research_systems
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
research_systems [2018/09/23 10:15] admin |
research_systems [2018/12/14 06:24] 86.184.206.33 |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | Research Systems\\ | + | |
| - | This page (2017) and needs enhancement. Please feel free to edit this page. | + | |
| + | **Research Systems** \\ | ||
| + | This page (2018) and needs enhancement. Please feel free to edit this page. To see which system are employed by each UK He Institution to to the (overall) [[:he_systems_review|HE systems review]] page | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====== Institutional Repositories (IRs) ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Overview ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | From : Fixing the UK repository landscape. By Neil Jacobs Jisc. Open access briefing paper, 23.10.18 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Repositories in the UK today\\ | ||
| + | According to the global directory OpenDOAR5, there are 258 repositories in the UK, of which 180 hold research articles and, of these, 160 are institutionally-based (as opposed to being departmental or disciplinary). | ||
| + | |||
| + | According to the Universities UK 2017 Monitoring report , some 48% of articles with a UK author were openly available online other than on the publisher site, of which 15% were in institutional repositories, 13% in subject repositories, and 50% (likely illegally) on ResearchGate. The submission of items into institutional repositories is often mediated (or at least checked) by library staff, whereas that into subject repositories is usually direct by the author. While the REF policy has prompted many universities to increase the investment in their repositories, for others staffing for repository support remains rather low.\\ | ||
| + | Software\\ | ||
| + | Of the 160 institutional repositories, 27 use the DSpace open source software, 98 use the EPrints open source software, and 13 use Elsevier’s PURE product. A sizeable minority of those using open source software in fact pay for a hosted solution managed by a third party. Those with local installations are often running rather old software, perhaps because an accretion of local configurations makes it difficult to upgrade. | ||
| ====== A Tour of the Research Data Management (RDM) Service Space ====== | ====== A Tour of the Research Data Management (RDM) Service Space ====== | ||
| Line 11: | Line 26: | ||
| //"Research data management (RDM) has emerged as an area of keen interest in higher education, leading to considerable investment in services, resources and infrastructure to support researchers’ data management needs. This is the first in a series of reports by OCLC Research which examines the context, influences and choices higher education institutions face in building or acquiring RDM capacity—in other words, the infrastructure, services and other resources needed to support emerging data management practices. Our findings are derived from detailed case studies of four research universities, hailing from four distinct national contexts: the University of Edinburgh (UK), the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (US), Monash University (Australia) and Wageningen University & Research (the Netherlands). In this introductory report, we provide some brief background on the emergence of RDM as a focus for research support services within higher education; present a simple framework for navigating the contours of the RDM service space; describe the methodology we employed for assembling our findings and discuss the key elements of RDM capacity acquisition these findings address; and offer a preview of the next report in the series"// \\ | //"Research data management (RDM) has emerged as an area of keen interest in higher education, leading to considerable investment in services, resources and infrastructure to support researchers’ data management needs. This is the first in a series of reports by OCLC Research which examines the context, influences and choices higher education institutions face in building or acquiring RDM capacity—in other words, the infrastructure, services and other resources needed to support emerging data management practices. Our findings are derived from detailed case studies of four research universities, hailing from four distinct national contexts: the University of Edinburgh (UK), the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (US), Monash University (Australia) and Wageningen University & Research (the Netherlands). In this introductory report, we provide some brief background on the emergence of RDM as a focus for research support services within higher education; present a simple framework for navigating the contours of the RDM service space; describe the methodology we employed for assembling our findings and discuss the key elements of RDM capacity acquisition these findings address; and offer a preview of the next report in the series"// \\ | ||
| \\ | \\ | ||
| - | For a list of the Research Management Systems used in each UK Higher Education Institution see the [[:he_systems_review|Who uses what system page]]\\ | + | For a list of the Research Management Systems used in each UK Higher Education Institution see the [[:he_systems_review|Who uses what system page]] |
| ====== Research //Management// Systems in use in the UK ====== | ====== Research //Management// Systems in use in the UK ====== | ||
| Line 19: | Line 35: | ||
| [[http://converis.thomsonreuters.com/|Converis]] (Thompson)\\ | [[http://converis.thomsonreuters.com/|Converis]] (Thompson)\\ | ||
| [[http://www.phd-manager.co.uk/|PhD Manage]]r (Haplo)\\ | [[http://www.phd-manager.co.uk/|PhD Manage]]r (Haplo)\\ | ||
| - | [[http://research.worktribe.com/|Worktribe]]\\ | + | [[http://research.worktribe.com/|Worktribe]] |
| ====== Other kinds of 'Research' Systems ====== | ====== Other kinds of 'Research' Systems ====== | ||
research_systems.txt · Last modified: 2024/03/06 05:11 by paul
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC0 1.0 Universal
