This document discusses research in three key areas: 1) Researchers as creators - It examines how and where researchers disseminate their work, finding journals are still dominant but interest is growing in data sharing. Disciplinary cultures strongly influence publication choices. 2) Researchers as users - Surveys show researchers primarily use journal articles and want access to datasets. Usage varies by discipline and institution. Access problems persist. 3) Costs and funding - The overall costs of the research system are high but libraries have faced budget cuts. However, usage of e-journals is up while costs per download are down, though differences remain between institutions. More research is needed on the relationships between spending, usage, and research outcomes.

1. What researchers want, and how to
pay for it.....
Michael Jubb
UK Research Information Network
Charleston Conference
5 November 2010

2. Some propositions
the volume of research undertaken worldwide has increased, is
increasing, and will continue to increase
and more of it will be done collaboratively
researchers are both producers and consumers of research
outputs
but they don’t necessarily share the same interests
Governments invest in research because they believe it has a
positive impact on society and the economy
and they want to maximise that impact
the costs of research, and of higher education, have increased,
are increasing (and ought to be diminished?)
cost-effectiveness an increasingly-dominant theme in current economic
climate

3. 1. Researchers as creators
2. Researchers as users
3. Costs and funding

4. 1. Researchers as creators

5. where, when and how to
publish/disseminate?
key motivations
register claim
maximise dissemination
peer recognition (and the rewards that flow from that)
tensions between effective dissemination and
recognition/prestige
power of disciplinary cultures
and some important disciplinary differences
mixed messages from funders and institutions

6. publications by type
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
2003
2008
Biosciences
&-medicine
Physical
sciences
Engineering Social
sciences
Humanities Education Total
Article Book Book chapter Proceedings Book review Editorial Meeting abstract Other

7. importance of scholarly journals
201
103
73
158
127
29
92
5
3
8
5
14
1
8 1
2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Biosciences
Physical sciences.
Engineering
Social sciences.
Humanities
Education & Sport
Interdisciplinary
Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable

8. importance of conference proceedings
82
42
46
45
24
11
33
100
55
32
86
87
55
18
3
9
23
34
26
14
1
1
1
1
1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Biosciences.
Physical Sciences
Social. Sciences.
Humanities
Education
Interdisciplinary
Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable
Engineering /Computing

9. importance of monographs
10
20
10
68
126
5
28
48
23
47
14
29
9
9
1
33
11
34
1
34
107
42
34
9
36
7
11
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Biosciences.
Physical sciences
Engineering
Social sciences.
Humanities
Education & Sport
Interdisciplinary
Very important Quite important Not important Not applicable

10. What’s published and what’s submitted
to the RAE

11. What’s published and what’s submitted
to the RAE

12. What about data?
increasing interest from funders, and some
researchers, in data management and sharing
most researchers spend much of their time
searching for, gathering, organising, and analysing
data
but producing – and sharing - data is not the
primary objective
general assumption that data do not have intrinsic meaning until
analysed, interpreted, described…….
data curation/stewardship/management important
to researchers only (at best) intermittently

13. Data sharing: ownership, protection and
trust
responsibility, protectiveness and desire for control
lack of rewards for data sharing
concerns about inappropriate use
preference for co-operative arrangements and direct contact with potential
users
decisions on when and how to share
commercial, ethical, legal issues
belief that only researchers themselves can have the knowledge
necessary to take care of their data
intricacies of experimental design and processes
data management plans required by funders, but not much sign of
adoption
role of publishers?
trust in other researchers’ data?
“I don’t know if they have done it to the same standards I would have
done it”

14. Sharing data?
Percentage of researchers sharing data online
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Privately, within a small
network of collaborators
Openly, within my research
community
Publicly, on a website, blog
etc
Level of sharing
Percentageofresearchers
Humanities Life sciences Physical sciences

15. Data sharing: benefits and constraints
increasing the efficiency of
research,
promoting scholarly rigour
and enhancements to the
quality of research
enhancing visibility and
scope for engagement
enabling researchers to ask
new research questions
enhancing collaboration
and community-building
increasing the economic
and social impact of
research
lack of evidence of benefits
and rewards.
lack of skills, time and other
resources
cultures of independence
and competition
concerns about quality.
ethical, legal and other
restrictions on accessibility.

16. prospects of change?
publish/disseminate work in progress?
shifts in scholarly communication practice?
Web 2.0?
Professor Reader
Senior
Lecturer
Lecturer
Research
Fellow
Existing peer review processes will become increasingly unsustainable
Likely 31% 34% 39% 30% 38%
Unlikely 63% 51% 50% 52% 56%
No opinion 6% 14% 11% 18% 5%
Formal peer review will be increasingly complemented by reader-based ratings,
annotations, downloads or citations
Likely 44% 37% 45% 41% 36%
Unlikely 42% 54% 38% 41% 38%
No opinion 15% 9% 18% 18% 26%
New types of online publication, using new kinds of media formats and content, will grow in
importance
Likely 72% 69% 76% 68% 82%
Unlikely 18% 20% 7% 18% 13%
No opinion 11% 11% 16% 14% 5%
Open access online publication supported by an 'author-pays' funding model will
predominate
Likely 34% 20% 21% 23% 21%
Unlikely 47% 49% 52% 50% 51%
No opinion 19% 31% 27% 27% 28%
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 over 65
Write a blog
Never 79% 80% 85% 91% 100%
Occasionally 6% 12% 10% 6% 0%
Frequently (At least once a week) 4% 6% 2% 0% 0%
I do this outside of work 11% 2% 3% 3% 0%
Comment on others’ blogs
Never 69% 68% 81% 82% 93%
Occasionally 17% 22% 16% 15% 7%
Frequently (At least once a week) 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
I do this outside of work 15% 8% 3% 3% 0%
Contribute to a private w iki
Never 80% 75% 78% 85% 86%
Occasionally 18% 17% 17% 14% 7%
Frequently (At least once a week) 2% 8% 4% 1% 7%
I do this outside of work 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Contribute to a public w iki
Never 69% 74% 75% 80% 80%
Occasionally 22% 21% 23% 18% 13%
Frequently (At least once a week) 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%
I do this outside of work 10% 4% 2% 3% 7%
Add comments t o online journal articles
Never 81% 76% 80% 73% 93%
Occasionally 17% 21% 14% 27% 7%
Frequently (At least once a week) 0% 1% 2% 0% 0%
I do this outside of work 2% 2% 4% 0% 0%
Post slides, texts, images, code, algorithms, videos etc on an open sharing site
Never 65% 56% 52% 52% 93%
Occasionally 19% 30% 40% 30% 7%
Frequently (At least once a week) 8% 10% 5% 11% 0%

