Category Archives: Library research support

Postgraduate researcher (PGR) training survey results – 2019

Leave a reply

The Library Research Support team recently undertook its annual survey to capture the training needs and communication preferences of postgraduate researchers (PGRs). We got a good response rate (19.3% of PGRs available). Here are some takeaways:

Over a quarter (25.6%) had not attended any OU training whatsoever, whether run by their faculty, the Graduate School, the Library or anyone else

Email was the most common way that PGRs heard about the training they attended (75.7%). Twitter (2.7%) and Facebook (0%) were not well used in this regard

A clear majority felt Library training met their learning needs (89.2%), had clear learning outcomes (89.2%) and included sufficient interactivity (75.6%)

PGRs who attended Library sessions using flipped learning felt it improved their understanding of the topic (86.3%), led them to reflect more about the topic than they would have done otherwise (81.8%) and led to more efficient use of session time (81.8%). Although, fewer (68.2%) felt it enabled the group to discuss issues in more depth

Additional training needs were diverse and the majority were in areas outside the Library’s traditional remit – Nvivo, presentation skills and academic writing were the most requested training topics

 The results will inform the planning and communication of Library Research Support training in the 2019/20 academic year as we continually develop a tailored programme in response to PGR feedback. We are also sharing findings with colleagues in relevant departments/faculties.

UK Data Service announce 2019 webinar series

Leave a reply

The UK Data Service has just published the dates of its free online training sessions for 2019 for developing skills in data use.

The UK Data Service is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and provides access to a collection of high quality social and economic data, including UK census data, international business data, cross-national surveys, and longitudinal studies; as well as providing guidance and training for the development of skills in data use.

These introductory webinars are aimed at anyone interested in using the data collections in their research or teaching. The hour-long sessions will walk you through the range of datasets available from the UK Data Service and demonstrate how to gain access to them, as well as exploring some of the key issues you might encounter when using these various data types.

Two particularly useful sessions for researchers looking to engage with any of their data collections centre on Data Management Basics, which explores how to manage, document, store and safeguard research data with a view to optimising data sharing, and Key issues in re-using data, which highlights some of the main issues associated with secondary analysis.

Why not have a look at the range of sessions available now and sign up?

New Podcast – Copyright and your Thesis

Leave a reply

You may remember earlier in the year that we created some guidance for Postgraduate Researchers for including third-party copyright works in their thesis. You can now find out more in our new copyright podcast which covers the basics of copyright: what it is, what works it protects, and why and how to seek permission to include copyrighted materials in your thesis.

Between the online guide and the new podcast, we’re confident you’ll get to grips with copyright in no time!

Still got questions? We’re always happy to help. Contact us at: library-research-support@open.ac.uk

 

 

 

Investigating signing DORA in response to funder policy changes

Leave a reply

Adopting a responsible metrics approach is seen as good practice
across the research community.

However, there is now an additional need for The Open University to sign up to an
external responsible metrics statement, such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) or the Leiden Manifesto, or develop one of its own. Certain
major funders have changed their policies, which could impact our eligibility to receive research funding:

“We [The Wellcome Trust] are committed to making sure that when we assess research outputs during funding decisions we consider the intrinsic merit of the work, not the title of the journal or publisher.

All Wellcome-funded organisations must publicly commit to this principle. For example, they can sign the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, Leiden Manifesto or equivalent.

We may ask organisations to show that they’re complying with this as part of our organisation audits.”

(The Wellcome Trust, 2019)

 

“cOAlition S* supports the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) that research needs to be assessed on its own merits rather than on the basis of the venue in which the research is published. cOAlition S
members will implement such principles in their policies by January 2021.”

(cOAlition S, 2019)

* cOAlition S is a group of funders co-ordinated by Science Europe. It includes UKRI, Wellcome, the European Research Council (ERC), the European Commission and The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They are responsible for Plan S, a radical proposal regarding open access to research publications from which the above quote is taken

 

The Library Research Support team recently brought a paper to Research Committee, which investigates the University’s options in terms of responding to these policy changes. We are looking into how publication metrics are used at The OU and whether any current practices are in tension with these policy changes. The aim is that, all being well, The Open University will look at signing DORA.

We will keep you updated on our progress and would welcome any feedback on this issue.

 

References

cOAlition S (2019) Plan S: Principles and Implementation. Available at: https://www.coalitions.org/principles-and-implementation/ 

The Wellcome Trust (2019) Open access policy 2021. London: The Wellcome Trust. Available at:
https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wellcome-open-access-policy-2021.pdf

Public speaking and presentation skills for early career researchers

Leave a reply

The Charlesworth Group, a publishing services company, are running a webinar on public speaking and presentation skills for early career researchers.

