International Journal of Information Studies & Libraries

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Research Tools:Important Drivers for Innovation in Research Repository Architecture


Affiliations
1 eResearch Services, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
2 Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Online tools are critical to undertake successful research. Researchers use software tools as an integral part of research to process, manage, and integrate data from multiple sources. However, while institutional repositories are tackling challenges around supporting research data, little attention has been paid to the implications for repositories in supporting the increasingly complex tools which are used in the data lifecycle. Tools and workflows can play an important role in building quality repositories. This increasing use of tools has implications not only for researchers but also the institutions who manage those repositories. This paper suggests strategies for institutional stakeholders, particularly libraries, on how to implement solutions which will ensure interoperability at all levels of research repository architecture.

Keywords

Institutional Repositories, Research Data Lifecycle, Metadata Standards, Data Workflows, Research Ecosystem, Scholarly Communication Tools.
User
Subscription Login to verify subscription
Notifications
Font Size

  • Ahmed, A. (2016). Supporting research excellence, University World News, issue 402. Retrieved from: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20160223220411616

  • Andreozzi, S., Arjona, A. B., Campos, I., Coelho, S., Dappert, A., Garavelli, S. … & Scott, M. (2016). E-Infrastructures: Making Europe the Best Place for Research and Innovation. Luxembourg: European Union. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/e-infrastructures-making-europe-best-place-research-and-innovation

  • Australia (2015). Australian Government Public Data Policy Statement. Retrieved from: https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/aust_govt_ public_data_policy_statement_1.pdf

  • Canada. Social Sciences and Humanities Council (2014). Guidelines for Support of Tools for Research and Related Activities. Ottawa: SSHC. Retrieved from: http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/policies-politiques/support_tools_soutien_outils-eng.aspx

  • Clift, C. (2007). Patenting and licensing research tools. In Krattiger, A., Mahoney, R. T., Nelsen, L., Thomson, J. A., Bennett, A. B., Satyanarayana, K., ... and Kowalski, S. P. (Eds.), Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices. Oxford, U.K.: MIHR (pp. 79-88).

  • COAR Next Generation Repositories Working Group (2017). Next Generation Repositories - Introduction, Rationale and User Stories - Draft. Gottingen, Germany: COAR. Retrieved from: http://comment.coar-repositories.org/

  • Crouzier, T. (2016). Science Ecosystem 2.0: how will change occur? Luxembourg: European Union. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/expert-groups/rise/science_ ecosystem_2.0-how_will_change_occur_crouzier_072015.pdf

  • Crow, R. (2002). The Case for Institutional Repositories: A SPARC Position Paper. Washington, DC: SPARC. Retrieved from: http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/papers-guides/the-case-for-institutional-repositories

  • Dozier, J., & Gail, W. B. (2009). The emerging science of environmental applications. In Hey, T., Tansley, S., and Tolle, K. (Eds.), The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research (pp. 13-19).

  • Faundeen, J. (2017). Developing criteria to establish trusted digital repositories. Data Science Journal, 16, p. 22. doi: 10.5334/dsj-2017-022

  • Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

  • Gundersen, L. C. (2016, February). Embedding Scientific Integrity and Ethics into the Scientific Process and Research Data Lifecycle. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting Abstracts, abstract #PA12B-05.

  • High Level Expert Group on Scientific Data (2010). Riding The Wave - How Europe Can Gain from the Rising Tide of Scientific Data. A Submission to the European Commission. Luxembourg: European Commission. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=707

  • Jain, P. (2011). New trends and future applications/directions of institutional repositories in academic institutions. Library Review, 60(2), 125-141. doi: 10.1108/00242531111113078

  • Johnson, R. K. (2002). Institutional repositories: partnering with faculty to enhance scholarly communication. D-Lib Magazine, 8(11), 1-7. doi: 10.1045/november2002-johnson

  • Johnston, L. (2012). Repositories: Not just about publications any more. The Signal, 20 July. Retrieved from: http://blogs.loc.gov/thesignal/2012/07/repositories-not-just-about-publications-any-more/

