Research Assessment Reform, Non-Traditional Research Outputs, and Digital Repositories: An Analysis of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) Signatories in the United Kingdom
{"title":"Research Assessment Reform, Non-Traditional Research Outputs, and Digital Repositories: An Analysis of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) Signatories in the United Kingdom","authors":"C. Hurrell","doi":"10.18438/eblip30407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective – The goal of this study was to better understand to what extent digital repositories at academic libraries are active in promoting the collection of non-traditional research outputs. To achieve this goal, the researcher examined the digital repositories of universities in the United Kingdom who are signatories of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which recommends broadening the range of research outputs included in assessment exercises.\nMethods – The researcher developed a list of 77 universities in the UK who are signatories to DORA and have institutional repositories. Using this list, the researcher consulted the public websites of these institutions using a structured protocol and collected data to 1) characterize the types of outputs collected by research repositories at DORA-signatory institutions and their ability to provide measures of potential impact, and 2) assess whether university library websites promote repositories as a venue for hosting non-traditional research outputs. Finally, the researcher surveyed repository managers to understand the nature of their involvement with supporting the aims of DORA on their campuses.\nResults – The analysis found that almost all (96%) of the 77 repositories reviewed contained a variety of non-traditional research outputs, although the proportion of these outputs was small compared to traditional outputs. Of these 77 repositories, 82% featured usage metrics of some kind. Most (67%) of the same repositories, however, were not minting persistent identifiers for items. Of the universities in this sample, 53% also maintained a standalone data repository. Of these data repositories, 90% featured persistent identifiers, and all of them featured metrics of some kind. In a review of university library websites promoting the use of repositories, 47% of websites mentioned non-traditional research outputs. In response to survey questions, repository managers reported that the library and the unit responsible for the repository were involved in implementing DORA, and managers perceived it to be influential on their campus.\nConclusion – Repositories in this sample are relatively well positioned to support the collection and promotion of non-traditional research outputs. However, despite this positioning, and repository managers’ belief that realizing the goals of DORA is important, most libraries in this sample do not appear to be actively collecting non-traditional outputs, although they are active in other areas to promote research assessment reform.","PeriodicalId":45227,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30407","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective – The goal of this study was to better understand to what extent digital repositories at academic libraries are active in promoting the collection of non-traditional research outputs. To achieve this goal, the researcher examined the digital repositories of universities in the United Kingdom who are signatories of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which recommends broadening the range of research outputs included in assessment exercises.
Methods – The researcher developed a list of 77 universities in the UK who are signatories to DORA and have institutional repositories. Using this list, the researcher consulted the public websites of these institutions using a structured protocol and collected data to 1) characterize the types of outputs collected by research repositories at DORA-signatory institutions and their ability to provide measures of potential impact, and 2) assess whether university library websites promote repositories as a venue for hosting non-traditional research outputs. Finally, the researcher surveyed repository managers to understand the nature of their involvement with supporting the aims of DORA on their campuses.
Results – The analysis found that almost all (96%) of the 77 repositories reviewed contained a variety of non-traditional research outputs, although the proportion of these outputs was small compared to traditional outputs. Of these 77 repositories, 82% featured usage metrics of some kind. Most (67%) of the same repositories, however, were not minting persistent identifiers for items. Of the universities in this sample, 53% also maintained a standalone data repository. Of these data repositories, 90% featured persistent identifiers, and all of them featured metrics of some kind. In a review of university library websites promoting the use of repositories, 47% of websites mentioned non-traditional research outputs. In response to survey questions, repository managers reported that the library and the unit responsible for the repository were involved in implementing DORA, and managers perceived it to be influential on their campus.
Conclusion – Repositories in this sample are relatively well positioned to support the collection and promotion of non-traditional research outputs. However, despite this positioning, and repository managers’ belief that realizing the goals of DORA is important, most libraries in this sample do not appear to be actively collecting non-traditional outputs, although they are active in other areas to promote research assessment reform.
目的--本研究的目的是更好地了解学术图书馆的数字资源库在多大程度上积极促进了非传统研究成果的收集。为了实现这一目标,研究人员考察了英国签署了《研究评估宣言》(DORA)的大学的数字资源库,该宣言建议扩大评估工作中研究成果的范围。方法 - 研究人员编制了一份英国 77 所签署了 DORA 并拥有机构资源库的大学名单。利用这份名单,研究人员采用结构化协议咨询了这些机构的公共网站,并收集了以下数据:1)描述 DORA 签约机构的研究资料库所收集的产出类型及其提供潜在影响力衡量标准的能力;2)评估大学图书馆网站是否将资料库宣传为托管非传统研究产出的场所。最后,研究人员对资料库管理人员进行了调查,以了解他们参与支持其校园内 DORA 目标的性质。结果 - 分析发现,在所审查的 77 个资料库中,几乎所有资料库(96%)都包含各种非传统研究成果,尽管与传统成果相比,这些成果所占比例较小。在这 77 个资料库中,82% 的资料库采用了某种使用指标。不过,这些资源库中的大多数(67%)都没有为项目创建持久性标识符。在样本中,53% 的大学还拥有独立的数据存储库。在这些数据储存库中,90%都有持久性标识符,而且所有储存库都有某种指标。在对推广使用资源库的大学图书馆网站的审查中,47% 的网站提到了非传统研究成果。在回答调查问题时,资源库管理人员表示,图书馆和负责资源库的单位参与了 DORA 的实施,管理人员认为 DORA 在他们的校园中很有影响力。然而,尽管有这样的定位,而且资源库管理者认为实现 DORA 的目标非常重要,但样本中的大多数图书馆似乎并没有积极收集非传统成果,尽管他们在其他领域积极推动研究评估改革。