NATIONAL COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY: DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK (November 2004)
SUBMISSION TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM THE COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS (CAUL)
This submission was prepared on behalf of CAUL (Council of Australian University Librarians) by Cathrine Harboe-Ree.
Contact Details:Ms Cathrine Harboe-Ree
University Librarian
Monash University
(03) 9905 2665
email: / CAUL Executive Officer
LPO Box 8169, ANU
Canberra ACT 2601
02 6125 2990
28 February 2005
Introduction
The Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) is pleased to have the opportunity to submit comments on the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy: Draft Implementation Framework (November 2004).
CAUL is supportive of the general principles of the proposed Framework. CAUL members recognise the imperatives of investing in equipment and facilities which will support national research priorities. They are concerned, however, that the role of information content and support services is not recognised adequately. Information is crucial to all research and the same resources often support both national priority activities as well as a range of other research endeavours.
University libraries play a major role in the development of Australian research by providing access to the scholarly information resources that underpin all research undertaken in Australian institutes of higher education, and by providing assistance to researchers in these institutions in the use of these resources. The research collections and services in Australian university libraries also support researchers in other institutions and organisations. Increasingly, university libraries, like their counterparts internationally, also support research activity through:
· provision of repositories to store, promote and preserve digital copies of research publications;
· management and, increasingly, creation of research resources such as datasets and digital collections;
· publication of material based on research; and
· support for innovation in scholarly expression and communication.
CAUL cooperates with other national and international organisations interested in improving access to the research literature and in using new technologies to provide better support for research. Further details about CAUL and its activities may be found at our web site http://www.caul.edu.au.
This submission addresses the sections of the Draft Implementation Framework relevant to CAUL and its activities.
Affirmations
CAUL supports the general principles outlined in the Draft Implementation Framework
CAUL supports the establishment of a standing committee – the Research Infrastructure Advisory Committee (RIAC) (7.1)
CAUL generally endorses the Guiding Principles (5.2). However, they do not recognise adequately the importance of the systemic information infrastructure
CAUL endorses the support to be provided for international collaboration (7.4).
CAUL notes and endorses the range of organisations that would be eligible for funding as collaborators in research (7.5).
CAUL supports RIAC’s involvement in encouraging collaboration between key players in the development of investment proposals (8.2),
CAUL supports the proposed requirements for business planning (8.3).
CAUL endorses the proposal that funding guidelines should be indicative only (8.4)
CAUL supports the proposal that a national stocktake of research infrastructure capabilities should be undertaken (8.7) and would encourage the inclusion of information content and services.
Recommendations
1. That the systemic infrastructure section of the Roadmap be expanded to better reflect the importance of information content and support services.
2. That the work of the currently funded research information infrastructure projects be reviewed towards the end of the funding period, and that appropriate mechanisms be put in place from 2006 and beyond to ensure the implementation and development of those outcomes that have systemic benefit.
3. That a systemic infrastructure support service be established to ensure that the work currently underway is moved to a more sustainable model.
4. That the Australian Research Information Infrastructure Committee continue, and that it report to RIAC.
5. That systemic information infrastructure funding decisions be devolved to ARIIC.
6. That a more specific set of criteria be developed for systemic information infrastructure funding.
7. That the section on Accessibility be redrafted to include access to information content and services.
8. That systemic infrastructure funds should be available for demonstrator projects, provided that they address the Guiding Principles and comply with selection criteria.
9. That the national stocktake of research infrastructure include information content and services.
Response to Section 6: Strategic roadmap
CAUL welcomes the inclusion of systemic information infrastructure elements in the Roadmap, but recommends strongly that this section be expanded to reflect to a fuller extent the importance of using new technologies to manage a range of research output (publications) and resources (collections).
Systemic information infrastructure underpins all elements of the research cycle, including:
· provision of access to literature on related research;
· exchange of information between research groups;
· management of research resources, data and results;
· storage and preservation of research output; and
· accessibility and reuse of research results.
