UoL Library Blog

Develop, debate, innovate.

Posts Tagged ‘2011’

Top 10 LRA Items for December 2011

Posted by gazjjohnson on 4 January, 2012

Here are the most accessed articles on the LRA for the month of December 2011.

  1. The BIOMASS mission: Mapping global forest biomass to better understand the terrestrial carbon cycle (Le Toan, T. et al)
  2. The propagation of VHF and UHF radio waves over sea paths (Sim, Chow Yen Desmond)
  3. Social inclusion, the museum and the dynamics of sectoral change (Sandell, Richard)
  4. Financial Development, Economic Growth and Stock Market Volatility: Evidence from Nigeria and South Africa (Ndako, Umar Bida)
  5. Optimal Number of Response Categories in Rating Scales: Reliability, Validity, Discriminating Power, and Respondent Preferences (Preston, Carolyn C. et al)
  6. The List of Threatening Experiences: a subset of 12 life event categories with considerable long-term contextual threat (Brugha, Traolach S. et al)
  7. Measuring the efficiency of European airlines: an application of DEA and Tobit Analysis (Fethi, Meryem Duygun et al)
  8. The Introduction of Virtual Learning Environment e-Learning Technology at a Sixth Form College: A Case Study (Osadiya, Taye Timothy)
  9. Educational Leadership: an Islamic perspective (Shah, Saeeda J.A.)
  10. Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: ‘It is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work’ (Madge, Clare et al)

Posted in Leicester Research Archive, Open Access | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

LRA: Top research items for August 2011

Posted by gazjjohnson on 5 September, 2011

As always here’s the summary of the top accessed items on the LRA for the month of August 2011:

  1. Fault Tolerant Sliding Mode Control Schemes With Aerospace Applications (Alwi, Halim)

Posted in Leicester Research Archive | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Countries accessing the LRA (2009-2011)

Posted by gazjjohnson on 9 May, 2011

Following a conversation with a fellow repository manager on Friday about countries using our research, I did a bit of quick and dirty analysis on the LRA, taking a data range of 1/4/2009-30/4/2011.  Here’s the top 20 countries using us, and the percentage of the overall accesses they make up.

  1. United Kingdom (39.72%)
  2. United States (12.84%)
  3. India (3.13%)
  4. Germany (2.64%)
  5. Australia (2.41%)
  6. Canada (2.35%)
  7. China (2.23%)
  8. Italy (1.51%)
  9. France (1.48%)
  10. Malaysia (1.44%)
  11. Netherlands (1.29%)
  12. Japan (1.06%)
  13. Iran (1.05%)
  14. Spain (1.04%)
  15. Greece (0.94%)
  16. Turkey (0.89%)
  17. Hong Kong (0.82)%
  18. Ireland (0.82%)
  19. Indonesia (0.77%)
  20. Taiwan (0.75%)
  • The top 10 make up 69.7% of all accesses to the LRA mounted research over that time.
  • The top 20 make up 79.2% of all accesses to the LRA mounted research over that time.

I don’t know whether to be delighted or distressed that the bulk of accesses come from the UK.  It’s good that the research is getting read here, but so much depends these days on overseas researchers making use of the research we publish.  Other repository managers reading this – how does this compare to your own repositories? Similar? Completely different?

And for any Leicester folk reading this – are these the countries that we’d expect to be using our research?  Of course, we are always limited by the materials that academics send us, and I’m well aware there are many, many gaps in our collections that I’d be only too keen to fill!

Posted in Leicester Research Archive | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

JISC Information Environment Event April 2011

Posted by gazjjohnson on 8 April, 2011

Aston University Lakeside Conference venueHere are my notes and comments on the event I’m attended at the University of Aston as an invited speaker by the JISC on Thursday 7th April – resources from the event can be found here

Neil Jacobs from the JISC opened the day and gave it some context – taking us from the HE environment of 2009 and the days of the Digital Britain Report to 2011 and the current circumstances.  He detailed the various strands of the programme: Repositories, Preservation, Geospatial Data and infrastructure, Library Management Systems, Activity Data, Developer Community, Infrastructure for Resource Discovery, scholarly Communications, Rapid Innovation and Linked Data.

HE today is beginning to look to bibliometrics for research excellence and impact, which are fairly significant drivers.   Moves towards starting/supporting innovation and entrepreneurship need to be watched closely.  The event as a whole was aimed to share the highlights of learning from the various strands of the programme.