It’s on Tuesday July 30th @ 10:00am or @ 14:00pm BST and you can get more info and sign up here on their webinar schedule for the year:

https://www.cwauthors.com/article/webinar-schedule-2019

 

What is a systematic review and how does it differ from a ‘regular’ literature review?

Leave a reply

There are a lot of different types of literature review and there is a lot of different terminology surrounding literature reviews.

This creates confusion and there is a particularly large amount of confusion regarding systematic reviews. The term, strictly speaking, refers to a specific and particularly rigourous method that has its origins in biomedicine and healthcare (although it is adapted and used in other disciplines). However, many people use the term to refer to a ‘regular’ literature review that is methodical and comprehensive.

In short, if somebody asks you to carry out a systematic review, it is worth clarifying exactly what they have in mind.

Here, we will spell out the differences between ‘regular’ literature reviews and systematic reviews as we see them:

‘Regular’ literature reviews

A regular literature review involves finding, analysing and synthesizing relevant literature, then presenting it in an organised way to the reader.

Regular literature reviews can be methodical and comprehensive. They can involve attempting to find all the literature there is on a topic, recording results and reflecting on strategies. We could even describe them as being “systematic” in an informal way but they do not employ the full formal methods of a systematic review, as outlined below.

Systematic reviews

In biomedicine and healthcare a systematic review aims to be exhaustive, objective, transparent and replicable, employing specific methods to reach these goals. It typically involves stages such as:

  • Creation of a structured research question to guide the process
  • Writing a protocol or following a previously established protocol, which sets out the methods the systematic review will use
    • A protocol covers things like which databases will be used, why they will be used, what keywords will be used, what other search techniques will be used. The protocol is usually developed through testing and is often peer-reviewed
  • A methods sections, including:
    • A list of all databases and/or journals that were searched
    • The exact keywords, limiters etc. that were used
    • When each search was undertaken
    • How many results each seach found
  • The titles and abstracts of articles found are compared against inclusion criteria
  • Meta-analysis may be undertaken
    • In this context, meta-analysis refers to the statistical analysis of data from comparable studies
  • Reporting on the results of all included studies, highlighting any similarities and differences between them

A systematic review is often preceded by a scoping review, a relatively brief search of relevant databases, which aims to tell you whether your research question, in its current form, is worth pursuing or whether it needs changing. This a process tells researchers whether a recent or ongoing review of the topic already exists – if it does then a new systematic review may not be necessary.

The description above is necessarily brief and partial. We recommend that you consult guidance such as that produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) for a fuller explanation of how systematic reviews work in biomedicine and healthcare.

As mentioned, the systematic reviews method has been adapted by other disciplines. For example, the Campbell Collaboration have adopted the method, defining systematic reviews and producing guidance with a focus more on the social sciences. There are also books (e.g. this book we have in print at the Library) and articles (e.g. this article which is open access) on systematic reviews in the social sciences.

If you want to know more about systematic reviews, you can also watch the recording of the online training session by Library Services (OU login required).

Plan S – a primer

Leave a reply

What is Plan S?

Plan S is a radical proposal regarding open access (OA) to research publications.

It was created by cOAlition S, a group of research funders co-ordinated by Science Europe. It includes UKRI (UK Research and Innovation), Wellcome, the European Research Council (ERC), the European Commission and The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

What does Plan S propose?

The crux of Plan S is that peer-reviewed research publications resulting from grants that the coalition allocate:

“must be fully and immediately open and cannot be monetised in any way”

cOAlition S believe they have a duty of care towards research as a whole. Thus they favour OA because it helps research function more efficiently and have greater impact on society. They feel there is no justification for keeping research publications behind paywalls and that progress towards OA needs accelerating.

More specifically, Plan S requires that all peer-reviewed research publications funded via calls posted from 1st January 2021 must be:

  • Published in an OA journal where the content is OA immediately (gold OA)

OR

OR

  • Published in an OA repository where the content is OA immediately (green OA with no embargo)
      • At The OU, authors could comply by depositing their work in ORO, as long as the work meets all other Plan S requirements

Making research data and other outputs OA is encouraged and a statement clarifying policy regarding monographs and book chapters is expected by the end of 2021.