The Government is currently funding four projects related to systemic information infrastructure through the Systemic Infrastructure Initiative. These are ARROW (Australian Research Repositories Online to the World), APSR (Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories), MAMS (Meta Access Management System) and ADT (Australian Digital Theses).
CAUL takes an active interest in these projects and is supportive of their goals, which are directly related to the Roadmap. CAUL recommends that the work of these projects be reviewed towards the end of the funding period, and that appropriate mechanisms be put in place from 2006 and beyond to ensure the implementation and development of those outcomes that have systemic benefit.
Australian researchers are part of a globally competitive environment. Their ability to undertake internationally recognised research depends on the quality of information to which they have access and their ability to disseminate the results of their research. This requires:
· Access to all relevant published information. Researchers, irrespective of their institutional location, should have access to the same range of information resources as their peers internationally. This implies that Australian research collections should be as comprehensive and contemporary as possible, which situation is more likely to be achieved if sufficient funding is available for both broad and deep acquisition of research information.
· Provision of digital collections of source material, including substantial Australian content. This is important for all disciplines, but has particular importance for the Humanities, which depend on historical material currently available only in print.
· Development of software, protocols and standards to support the authorised exchange of research information between collaborating research members, regardless of location. This issue is recognised in the Roadmap through the inclusion of middleware development and deployment as a specific capability. Australia is currently making a significant contribution in this area through a range of funded projects, particularly the MAMS project. Our ability to ensure that Australian requirements and interests are addressed will continue to be important.
· Preservation of research data and outputs, including publications, preserved in efficient and enduring repositories. Australia, through the National Library in particular, is an international leader in this area, however a great deal more needs to done.
· Increasing the impact of Australian research results by making them available through very accessible institutional repositories. There is now consistent evidence that exposure through open access repositories results in significantly improved citations. This issue is explored in detail in a white paper, which is attached, for information.
· A platform to support innovation in the use of new technologies to explore new forms of authorship and new ways of combining research results, present new content and find new audiences, thereby increasing the impact of Australian research.
Over the past year Australia has been able to influence world developments in the areas covered by systemic information infrastructure through the work of the four Research Information Infrastructure projects (ARROW, APSR, MAMS and ADT). Both the ARROW and APSR projects are at the forefront internationally of developments in digital repository management software.
CAUL believes that this is advantageous for Australia, and recommends that such an environment continue to be supported, even though the particular projects or initiatives may change.
CAUL also recommends that this repository, accessibility and preservation work be established on a more solid footing into the future. This could be achieved through a systemic information infrastructure service, which would:
· provide leadership and necessary support services;
· assist institutions in implementing repositories, and to permit systemic coordination and quality; and
· identify areas for further research and development.
Recommendations
1. That the systemic infrastructure section of the Roadmap be expanded to better reflect the importance of information content and support services.
2. That the work of the currently funded research information infrastructure projects be reviewed towards the end of the funding period, and that appropriate mechanisms be put in place from 2006 and beyond to ensure the implementation and development of those outcomes that have systemic benefit.
3. That a systemic information infrastructure support service be established to ensure that the work currently underway is moved to a more sustainable model.
Response to Section 7: Proposed implementation framework
CAUL supports the establishment of a standing committee – the Research Infrastructure Advisory Committee (RIAC) (7.1) – and recommends that Australian Research Information Infrastructure (ARIIC) continue and report to this new committee in order to ensure that relevant expertise informs development of the Roadmap.
CAUL generally endorses the Guiding Principles (5.2). However, they do not adequately recognise the importance of the systemic information infrastructure to all research activity, not just research related to agreed priority goals. Difficulty in applying the guiding principles to information-related submissions could probably be avoided by devolving decisions about systemic information infrastructure funding to ARIIC.
