Yes, I agree! But I was cautious because I know that others see a
functional divide that we'd tend to think is closing.
Talat
On 22/06/2010 16:00, David Kane wrote:
> Thanks Talat,
>
> I think that it stands to reason that each shall develop the
> functionality of the other. It is much more likely in the near term
> for CRISs to start offering archiving functionality. It just makes
> sense to me. If I were a research director, would I not want to
> manage one system rather than two? I see the repository functionality
> becoming obsolete/subsumed into the CRIS.
>
> For the large number of institutions that do not yet have a CRIS, some
> kind of push in the direction of CERIF-compliance from the main
> repository developers would seem to be essential for them to hold
> their own. I realise that it would need funding.
>
> David.
>
> On 22 June 2010 15:21, Talat Chaudhri<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I've seen two broad opinions on this:
>>
>> (1) CRISs and repositories offer different yet related functionality, and
>> are thus complementary. (Clearly, not all information in a CRIS that is used
>> to manage research from project inception to publication and other outputs
>> needs to represent the institution in the public-facing repository, and some
>> might be inappropriate or sensitive in some cases: commonly so in the case
>> of financial and staffing information, personal details and so on, that
>> would be kept for internal purposes.)
>>
>> (2) CRIS systems could/should be able to offer granular control over what
>> the public sees. Thus they effectively can or could incorporate a repository
>> already, hiding all of the other information that should not be displayed on
>> the Web. This is a more integrated approach than the previous one, and
>> perhaps a more "ideal" approach.
>>
>> I'd suggest that an institution that already has a working repository will
>> naturally have a different perspective to one that has not, since the CRIS
>> debate is comparatively newer than the repository question. All of these are
>> specialist content management systems of one kind or another, in this case
>> limited to publications but elsewhere addressing the needs of other types of
>> resources too. It very much depends, from a purely practical perspective, on
>> what systems are already being maintained, and on the costs involved.
>>
>> One ultimately needs to look at the needs of the institution in question, as
>> they serve different parts of the sector and correspondingly have certain
>> differences in terms of managing funding and research. Ultimately, however,
>> the same overall processes are occurring everywhere. There are a number of
>> valid ways that systems can be usefully put in place to support these in
>> practice. The point has already been made by Stevan and Anna that what CRIS
>> systems do for research should not replace a policy/strategy approach on the
>> part of individual institutions in making sure that their research outputs
>> are provided to the public who fund them. This is what funding bodies
>> increasingly ask for, and is therefore what institutions will need to
>> provide, irrespective of the approach chosen.
>>
>>
>> Talat
>>
>> On 22/06/2010 14:02, David Kane wrote:
>>
>>> If we ourselves are unclear as to the relative merits of CRISs and/or
>>> OA repositories, then it is likely that university research
>>> departments may be the same.
>>>
>>> I can see a time when the functionality of the OA repository will be
>>> offered by CRIS vendors, managed by the research offices in all
>>> universities.
>>>
>>> Am I wrong?
>>>
>>> David.
>>>
>>> On 22 June 2010 13:05, Robin Beecroft<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why CRIS value "as opposed to an OA policy"? Surely the most
>>>>> telling figure will be CRIS value *in conjunction with an OA policy* (as
>>>>> Keith Jeffery has been advocating for years)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I did not mean 'opposed' in the sense of 'either/or'...
>>>> I meant to ask about the relative value. If the consensus is that the two
>>>> are equally valuable and equally important, that is instructive. If the
>>>> opinion is that one is not really important if it comes without the
>>>> other,
>>>> or one will have a very significant impact with or without the other,
>>>> that
>>>> is also interesting. I am interested if the community feels that one is
>>>> more
>>>> crucial than the other. I do not see them as being in opposition.
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> ——————–
>>>> Robin Beecroft – Research Communications Consultant
>>>> www.linkedin.com/in/robinbeecroft
>>>>
>>>> Searchlighter – enlightened thinking on information environments
>>>> www.searchlighter.org
>>>>
>>>> 17 Nicholas Road, Bristol BS5 0LX, UK.
