Research Funders’ Policy and Practice

1. Research Funders’ Policy and Practice Michael Jubb Research Information Network DCC Conference, Glasgow 22 November 2006

2. Rationale for the RIN Study • UK research funders investing £22bn a year in R&D • Increasing realisation that information resources are the principal products of that investment • Changes in technology are highlighting the need to focus attention on some of the key implications of that • Aim to provide a comparative overview of policy and practice of major UK funders in managing the information outputs they have funded • Description of policies and practice • Similarities and differences • Explanations of differences • Snapshot precursor to more detailed work on key issues identified as a result of the study • Empirical study, without recommendations

3. How the Study was Done • Wide-scale literature review, and interviews with • Research Councils • Seven universities from across the HE sector • Government Departments • Research Charities • Major R&D companies • Two main sets of lenses through which key issues were identified • The broad policies of each group of funders • Policy and practice for different kinds of information outputs

4. Policy Context • Shared by most funders • Rising volume and variety of research information outputs • Growing emphasis on impact and communication of research results, knowledge transfer, and engagement with society • Desire to make information outputs more readily accessible • Changing roles of key players in scholarly communications system • Reluctance to dictate to researchers • Developing understanding of technological opportunities and also challenges • Differences • Different research communities with varied cultures and practices • Differential emphasis on audiences beyond the research community

5. Published Outputs • The predominant focus of attention in the recent past for most funders • Policy objective for many funders is to make it easy for anyone interested in journal articles to gain access to them • Research Councils and Wellcome Trust policies requiring deposit in repositories not yet matched by other funders, including universities • Only Wellcome has a clear policy to support pay-to-publish • Research Council and university policies lack clarity • Government Departments against providing support • Companies have not thought about it • Some universities keen to include books in their repositories, but practical problems

6. Unpublished Outputs: Data • Access and re-use of data of increasing importance in research process • NSF Report on long-lived data • OECD Principles and Guidelines • Concerns that lack of co-ordinated policies is putting important datasets at risk • No co-ordinated policy among Research Councils • AHRC, CCLRC, ESRC and NERC support data centres • BBSRC and MRC developing policies • Universities tending to leave management of datasets to researchers themselves and to their departments • Government Departments and companies cede to others responsibility for data created with their funding

7. Other Unpublished Outputs • Theses now being addressed through the EThoS project; universities in the driving seat • Grey literature • variations in perceived value • important for funders who emphasise influence on practitioners and policy-makers • dilemmas for universities • importance of the web-archiving role of the BL

8. Repositories • Caution from Research Councils and Wellcome on role of institutional repositories • Universities stimulated to develop repositories by commitment from librarians, by funding from JISC, and by RCUK statement • But motivations vary • showcase for university and its research • improved efficiency of research and scholarly communications • Policy issues • Scope of repository content • Requirement or encouragement to deposit • Mechanisms for deposit • Relationships with subject-based repositories • Linkages with other information systems • Costs and how they are to be met in the long term • Impact on journal subscriptions?

9. Curation, Metadata and Interoperability • No co-ordinated policies across Research Councils • guidance from AHDS, ESDS, NERC data centres • no prescribed standards for repositories • Universities look to others for guidance; and unclear about the curation and preservation role of repositories • Wellcome addressing the issues through UK PubMed • Government Departments and companies pass the responsibilities on to others

10. Intellectual Property • Potential for tension between policy aims • Widespread and rapid dissemination for public good • Exploitation of IP • But general view that managing IP does not often conflict with providing access to research outputs • Universities in a pivotal position • Research Councils (except for research in their institutes) pass responsibility to universities • Government Departments increasingly seeking partnership agreements • Companies concerned at risk of patenting by others; and at universities’ unrealistic expectations

11. Conclusions • Need for greater clarity about • policy objectives • roles and responsibilities of funders and other agents • Need for more co-ordination of policy and practice • Work to be done on costs and benefits • Need for better understanding of the institutional, cultural, ethical and funding contexts within which researchers create and use information

12. Comments welcome Michael Jubb michael.jubb@rin.ac.uk www.rin.ac.uk