Keeping an Ear to the Ground: Evaluating Recent Developments in Citation Manager Technology with User Feedback

Citation managers are commonly promoted in academic libraries, but the technology is changing rapidly. As subscription services grow more expensive and free services offer institutional packages, detailed assessments are needed of user behavior and the most valued features of these tools. Regardless of the size of an institution, libraries face difficult choices in the years ahead between free citation tools that may sacrifice necessary functions and subscription tools that may put pressure on our budgets but provide a better service. To address this problem, we undertook a project to evaluate how these products meet the needs of users in a large research university. We will report on the results of a survey of over 750 faculty and graduate students and share the results of other information gathering efforts. Attendees will learn what features and functions users find most important in a citation manager and receive an in-depth evaluation of the latest developments in citation software. We will also share our rubric for evaluating citation managers based on weighted criteria identified in the survey. Our presentation will focus on EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks/Flow, and Zotero but we will also discuss other products and tools that emerged in the survey

3D Scanning in the Library!

Experimenting with new uses of technologies can be a great way to engage library users. We will teach workshop participants how to use an Xbox Kinect, the motion sensing device that allows for gesture control, and Skanect software to create 3D scans of participants. Users can manipulate their scan files in any way they choose, including creating a 3D print of it. In demonstrating how to use this technology, we will show how the activity can be done using a basic swivel chair to make “busts” of participants or, for the especially adventurous, building your own motorized rotating platform for full body scans. Finally, we will share our workflow that we applied to multiple events, including a city-wide art festival and multiple Libraries’ events. This activity allows participants to explore gaming technology in interactive and new ways and hopefully inspire participants to try this at their own institutions

Instrument used to code DMPs

This document (included here in 2 versions: text and screenshot) contains the rubric used to review and code the 182 DMPs in the study. The DMPs consist of 1-2 page written plans addressing the criteria of NSF and sub-directorates. This instrument review codes for how the PI plans to manage, store, describe, protect, and share and preserve their data. Data associated with this study is hosted in an institutional repository: Johnston, Lisa R; Bishoff, Carolyn; McGrory, John; Storino, Chris; Swendsrud, Anders. (2015). Analyzed Data Management Plans (DMPs) from Successful University of Minnesota Grants from the National Science Foundation, 2011-2014 [dataset]. Retrieved from the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota, http://dx.doi.org/10.13020/D6TG6Z

Analyzed Data Management Plans (DMPs) from Successful University of Minnesota Grants from the National Science Foundation, 2011-2014

This data set consists of five files. The excel file (UMN_DMPReview_2011-2014_v2.xslx) represents the de-indentifed and analyzed data management plans (DMPs) from successful grants. These data are based on the review instrument, which is included both as a pdf and a png image file (UMN_DMPReviewInstrument). Included is also a text readme file (DMPReviewInstrument_Readme_v2) containing information about the study and data. Finally, there is a zipped archival copy of the excel data file that has been converted to two .csv files (Archival Version of Data).Federal funding agencies are asking principal investigators (PIs) to specify their plans for describing, storing, securing, sharing, and preserving their research data in Data Management Plans (DMPs) included with their grant proposal. This change in sponsored research is best exemplified by the National Science Foundation (NSF) which in 2010 announced that all grants submitted after January 18th, 2011 must include a one- to two-page DMP with all new proposals. In order to review the plans for how University of Minnesota researchers plan to manage, store, describe, protect, and share and preserve their data, a review instrument was created and implemented by the University Libraries in the summer of 2014. Our local study of DMPs in successful NSF grant applications from January 2011 - June 2014 was opt-in by U of M PIs and the libraries collected 182 data management plans for our study, accounting for 41% of the total number of plans solicited. The deidentified data used in our analysis and our survey instrument are presented here