Enhancing Research Information Systems for European Collaboration

1. JOINT EUROPEAN RESEARCH INFORMATION SYSTEM (RIS) Activities and Recommendations of an ESF - EUROHORCS Working Group Dr. Alexis – Michel Mugabushaka, Science Officer Corporate Science Policy (ESF) EuroCris 2008, 5-7 June 2008, Maribor, Slovenia

2. Content • ESF and EUROHORCS • Background of the initiative • ESF – EUROHORCS Working Group • Overview of the RIS of EUROHORCS MOs • Added value of a joint RIS • Models for a joint RIS • Recommendations of the WG The views expressed in this presentation are – to great extent - those of the ESF-EUROHORCS Working Group (especially the recommendations) and partly my own. They do not necessarily reflect neither the views nor the policies of the European Science Foundation, its member organizations or EUROHORCS

3. ESF – I 78 MOs in 30 countries Research funding organisations Research performing organisations Academies

4. Mission The ESF provides a common platform for its Member Organisations in order to: Advance European research Explore new directions for research at the European level Through its activities, the ESF serves the needs of the European research community in a global context ESF – II • Values • Excellence • Openness • Responsiveness • Pan European • Ethical awareness and human values

5. ESF – III 1974 2000 2006 • Budget: 340 k€ 20 Mio € 44 Mio € • Staff: 9 51 128 • Offices in Strasbourg and Brussels (COST)

6. EUROHORCS • European Heads of Research Councils • Heads of public Research Funding Organisations (RFOs) and Research Performing Organisations (RPOs) in Europe • Established in 1992 • Currently 41 Organisations

7. EUROHORCS – Aims and Objectives • To represent the interest of research nationally and internationally • To give recognition to excellence and to support frontier research of the highest quality • To act as an inter-council platform for discussion and joint activities • To promote international collaboration • To provide research policy advice in Europe

8. Background of the RIS initiative • Traditionally, research organizations reported to their governing bodies through annual reports and other dedicated publications recording their activities (and later by listing the projects on their internet pages) • More and more member organizations of EUROHORCS/ESF have developed or are developing complex Information systems which provide, in real time, information on funded projects (research funding agencies) and performed projects (research performing organizations) • An idea, a growing sense that, in the context of the increasing European cooperation (e.g. cross-border research funding….) such system might have a potential to facilitate the cooperation; a potential under- or not utilized

9. EUROHORCS involvement in RIS – preparation of this project EuroHORCS decides to “look into the possibility of linking up the databases of National Research Councils” 10 .06.2006 11 .10.2006 Proof of Principle by UNICRIS (on behalf of EuroCRIS)Workshop, den Haag at NWO (EuroHORCS Secretariat) and recommendation to continue the project EuroHORCS asks ESF to set up a Working Group to draft aproject outline 08.12.2006 12.02 .2007 First draft of the project outline to the EuroHORCS Steering and Management Committee Tasks of the Working Group clearly defined and Start of the activities

10. Tasks of the Working Group Overview of RIS Make an overview of existing Research Information Systems (in EUROHORCS Member Organisations) Added value Assess the added value of a joint RIS Models Identify appropriate models of a joint RIS Recommendations Make recommendations to EUROHORCS on how to proceed further

11. Working Group Invited: organisations which took part in the NWO Workshop Members of the Working Group Gerry Lawson, RCUK Jesper Aven, SRC (till August 2007) Jürgen Güdler, DFG Ruud Strijp, NWO Neil Williams, ESF (Chair) Alexis-Michel Mugabushaka, ESF (Coordinator)

12. Results Overview of RIS Make an overview of existing Research Information Systems (of EUROHORCS Member Organisations) Added value Models Recommendations

13. Questionnaire to EuroHORCS Member Organisations (41 organisations) Internet-research Field phase Questionnaire sent 30 April 2007 to EuroHORCS members with deadline 15 May 2007 Reminder 23 May 2007 (and phone calls) Replies + Internet search Information about RIS in 26 Organisations (about 2/3 of the group targeted) Approach

14. 41 organizations contacted 26 replies 3 no RIS 6 planning a RIS 17 RIS

15. RIS – Internet access

16. Comparing the RIS – major dimensions Other Dimensions Autonomy Language (Inteface and content) • Search modalities • Datamodel • CERIF • Other • Technical Platform • Database system content The RIS Systems of euroHORCS Organisations share basic common features, but a close look shows that they are far from convergent

17. Comparing the RIS : Autonomy • Stand alone RIS* • - Information from one Organisation • - Dedicated System to provide information on funded projects • - Embedded in a wider Research Information Portal • - National Portal - together with other organisations • The System of the Belgian FWO in Belgium is part of IWETO (research System for Flanders) • The RIS of the Estonian Science Foundation are a subset of the National Research Portal (ETIS) • SICRIS, the RIS of the Slovenian Research Agency aims to be a national Research Information Portal (contains EC FP Projects and records also data from other all research organisations in Slovenia) * By Stand alone, a difference can be made between RIS embedded in operational information Systems and separate RIS

18. Tasks of the Working Group Overview of RIS Added value Assess the added value of a joint RIS Models Recommendations

19. ADDED VALUE of a joint RIS • CAVEATS : • The Task of the WG was not to imagine a radically new system but a LINKING OF EXISTISTING RIS (Nemo dat quod non habet, freely translated ... What you do not have, you can’t give) • The Focus: who needs a joint System ? What for ? And not “can it be technically built ?” Not: Just build it, they will come !