Other headlines include:

  • Publication in hybrid journals (i.e. subscription-based journals that charge a fee to make articles OA) will not be supported…
    • …unless the journal moves towards becoming fully OA within a defined timeframe under a “transformative arrangement”
  • Authors or their institutions must retain copyright
    • CC-BY is the preferred license
  • Publishers should charge reasonable fees for OA and make the structure of these fees transparent
    • Funders may even standardise and cap the fees they pay
  • A commitment to the responsible evaluation of research when allocating funds
    • The coalition states it will judge research on its own merit and not on things like the journal it was published in or metrics such as Journal Impact Factor
  • Compliance with Plan S will be monitored and non-compliance will be sanctioned

However, the devil is in the detail – there are a lot of elements to Plan S and we recommend reading it yourself to see which aspects might impact you.

What are people saying about Plan S?

There have been a LOT of reactions to Plan S and these are, predicatably, mixed. Some of the themes I have noticed are:

  • Many people support the aims of Plan S
  • There is concern it is too STEM-focused and will negatively affect AHSS researchers
  • There is concern regarding some of the implementation detail
    • e.g. the technical specifications regarding publications, OA repositories and other OA platforms
  • Some believe it will impinge academic freedom
    • i.e. to choose where and how to publish
  • There is concern about the effects it will have on smaller publishers and learned societies
  • The timescale is too ambitious
  • We have been here before
    • There have been statements, reports and policies made in the past which did not push through the radical change anticipated

 

What is next for Plan S?

There is still a lot of uncertainty regarding the detail and implementation of Plan S, so all concerned will need to keep a watching brief.

ORCID Training

Leave a reply

An ORCID is a 16 digit persistent identifier for researchers and contributors.  It’s purpose is to:

(1) disambiguate researchers with like names in any system (e.g. Web of Science, ORO or ORDO)

(2) aid data transfer across systems to stop you re-keying information (e.g. if your ORCID is related to a bunch of publication information in one system simply by adding your ORCID to another system all that information can be automatically pulled across without the need for re-keying).  That’s the idea, anyway! 

Thanks for reading!

 

 

…if you would like to know more – then come along to our re-scheduled training session on 3rd July 10.30-11.30; face to face at Library Seminar Room 1 4th July 10.30-11.30 Library Seminar Room 1, or online via Adobe Connect.

My Learning Centre Registration: Claiming your research publications: ORCIDs at the OU.

CANCELLED – Shut Up and Write sessions for postgraduate researchers (PGRs)

Leave a reply

*Edit – 28.05.19 – Just to let you know that, unfortunately, the Shut Up and Write pilot has been cancelled due to extremely low interest.

This means that there will be no Shut Up and Write on Wednesday 29th May or Wednesday 5th June.

Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

We will investigate whether to try running it at a different time later in the year.

If you have any feedback, please contact library-research-support@open.ac.uk *

Library Services are starting Shut Up and Write sessions for postgraduate researchers (PGRs) on campus in Milton Keynes*. Sessions involve meeting with other PGRs in the Library building, writing for 25 minutes at a time then taking a 5 minute break. The idea is to make academic writing more productive and social.

If you are a PGR then simply turn up, bringing anything you need to write and to make yourself comfortable.

The first session is Wednesday 1st May, 13.00-15.00, using desks on the second floor of the Library. Signs will be put up on the day to guide you.

Subsequently, sessions will take place every Wednesday, 13.00-15.00 in the same place (unless notified otherwise). This will run on a pilot basis for 6 weeks in the first instance. If successful, Shut Up and Write will be continued.

Contact library-research-support@open.ac.uk if you have any questions.

 

*Details of the Betty Boothroyd Library’s location can be found on our Contact us page and on the campus map.

Connecting ORDO to Github

Leave a reply

Are you a researcher who develops software? Do you use Github?

Did you know you can connect your Github account with ORDO?

This will enable you to import items from Github to ORDO  thereby assigning them a DOI to enable better citation and discoverability.

There are two options for importing items from Github…

You can access the Github integration directly from My Data in ORDO if you have something to upload straight away by clicking on the Github icon

Or you can get set up in the Applications section of ORDO to prepare for when you’re ready.

A key aspect of setting Github up via the applications section is that you can edit the “Auto-sync” global settings for your github integration. If you configure the auto-synch setting to be on, then every new release for one of your imported repos will be automatically imported.  This will only occur if your ORDO item is public, and each new release would generate a new version of your ORDO item. If your item is private, you can still overwrite the repo if you wish manually. This global setting can be overwritten for each repo.

Detailed instructions on how to do this are available from Figshare.