  • Kramer, B. & Bosman, J. (2016). Innovations in scholarly communication - global survey on research tool usage [version 1; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research, 5, 692. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8414.1

  • Kramer, B. & Bosman, J. (2017). Changing research workflows - opportunities for researchers, librarians and publishers. Figshare. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4609423.v1

  • Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional repositories: essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(2), 327-336. doi: 10.1353/pla.2003.0039

  • Munafo, M. (2016). Scientific ecosystems and research reproducibility. Talk presented at Research Libraries UK Conference, London, 9-11 March. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD2cUYVci28&feature=youtu.be

  • Nielsen, Michael (2011). Open science now! Talk presented at TEDxWaterloo, Waterloo, Canada, 3 March. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_nielsen_open_science_now

  • Poynder, R. (2016). Q&A with CNI’s Clifford Lynch: Time to Rethink the Institutional Repository? Open and Shut. Retrieved from: http://poynder.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/q-with-cnis-clifford-lynch-time-tore_ 22.html

  • Pryor, G. (Ed.) (2012). Managing Research Data. London: Facet Publishing.

  • Rice, R., & Haywood, J. (2011). Research data management initiatives at University of Edinburgh. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(2), 232-244. doi: 10.2218/ijdc.v6i2.199

  • Sergeant, D. M. (2006). Using a Virtual Research Environment to present CRIS grouped to support the real researchers’ research lifecycle. In Asserson, A., & Simons, E. J. (Eds.), Enabling Interaction and Quality: Beyond the Hanseatic League (8th International Conference on Current Research Information Systems) (p. 189). Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press.

  • Stall, S. (2016, February). Implementing and Sustaining Data Lifecycle Best Practices: A Framework for Researchers and Repositories. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting Abstracts, abstract #OD23A-01.

  • Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, xiii-xxiii. Retrieved from https://web.njit.edu/~egan/Writing_A_Literature_Review.pdf

  • Wissik, T., & Durco, M. (2016, April). Research Data Workflows: From Research Data Lifecycle Models to Institutional Solutions. In De Smedt, K. (Ed.), Selected Papers from the CLARIN Annual Conference 2015, October 14–16, 2015, Wroclaw, Poland (No. 123, pp. 94-107). Linkoping, Sweden: Linkoping University Electronic Press. Retrieved from: http:// www.ep.liu.se/ecp/123/008/ecp15123008.pdf

  • Wolski, M., & Richardson, J. (2014). A Model for Institutional Infrastructure to Support Digital Scholarship. Publications, 2(4), pp. 83-99. doi: 10.3390/publications2040083

  • Wolski, M., Howard, L., & Richardson, J. (2017a). A Trust Framework for Online Research Data Services. Publications, 5(2), 14. doi: 10.3390/ publications5020014.

  • Wolski, M., Howard, L., & Richardson, J. (2017b). The importance of tools in the data lifecycle. Digital Library Perspectives, 33(3), 235-252. doi: 10.1108/ DLP-11-2016-0042

  • https://101innovations.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/timeline-of-tools/

  • https://www.jisc.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research_data_ life_diagram_0.jpg

  • https://www.slideshare.net/BaltimoreNISO/bosmankramer-changing-research-workflows


Abstract Views: 339

PDF Views: 0




  • Research Tools:Important Drivers for Innovation in Research Repository Architecture

Abstract Views: 339  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Malcolm Wolski
eResearch Services, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Joanna Richardson
Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Abstract


Online tools are critical to undertake successful research. Researchers use software tools as an integral part of research to process, manage, and integrate data from multiple sources. However, while institutional repositories are tackling challenges around supporting research data, little attention has been paid to the implications for repositories in supporting the increasingly complex tools which are used in the data lifecycle. Tools and workflows can play an important role in building quality repositories. This increasing use of tools has implications not only for researchers but also the institutions who manage those repositories. This paper suggests strategies for institutional stakeholders, particularly libraries, on how to implement solutions which will ensure interoperability at all levels of research repository architecture.

Keywords


Institutional Repositories, Research Data Lifecycle, Metadata Standards, Data Workflows, Research Ecosystem, Scholarly Communication Tools.

References