Session 1: Learning from Other Institutions

David Millard (University of Southampton) spoke first focussing on lessons learned from how educational repositories were not working .  They spoke to teachers -real teachers didn’t understand terminology or files from OERs, let alone working with digital resources even themselves.  Research repositories on the other hand give a real service to the researchers that they get (I might question that for some academics!). Looked to sharing sights (YouTube/SlideShare etc) which give teaching resources a home, have community and organisation – but it’s not through altruism for many people.  Developed software called EdShare, a post-learning object repository, that offered various advantages – not trying to force people to model their courses or materials in one particular way.  It also had light, non-restrictive metadata.  Tried to make the educational repository part of the living cycle.  Want BlackBoard to feed EdShare which feeds iTunesU as well.

Kamalsudhan Achuthan was up next (filling in at short notice)  talking about improving research information management, something close to my heart with the current local work towards implementing and integrating a CRIS.  The final report from the project can be found here.

William Nixon gave the next talk talking about embedding repositories into practice.  One of the outcomes of the project has been about  building the relationships between the repository and research office staff.  He noted that the future is embedding the repository within the institutional systems, although interoperability is not automatically easy.  The aim might well be to have an invisible repository moment, when it is seamless integrated into the whole.  The repository was used to gather a lot of the information for the min-REF that Glasgow ran, including impact and other metrics.  Embedding and integrating is about adding value, enabling reuse, reducing duplication and exploiting new opportunities.  Advocacy has evolved (as at Leicester) where it’s about working with the Research Office and other people across the campus; which I would say is a very good thing.  At the same time the project showed that there are different needs for the different disciplines.  He finished by suggesting that the job of a repository manager is moving into new, and exciting, territory.

Damian Steer closed the morning through talking about information architecture.  Interestingly he touched on data sources such as blogs and newspaper reports on the work; which would contribute towards demonstrating an impact for the REF.  Behind the scenes at Bristol they use linked data from the Semantic Web.

After lunch myself, Ben Showers from JISC and Nick Woolley (King’s College) talked about various resource and time saving activities.  I was presenting the highlights from my recent survey (my thanks to all those whom responded) rather than talking from personal experience!  You can access my slides here. Ben’s talk (Why you shouldn’t bother with advanced search) is also online.  While the session (which was repeated) was not exactly well attended, there was a spirited debate following the talks on both occasions.

Finally Margaret Coutts from the JISC Infrastructure and Resources Committee came on to deliver the keynote.  Among the comments she made, were that it is important top remember that research repositories are not solely for archiving for the REF, nor are teaching repositories solely for exploiting the content – they should both work in that area.  There is a need to develop life-cycle  management for the documents within them as well.  Academics are now more ready to come forward and expose all the extra effort they put into preparing journals – unpaid contributions and asking the questions – just what are publishers doing for us?  Will they challenge the publishers?  Uncertain as there is  desire not to damage peer review in the process.

The change in scholarly communications is a long game, and not one that will happen in the next few years, although there will be work in the right direction.  Work on LMS indicate that shared systems may well generate shared efficiencies and reduce costs.

One of the big growth areas in the coming years was suggested to be teaching and OERs, where platform rather than standard will be more important.  Likely there will be pressure for more sharing of these both within and without institutions, although there will be some items for local access as well as those for fully open access.  Digital Preservation is something that keeps falling off the edge.  We know what digital preservation is, but keeps being postponed because there are other more pressing things -but this is a time bomb.  We need to address this as a community sooner rather than later.

Urgency for solutions is going to increase.  Are there quick wins we can gain from the JISC projects, that can be put out to the sector.

Rachel Bruce then capped the day off by looking at the way ahead for JISC, which even though it has reduced funding is still charged with enabling innovation but at the same time ensuring that lessons learned and applications developed are able to be taken up by the LIS community.

Posted in Service Delivery, Technology & Devices, Wider profession | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Most used items Leicester Research Archive: Feb 2011

Posted by gazjjohnson on 7 March, 2011

Here are the most used items in the Leicester Research Repository, the gateway to the University of Leicester’s research publications, for February 2011.