>>>> Tel/Fax: +44 (0)117 902 4506. Skype: searchlighter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22 June 2010 12:28, Anna Clements<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely, Stevan .. the two are not in opposition but need to work
>>>>> together .. the CRIS puts the content in the IR in a richer context.
>>>>>
>>>>> As can be demonstrated by our own setup in St Andrews .. we've had the
>>>>> link between CRIS and OAR for several years .. but without a push from
>>>>> Senior Management [whether mandate, resource, or whatever] have seen
>>>>> little
>>>>> full text content [although over 17000 bib only records].
>>>>> That is now changing .. both because of funder mandates but also from
>>>>> the
>>>>> ground up as academics begin to see their peers elsewhere quoting
>>>>> download
>>>>> stats etc for their papers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anna
>>>>>
>>>>> Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Robin Beecroft wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anna poses an interesting issue with regard to Denmark's place at the
>>>>>>> tip of
>>>>>>> the citation league.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=41
>>>>>>> 2083
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anybody have any thoughts concerning the relative value of a CRIS
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> opposed to an OA policy with regard gaining a high impact rating for
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> institution's research?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why CRIS value "as opposed to an OA policy"? Surely the most telling
>>>>>> figure will be CRIS value *in conjunction with an OA policy* (as Keith
>>>>>> Jeffery has been advocating for years).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stevan Harnad
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ——————–
>>>>>>> Robin Beecroft – Research Communications Consultant
>>>>>>> www.linkedin.com/in/robinbeecroft
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Searchlighter – enlightened thinking on information environments
>>>>>>> www.searchlighter.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 17 Nicholas Road, Bristol BS5 0LX, UK.
>>>>>>> Tel/Fax: +44 (0)117 902 4506. Skype: searchlighter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 June 2010 08:59, Anna Clements<akc -- st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Has anyone else seen this week's THE with a league table for
>>>>>>> most cited nations [based on TR Data]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=41
>>>>>>> 2083
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure what all the factors are but I do find it very
>>>>>>> interesting that Denmark tops the rankings but, as we heard at
>>>>>>> the euroCRIS conference at beginning of the month Denmark has
>>>>>>> only recently agreed a national strategy on OA .. although they
>>>>>>> have had a CRIS [Pure] at their Institutions for several years
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anna
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> Anna Clements
>>>>>>> Project Manager and University Data Architect
>>>>>>> University of St Andrews
>>>>>>> Business Improvements
>>>>>>> Butts Wynd Building
>>>>>>> St Andrews
>>>>>>> Fife KY16 9AD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> akc -- st-andrews.ac.uk
>>>>>>> 01334 462761
>>>>>>> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/business-improvements
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Anna Clements
>>>>> Project Manager and University Data Architect
>>>>> University of St Andrews
>>>>> Business Improvements
>>>>> Butts Wynd Building
>>>>> St Andrews
>>>>> Fife KY16 9AD
>>>>>
>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>> 01334 462761
>>>>> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/business-improvements
>>>>>
>>>>> The University of St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland : No
>>>>> SC013532
>>>>> The University of St Andrews is committed to sustainable practices and
>>>>> the
>>>>> preservation of the environment ñ please do not print this email unless
>>>>> absolutely necessary!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Dr Talat Chaudhri
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Research Officer
>> UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, Great Britain
>> Telephone: +44 (0)1225 385105 Fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
>> E-mail: [log in to unmask] Skype: talat.chaudhri
>> Web: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/t.chaudhri/
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Dr Talat Chaudhri
------------------------------------------------------------
Research Officer
UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, Great Britain
Telephone: +44 (0)1225 385105 Fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
E-mail: [log in to unmask] Skype: talat.chaudhri
Web: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/t.chaudhri/
------------------------------------------------------------
|