1. Jill Golightly Head of Research Office Case Study 2: Developing and implementing an integrated system to support researchers: the Newcastle experience

2. The Session  Context  Why make the change  What did we do  Benefits for researchers and managers  How did we do it  Demo  What worked well/not so well

3. Newcastle In Context  3 large faculties and 31 academic units  14,000 UG students  5,000 PG students  2,176 academic staff  Research Income £81M  Submitted 964 staff to 38 UoAs in RAE 3

4. D Day 1 st November 2005

5. Data Systems in the RAE

6. Issues  Inefficient use of academic time  Data in different systems – difficult to get data from one place  Data quality poor – who was responsible for amending?  Institutional Repository well-established but lack of take up  eprints established but duplication of effort required  Weak links between services supporting research  Lack of understanding about the importance of research data outside the key services

7. What did we do  January 08 hit EB with proposal for integrated system (written by RO and Library)  Redevelop current Institutional Repository with improved features  Successful bid – 2 year funding  Researcher focussed 7

8. My-Impact  One system, limit duplication and inaccuracy of data - data right first time!  Hub for all research data  Focuses strongly on the individual  Enhanced repository – claim outputs  Link to eprints  Inclusion of research project and PGR data  Drives the web profiles  Enhanced role for services  REF scenario planning

10. MyIMPACT

11. Benefits for the Researcher  Quick, reliable access to all research data via consolidation of system  Their information: research, students, outputs etc  Providing a more efficient way for them to record and confirm contribution  Help support research and career  Maximise exposure to outputs externally via eprints - impact  Free up time by claiming outputs from WoS  Provision of bibliometrics 11

12. Benefits for Research Management  Quick, reliable access to all research data via consolidation of systems  Improve quality, breadth, quantity of data  Monitor (and manage?) research performance internally  External returns and assessments  REF management tool  Improve the branding and marketing of research 12

13. Mechanisms  Steering Group established with top level champion (PVC R&I)  Corporate system  Multi-team priorities/specifications 13

14. Progress to date  Outputs and eprints  Research projects  PGR records  Individual Report

15. Phase 1: Library System  Purchased WoS (1900) and Scopus (1996) data  4 Data sets: WoS, Scopus, MyProfiles, eprints  Library Interface to de-duplicate and keep the ‘best’ record  Library takes responsibility for the record and locks it after checking  Data amendments direct from individual to Library: keeps data accurate  Checked 41,500 (2006-11)records in 18 months

16. Phase 2: Publications Downloading  2 ways to add an output to MyImpact: manually or by emails from WoS (Scopus records added in bi-annually)  Once identified, all outputs to be bibliographically checked by the Library  Implemented in October 2009

17. Phase 2: E-Prints integration  Facility to upload PDF full-text into MyImpact to feed through to E-Prints  Will be implemented as part of the next phase – October 2009  Increase the impact of Newcastle research via open access database

18. User View 18

19. Searching Database

20. Manual Adding

21. Change Request

22. User Claim

23. Timescale for claiming outputs

24. Library Filtering

25. Library View

26. Library Duplicate Checking

27. Future Phases: 2011  Transfer of web profiles to MyImpact  REF scoring and scenario modelling  Inclusion of citations and analyses  Support for promotions, PDR, CVs  Inclusion of teaching quality data

28. Challenges and Issues  Complex technology- project has overrun  Project management process did not work  Parallel systems in use were confusing  Some areas do not use the system – can the REF act as a carrot?  Anticipating what information will be required for the REF  ‘locking’ out academics from editing their own records – change of culture 28

29. What worked well  In-house development  Sold the researcher benefits before the management  Cross Service working  Phased delivery  Advocacy of eprints  Identified champions at academic unit level  High –level support from Executive – got in quick!  Telling everyone who would listen! 29