  1. The Impact of Labour Turnover: Theory and Evidence from UK Micro-Data (Garino, Gaia et al) (2381/4441)
  2.  
  3. The propagation of VHF and UHF radio waves over sea paths (Sim, Chow Yen Desmond) (2381/7444)
  4. Writing up and presenting qualitative research in family planning and reproductive health care (Pitchforth, Emma et al) (2381/309)
  5.  
  6. Female Fandom in an English ‘Sports City’: A sociological study of female spectating and consumption around sport (Pope, Stacey Elizabeth) (2381/8343)
  7. Social inclusion, the museum and the dynamics of sectoral change (Sandell, Richard) (2381/52)
  8.  
  9. Thomas C. Schelling’s psychological decision theory: Introduction to a special issue (Colman, Andrew M.) (2381/476)
  10.  
  11. The costs of Activity-Based Management (Armstrong, Peter) (2381/3645)
  12.  
  13. Teaching presentation skills to undergraduates: Students’ evaluations of a workshop course. (Colman, Andrew M.) (2381/537)
  14.  
  15. Financial Development, Economic Growth and Stock Market Volatility: Evidence from Nigeria and South Africa (Ndako, Umar Bida) (2381/8924)
  16.  
  17. Saint Christopher Wall Paintings in English and Welsh Churches, c.1250-c.1500 (Pridgeon , Eleanor Elizabeth) (2381/7964)

In terms of the countries using the LRA, there was no overall change in the top 10 just a bit of jockying for position.

  1. United Kingdom
  2. United States
  3. India
  4. Canada
  5. Germany
  6. China
  7. Malaysia
  8. France
  9. Australia
  10. Italy

Posted in Leicester Research Archive, Open Access, Research Support | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

RSP Winter School: Day 3

Posted by gazjjohnson on 14 February, 2011

You can read about Day 1 or Day 2 here.

See, it wasn't worth being there on a day like thisThe third and final day dawned a little grey, but there was little time to admire the scenery as we had to kick off before 9am in order to fit everything in.  The first session was from Ruth Murray-Wedster from Lucidus Consulting .  Ruth used to work for Intute, which was very noticeable as about half her opening section seemed to be an advert for the late and somewhat lamented service.  Thankfully the real meat of the session was a workshop, in small groups again, looking at metrics/KPIs and repositories.  As someone who keeps a fair amount of these (and whom will be working on them a lot this week) I was quite interested to see what other people are doing in this area.  In the workshop we looked at metrics we had been asked to keep by our stakeholders, those we felt offered an actual representative view of the repository activity and the challenges that prevent us from gathering some of these.

I suggested I would love to know how far people read through items in my repository, that something has been downloaded 500 times is one thing – but how far did they read? This is a stat that YouTube provides for your videos on the site, and is an excellent way to discover just how many of your viewers have engaged with the material.  In the same way the base metric of downloads tells me nothing about the interaction with the scholarly research; although short of locking the PDFs down to view only mode or the like on the LRA I’m unaware of how we’d measure this one.

I had a very interesting side discussion with Paul Stainthorp and Theo Andrews about our own use of Google Analytics, and just how deep we each delved (or didn’t) into the schmorgesborg of data that this provides.  Interestingly in many aspects each of our respective repositories seems to score similar values for, although the devil is very much in the details.  Our group agreed that many of the metrics that are demanded of us (last year’s SCONUL audit came in for particular criticism for being somewhat poorly thought out) are not especially representative of the level of impact or activity w.r.t. repositories; no doubt due to most of them being requested by those who were not familiar with the repository world’s working.  A definite need for those of us managing these resources to engage with these people more, or perhaps a lobbying/information role for both the RSP and UKCoRR.

After a break (and an advert for UKCoRR) we had the final two sessions of the morning.  Personally I would have reversed the order of these sessions as the final one from Amanda Hodgson on the Research Communications Strategy work from the CRC offered little content I’d not already gleaned from their website.  Perhaps when their work is more advanced this session might have more to offer.  However, the preceding session from Miggie Pickton (Northampton) on her project researching researchers through their data was more engaging.  Miggie even engaged us in a small workshop element as we looked at our own experiences, and tied in nicely to the sessions the previous day from Max and Mark.  it also tied into elements of digital preservation and curation, a topic no one talk had tackled but a recurrent theme in many.

Jackie brings the Winter School to a closeAnd so the Winter School came to a close.  It had been a highly valuable three days, in what can only be described as a first class venue (squeaking door aside), and a credit to Jackie and her team for putting it on.  My thanks to all the speakers and organisers!  At the very least I’ve taken away the thought that me and my team face a lot of the same challenges as other repository teams, even where their exact circumstances and working environments are different.  That alone brings a certain level of comfort.

What’s next? Well I’m hoping to read through the slides from the various speakers over the coming days again and perhaps pick up on one or two elements that I only half caught at the time, or that perhaps might spur me and my team on in our work in the coming year.

Posted in Leicester Research Archive, Open Access | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »