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/
------------------------------------------------------------
|