This comment also applies to the section on Eligibility for Funding (7.4), which, in its current wording, appears to be more applicable to physical facilities and new computing capacity. It is very likely that much of the beneficial support that can be provided for systemic information infrastructure relates to services and software development and support, which could be deemed to be outside the eligibility criteria. CAUL recommends that a more specific set of guidelines for systemic infrastructure be developed taking into account specific information-related requirements. It is possible that this task should also be devolved to ARIIC.
CAUL endorses the support to be provided for international collaboration (7.4). The projects overseen by ARIIC have already proven the benefits of international collaboration and have demonstrated the importance of support and investment.
CAUL notes and endorses the range of organisations that would be eligible for funding as collaborators in research (7.5).
CAUL notes with concern some potential for confusion in the way in which the term Accessibility has been used in the Framework (7.6). Accessibility is not just access to facilities or equipment. It is also concerned with access to information content and services, both of which are more relevant to systemic research infrastructure.
Access to information is a complicated issue; such access can be restricted, requiring authorisation middleware, or it can be deliberately open, as is the case with much of the material held in institutional or subject specific repositories. CAUL recommends that this section be redrafted to specifically include access to services and information.
Recommendations
4. That the Australian Research Information Infrastructure Committee continue, and that it report to RIAC.
5. That systemic information infrastructure funding decisions be devolved to ARIIC.
6. That a more specific set of criteria be developed for systemic information infrastructure funding.
7. That the section on Accessibility be redrafted to include access to information content and services.
Response to Section 8: Implementation proposals for consultation
Comments made previously about the use of the term accessibility also apply to this section (8.1). CAUL notes the intended development of the Accessibility Framework for Publicly Funded Research and will seek opportunities to provide input to that process.
CAUL repeats its recommendation from earlier in this submission that ARIIC should determine, or actively contribute to, a more detailed set of criteria to address the National Research Priorities with regard to systemic infrastructure.
CAUL supports RIAC’s involvement in encouraging collaboration between key players in the development of investment proposals (8.2), although it assumes that this will be done through ARIIC in the case of systemic information infrastructure funding.
CAUL also supports a committee role in encouraging collaboration once funding has been provided. ARIIC undertakes this role currently for the four Research Information Infrastructure projects, with beneficial outcomes.
CAUL supports the proposed requirements for business planning (8.3).
CAUL endorses the proposal that funding guidelines should be indicative only (8.4) and notes further that some systemic information infrastructure activities, while likely to be highly beneficial, are unlikely to be very expensive.
CAUL recommends that funds should be available for demonstrator projects such as the four referred to in this submission.
By its nature, research information infrastructure is still an emerging area, and the current and similar projects being undertaken here and overseas are the best, and sometimes the only, way research information infrastructure can be advanced. CAUL believes that these projects have already provided benefits, such as policy and technical benefits, and that they have provided a means by which Australia can establish advantageous relationships with key players here and overseas. Examples of this include the involvement of both the ARROW and APSR projects in a Thomson Web Citation Index project, which has the potential to redefine citation analysis, and the leadership role Australia has played in the development of middleware.
There is no reason why demonstrator projects should not be expected to address the guiding principles, meet the selection criteria and provide evidence of sustainability and business planning. Provided they can do this CAUL believes they should be eligible for funding. If a systemic infrastructure service is established demonstrator projects could be managed through it, however this should not preclude the possibility of unrelated proposals coming forward.
With regard to costs covered by NCRIS grants (8.5), CAUL wishes to comment that costs associated with systemic information infrastructure activities may have high non-capital costs which are essential to the provision of facilities. For example, a systemic information infrastructure support service would need funding over a number of years which included at least some non-capital support as the focus would be on the provision of services, not necessarily physical facilities. CAUL’s view is that those costs necessary for the successful conduct of a systemic infrastructure grant should be met, without being too prescriptive at this stage, provided that the proposer’s can demonstrate commitment to the project and sustainability of the project beyond the life of the funding.