Can you put a price tag on a peer reviewed article?

Dias 11 Data! Data! Data! Benchmarking is in… National technical infrastructure Auxilliary databases for data validation: Danish researcher/author database, publication channel (journals) and publisher (books) databases Aux databases coupled to PURE to ensure strict metadata registration, also for non-approved channels Harvesting (OAI-PMH) back & forth to PURE and central databases (validation/deduplication) Time-table: data for 2008 for funding 2010.

Dias 12 PURE co-operation & future development We can’t afford the adoption of further static products – like library catalogues! PURE university stearing group & working group to ensure: National metadata format Registration guidelines Improve data quality Cheaper development costs Dialogue with Atira A/S to ensure: Influence on metadata Influence on functionality A dynamic product!!

Dias 13 Thank you for your patience! Comments ! Questions ?