20. ADDED VALUE of a joint RIS „Trust me ! this dog won‘t hunt“ (as they say in the deep South of US) „A joint RIS will help avoid duplication and fragmentation“ „A joint RIS will advance the European Research Area and help deliver the Lisbon Agenda“ YES, but HOW ?

21. ADDED VALUE of a joint RIS • The case for a joint RIS has not been convincingly established in the preparatory phase (my opinion:The discussion emerged later] • Very few (if at all) RIS track systematically the usage and have little insight on who the users are (result of the survey of the WG) • Any benefit of a joint RIS builds on features of EXISTING Sytems. • Examples of limits • (1) Potential use in search for Refereers (for Peer Review ) • Only possible if the systems other information (e.g. Principal investigators publications) • Yes, this feature can be built, but most RIS do not have it currently (yet) • (2) Use in statistics/evaluation: the current data quality likely to be a problem

22. ADDED VALUE – the assessment of the WG The main benefit of a joint system is to make maximal use of information currently made available on the web, but scattered in a range of systems and formats. The joint system would allow multinational search of different systems and can be used alongside other well established systems such as bibliometric databases, Google and Google scholar, etc … Its unique feature is that it will provide a single point of entry to information about projects (and related researchers and organizations) which have successfully undergone a competitive selection through peer review.

23. ADDED VALUE – potential users • Researchers who would like to find others working in similar fields, or institutions with a strong research portfolio in a specific field or topic (In addition to other means they use such as publications, scientific conferences and EC databases). • Administrators from research funding agencies that wish to compare their research portfolios with those of other organisations. This can help to identify and compare research profiles of researchers, institutions and even countries in specific fields; to identify “hot topics” and gaps; and provide input in discussions on potential European collaborative programmes. With a common classification system, it can also be used to map resources (funding, number of researchers …) devoted to different research areas in different countries. • Administrators from research funding agencies can also use this system to find experts on a given topic. This information can be used (in combination with other sources of information) to identify referees or to see any potential conflict of interest (collaboration in a project, similar research topics likely to be a source of competition). • Journalists and the general public to identify experts on a given topic across Europe.

24. Tasks of the Working Group Overview of RIS Added value Models Identify appropriate models of a joint RIS Recommendations

25. Three Models for a Joint RIS Central model Web crawling Distributed model

26. Three Models for a Joint RIS In the Web Crawling Model, a crawler would be used to interrogate individual research information systems, and retrieve information on given “search words”. Administrators of national systems would need to make their information accessible to such a crawler

27. Three Models for a Joint RIS In the Central Database Model, data from different systems would be transferred periodically to a central database (either by manual batch-transfer or via automatic machine-to-machine upload).

28. Three Models for a Joint RIS In the Distributed Model, access to the data held in different systems is provided by a central hub (or node) which sends structured queries to the contributing databases in each country or institution and formats the output information to give an integrated report. Copies of the datasets would not be maintained centrally.

29. Three Models for a Joint RIS WG Model of choice

30. Tasks of the Working Group Overview of RIS Added value Models Recommendations Make recommendations to EUROHORCS on how to proceed further

31. Tasks of the Working Group

32. Tasks of the Working Group

33. EUROHORCS Decision and Future Steps In its Steering Committee Meeting on 29 January 2008 (Zürich) and General Assembly on 18 April (Istanbul) , EUROHORCS went along with recommendation #2 (more or less) EUROHORCS will not continue with the Linking of the RIS initiative The Working Group is preparing a report of its activities (to include the results of the survey, the recommendations etc …) after which it will terminate its activities. ESF –EUROCRIS Memorandum of Understanding to formalize the existing cooperation and pave the way for collaboration in exchange of information / experiences on CRIS of ESF Members

34. Outlook • EUROCRIS is a uniquely placed player to advance debates on information exchange and develop standards/formats for the interoperability of their research information systems. • EUROCRIS – ESF MoU will ensure that no parallel structures are created as existing EUROCRIS meetings, conferences , working groups …. suit the needs of ESF MOs wishing to exchange information on their CRIS. • (2) EUROHORCS request : how can CRIS be used in the management of Intellectual property rights. • Perhaps ESF can work with CERIF Task force to draft a recommendation for a generic data collection/exchange format.

35. Lessons learnt A joint System without convergence of the underlying systems makes little sense Efforts should be put in exchange of information, experiences to achieve a convergence – perhaps here the whole is the sum of its parts Case for a Joint System should be put before its technical implementation and clearly and convincingly established

36. Thank you for your attention amugabushaka@esf.org