17. Disseminating and communicating:
some conclusions
dominance of traditional forms of publication
driven by career rewards and incentives
disciplinary differences and power of disciplinary
cultures
strong influence of performance assessment regimes
written policies vs perceptions of how it’s done
Web 2.0 as a supplement to traditional channels of
communication
relatively small groups of early adopters
increasing interest in data curation and sharing
but constraints on openness
strong(ish) sense that further change is on the way

18. 2. Researchers as users

19. what do they want to find and use?
Yes No
journal articles 99.5% 0.5%
chapters in multi-authored books 97.0% 3.0%
organization’s web sites 90.8% 9.2%
expertise of individuals 90.1% 9.9%
conference proceedings 85.8% 14.2%
monographs 83.3% 16.7%
datasets – published or unpublished 62.0% 38.0%
original text sources, e.g. newspapers, historical records 61.5% 38.5%
preprints 54.7% 45.3%
non-text sources, e.g. images, audio, artifacts 47.0% 53.0%
other 18.0% 82.0%

20. e-journal usage in the UK

21. but access still causes problems….

22. Intensity of use

23. Patterns of usage vary………..
between disciplines between institutions

24. profile of journals varies too…….

25. What do they do with the articles they
download?

26. three key messages……..
we haven’t come to the end of the success
story for e-journals
we haven’t entirely cracked the access issue
we don’t understand enough about reasons
for variations in patterns of usage

27. 3. Costs and Funding

28. overall costs of the current system
115.8
6.4
2.1
16.4
33.9
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
Research
production
Publishing &
Distribution
Access provision User search and
print cost
Reading
£Billions

29. UK contribution to meeting publishing
and distribution costs
132.0
32.8
8.6
117.5
45.6 56.0
16.0
408.5
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
academic (non-
cash) peer
review
other (non-
cash) peer
review
author pays academic
subscriptions
other
subscriptions
and revenues
academic
library access
provision
funding
special access
provision
funding
Total cost
£Millions

30. 1.9
3.4
0.7
0.1 0.2 0.1
6.4
0.53
0.82
0.17
0.03 0.05 0.03
1.63
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7 .0
8.0
9.0
Research
funders (peer
review non
cash cost)
Academic
subscriptions
Other
subscriptions
Author-side
pay ment
Adv ertising Membership
fees &
individual
subscriptions
Total cost
£Billions
Current Funding Difference between scenarios
Increases in article production over 10 years:
funding consequences
Sources of funding
and other
contributions

31. The last decade for UK libraries
expenditure on
libraries has risen
in real terms
rise sharpest in
research-intensive
universities
Chart 1: Indexed real terms expenditure on libraries 1999-2009
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Expenditure(1999=100foreachdataseries)
RLUK Pre-92 universities All post-92 All SCONUL members

32. The last decade for UK libraries
but universities have
increased in size, and
so has their overall
expenditure
student numbers and
teaching
research activity
so libraries represent
a declining share of
university budgets
Chart 2: Real terms library expenditure per FTE student
1999-2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Expenditureperstudent(£;1999=baseyear)
RLUK Pre-92 universities All post-92 All SCONUL members
Chart 3: Library expenditure as a proportion of overall institution
expenditure 1999-2009
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Percentage
RLUK Pre-92 universities All post-92 All SCONUL members

33. Usage and cost
as usage goes up, so cost
per usage has fallen
downloads of e-journals
rose by 160% in UK
between 2004 and 2008
250% in research-intensive
universities
cost per download fell by
40%
60% in research-intensive
universities
big differences between
individual libraries

34. Levels of usage and indicators of research
outcomes

35. Usage and outcomes: research income

36. Usage and outcomes: publications

37. Linking expenditure, usage and
outcomes?
Six hypotheses:
levels of library expenditure influence subsequent levels of use of
e-journals
levels of e-journal use influence subsequent levels of library
expenditure
levels of library expenditure influence subsequent research
performance
successful research performance influences subsequent levels of
library expenditure
levels of e-journal use influence subsequent research
performance
successful research performance influences subsequent levels of
use of e-journals

38. Linking expenditure, usage and
outcomes?

39. Linking expenditure, usage and
outcomes?

40. some conclusions…….
we should really look at the bigger picture
costs of research and scholarly communications as a whole
but for libraries
the decade to 2009/2010 a good one
usage up, unit costs down
how to sustain this in difficult times
increasing interest in links between
expenditure, usage and outcomes
statistical relationships
indications of causal relationships?

41. Questions?
Michael Jubb
www.rin.ac.uk