On 19 February, European librarians from eight OCLC Research Library Partnership institutions came together at the University of Edinburgh to discuss scholarly communications challenges, including research data management (RDM), research information management (RIM), and persistent identifiers (PIDs), using three recent OCLC Research projects to focus our discussions:
- The Realities of Research Data Management
- Research Information Management: Defining RIM and the Role of the Library
- Convenience and Compliance: Case Studies on Persistent Identifiers in European Research Information Management
This half-day workshop was hosted in conjunction with the two-day OCLC EMEA Regional Council meeting and followed a format similar to a November 2017 North American event held for RLP partners in Baltimore. While research libraries on both sides of the Atlantic are responding to needs to steward the evolving scholarly record through the development of RDM services, the collection of research metadata to better understand institutional scholarship, and support for persistent identifiers, our European partner institutions are responding to much stronger external drivers requiring action, particularly the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF).
This translates into near-universal adoption of research information management among European institutions as well as greater engagement with persistent identifiers, especially ORCID. While there was no doubt among European participants that the library is a valued stakeholder in scholarly communications workflows, there was also palpable frustration with the clumsy workflows, time-intensive manual metadata validation, and difficulties of scaling metadata collection.
Systems and processes have developed in an uncoordinated fashion, in response to evolving policies, and local institutional systems are incompatible with systems like the Research Councils UK’s research impact assessment platform, requiring researchers to repeatedly rekey the same information. While libraries understand that researchers should be expected to enter the data once, and then reuse it in multiple platforms, this is far from reality. Libraries find themselves in the unenviable—and unsustainable—position of trying to collect, validate, and make available publications information to support institutional reporting for the REF, and librarians shared concerns about researchers beginning to view the library as an instrument of institutional compliance. And libraries herculean efforts to manually validate and enter metadata on behalf of researchers may actually be removing some of the pressures that could be helping PIDs and other scalable solutions to mature. We half-jokingly discussed how (maybe?) the scholarly communications landscape has reached a state of “peak messiness.”
When asked what they would change about their processes if they could, one university librarian responded by saying, “We would start over.”
Even though we all shared concerns for the unintended consequences of external mandates, the lack of coordination between services and systems, and the workflow challenges for libraries, we could also articulate some hopes for the future.
- Librarians were sanguine about the potential of persistent identifiers to improve workflows and metadata.
- As ORCID adoption grows, and it becomes more widely embedded in publication—and especially, funder—workflows, it is seen as a way to help ensure quality metadata—both from external harvesting sources like Web of Science and Scopus, but also, hopefully, from the ORCID registry itself. Future research at St Andrews, supported by an OCLC/ALISE grant, will examine researcher perspectives and provide the community with insights into the direct benefits of ORCID use by researchers.
- While external funders usually encourage use of ORCID identifiers by researchers, most are not yet requiring ORCIDs. Librarians hope that funders will soon recognize that it is in their best interest to require ORCIDs, to help ensure quality reports.
- Adoption and integration of organizational identifiers in scholarly communications will also help improve and scale the harvesting of institutional outputs by ensuring accurate affiliation information. The librarians in our discussion were following the organizational identifier working group efforts with interest.
- Some participants suggested that international library alliances like the International Alliance of Research Library Associations (IARLA), might help libraries to better represent library concerns to funders. These types of internal alliances might also help to forge strategic relationships with learned societies that are also seeking to improve workflows for researchers.
As with all OCLC Research Library Partnership events, this discussion provides OCLC Research with direct input from partner libraries, helping us to better understand their challenges, and to incorporate these into future research.
Special thanks to the University of Edinburgh libraries and particularly to Dominic Tate for hosting this event.