21/07/11 NOTE THERE MIGHT BE THINGS MISSING FROM THIS SPEC e.g. on doing a gap analysis against our internal data stores I found patent is missing from the dropdown list but should be there. RCUK have started testing and I expect an updated spec and definitions will be available thereafter.
I’ve spent some time in the last few days working through the latest information I have for the specification to see how prepared we are for this at the University of Glasgow and what work might be involved.
I understand an update spec and timeframe will be available to us soon.
It is clear to me that there will be considerable resource requirements for Research Organisations including those that are lucky enough to already hold a lot of the data on core systems already or at the other end of the spectrum where the RO may not want to provide data from core systems but will need to support academics entering data direct to the RCUK system.
There still seems to be considerable overlap between further funding, collaboration and IP which may cause confusion and cost time. However I am hoping where there is an overlap we can present once (.e.g. in further funding).
There are some requirements that suggest use of standard lists e.g. organisation codes for funders/collaborators frm a standard JeS list, country codes from ONS list. Standardisation is good however in the short to medium term I suspect many Research Organisations have thier own – or different standard – code structures for these so again this may be a bit problematic.
We also have concerns about resource requirements for checking data. I understand that RCUK wish to receive data that is suitable for the public domain. However we think that the University of Glasgow will have to apply some specialist checking to certain data e.g.
Bio/Medical e.g. cell lines, antibodies
Electronic e.g. data set, algorithm
Physical e.g. new molecule, prototype
The other issue we have outstanding is Data Protection/confidentiality around staff development and wether it is appropriate for staff to be asked to comment on other staff as part of the return.
Having said all this I am expecting that the approach will be ‘supply what you can’ or perhaps focus on some key elements e.g. publications initially to allow time to set up local environments.
Register your interest now for this forthcoming event at the University of Glasgow. The event will include an overview of ePrints functionality that we have adapted for impact and output reporting using our recent internal miniREF exercise as a testbed.
There is no cost to attendees from HE and FE institutions and affiliated organisations.
From this I understand that there will be at least 3 different sets of questions about Research Council awards rather than one standard set of metrics for all Research Councils. Whilst I recognise that some subjects will have different specialist questions I am not convinced separating them out is the most useful approach. Like other metrics exercises I think ignoring questions where they are irrelevant (or indeed having the system ignore them for you) might be an option.
I am sure that RCUK will provide a schema to allow us to upload data directly from our systems rather than data having to be uploaded direct to the RCUK systems with the risk that this might differ to what HEI’s hold. I am anxious to hear more about this so that we can manage the requirements here at Glasgow.
Seems it may be time consuming with a greater potential for error and confusion than one standard questionnaire.
Of course our friends at RCUK may come up with some easy fixes so here’s hoping!
What do others think? Please do comment in the box below and take part in this quick poll.