Research Information Management: Defining RIM and the Library\u27s Role

Research information management (RIM) is the aggregation, curation, and utilization of information about research and is emerging as an area of increasing interest and relevance in many university libraries. RIM intersects with many aspects of traditional library services in discovery, acquisition, dissemination, and analysis of scholarly activities, and does so through the nexus with institutional data systems, faculty workflows, and institutional partners. RIM adoption offers libraries new opportunities to support institutional and researcher goals. In this paper prepared by Rebecca Bryant, OCLC Research Senior Program Officer, and a working group of librarians representing OCLC Research Library Partnership institutions, learn more about what RIM is, what is driving RIM adoption, and the library’s role in RIM. The publication is intended to help libraries and other institutional stakeholders understand developing research information management practices—and particularly the value add that libraries can offer in a complex ecosystem. This work is part of a suite of publications and resources around RIM practices. Read more about upcoming research and reports in the area of research information management

Research Information Management: defining RIM and the Library’s role

Research information management (RIM) is the aggregation, curation, and utilization of information about research and is emerging as an area of increasing interest and relevance in many university libraries. RIM intersects with many aspects of traditional library services in discovery, acquisition, dissemination, and analysis of scholarly activities, and does so through the nexus with institutional data systems, faculty workflows, and institutional partners. RIM adoption offers libraries new opportunities to support institutional and researcher goals. In this paper prepared by Rebecca Bryant, OCLC Research Senior Program Officer, and a working group of librarians representing OCLC Research Library Partnership institutions, learn more about what RIM is, what is driving RIM adoption, and the library’s role in RIM. The publication is intended to help libraries and other institutional stakeholders understand developing research information management practices—and particularly the value add that libraries can offer in a complex ecosystem.Publisher PD

Molecules and Dust Grains in AGB Stars in Nearby Galaxies—the Influence of Metallicities

Original paper can be found at: http://scitation.aip.org/proceedings/confproceed/948.jsp Copyright AIP. DOI: 10.1063/1.2818993 [Full text of this paper is not available in the UHRA]We have obtained infrared spectra of carbon stars in four nearby galaxies—the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy, and the Fornax dwarf spheroidal galaxy. Our primary aim is to investigate mass-loss rate and molecular bands of these stars as a function of metallicity, by comparing AGB stars in several galaxies with different metallicities. These stars were observed using the Infrared Spectrometer (IRS) onboard the Spitzer Space Telescope which covers 5–35 µm region, and the Infrared Spectrometer And Array Camera (ISAAC) on the Very Large Telescope which covers the 2.9–4.1 µm region. HCN, CH and C2H2 molecular bands, as well as SiC and MgS dust features are identified in the spectra. We find no evidence that mass-loss rates depend on metallicity. Carbon stars are strongly affected by carbon production during the AGB phase; primarily mass-loss of carbon-rich stars are driven by amorphous carbon dust grains, which explains the little metallicity dependence of mass-loss rate for carbon-rich stars. We found that C2H2 bands are prominent features at 3–15 µm among extragalactic carbon stars, which is not always the case for Galactic carbon stars. We argue that the difference is caused by systematically high C/O ratios in low-metallicity environments.otherPeer reviewe

Predicting reliability through structured expert elicitation with the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process

As replications of individual studies are resource intensive, techniques for predicting the replicability are required. We introduce the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process, a new method for eliciting expert predictions about the replicability of research. This process is a structured expert elicitation approach based on a modified Delphi technique applied to the evaluation of research claims in social and behavioural sciences. The utility of processes to predict replicability is their capacity to test scientific claims without the costs of full replication. Experimental data supports the validity of this process, with a validation study producing a classification accuracy of 84% and an Area Under the Curve of 0.94, meeting or exceeding the accuracy of other techniques used to predict replicability. The repliCATS process provides other benefits. It is highly scalable, able to be deployed for both rapid assessment of small numbers of claims, and assessment of high volumes of claims over an extended period through an online elicitation platform, having been used to assess 3000 research claims over an 18 month period. It is available to be implemented in a range of ways and we describe one such implementation. An important advantage of the repliCATS process is that it collects qualitative data that has the potential to provide insight in understanding the limits of generalizability of scientific claims. The primary limitation of the repliCATS process is its reliance on human-derived predictions with consequent costs in terms of participant fatigue although careful design can minimise these costs. The repliCATS process has potential applications in alternative peer review and in the allocation of effort for replication studies

The ecometric properties of a measurement instrument for prospective risk analysis in hospital departments

Safety management systems have been set up in healthcare institutions to reduce the number of adverse events. Safety management systems use a combination of activities, such as identifying and assessing safety risks in the organizational processes through retrospective and prospective risk assessments. A complementary method to already existing prospective risk analysis methods is Tripod, which measures latent risk factors in organizations through staff questionnaires. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether Tripod can be used as a method for prospective risk analysis in hospitals and whether it can assess differences in risk factors between hospital departments. Methods. Tripod measures risk factors in five organizational domains: (1) Procedures, (2) Training, (3) Communication, (4) Incompatible Goals and (5) Organization. Each domain is covered by 15 items in the questionnaire. A total of thirteen departments from two hospitals participated in this study. All healthcare staff working in the participating departments were approached. The multilevel method ecometrics was used to evaluate the validity and reliability of Tripod. Ecometrics was needed to ensure that the differences between departments were attributable to differences in risk at the departmental level and not to differences between individual perceptions of the healthcare staff. Results: A total of 626 healthcare staff completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 61.7%. Reliability coefficients were calculated for the individual level and department level. At the individual level, reliability coefficients ranged from 0.78 to 0.87, at the departmental level they ranged from 0.55 to 0.73. Intraclass correlations at the departmental level ranged from 3.7% to 8.5%, which indicate sufficient clustering of answers within departments. At both levels the domains from the questionnaire were positively interrelated and all significant. Conclusions: The results of this study show that Tripod can be used as a method for prospective risk analysis in hospitals. Results of the questionnaire provide information about latent risk factors in hospital departments. However, this study also shows that there are indications that the method is not sensitive enough to detect differences between hospital departments. Therefore, it is important to be careful when interpreting differences in potential risks between departments when using Tripod

Research Information Management: defining RIM and the Library’s role

Research information management (RIM) is the aggregation, curation, and utilization of information about research and is emerging as an area of increasing interest and relevance in many university libraries. RIM intersects with many aspects of traditional library services in discovery, acquisition, dissemination, and analysis of scholarly activities, and does so through the nexus with institutional data systems, faculty workflows, and institutional partners. RIM adoption offers libraries new opportunities to support institutional and researcher goals.In this paper prepared by Rebecca Bryant, OCLC Research Senior Program Officer, and a working group of librarians representing OCLC Research Library Partnership institutions, learn more about what RIM is, what is driving RIM adoption, and the library’s role in RIM.The publication is intended to help libraries and other institutional stakeholders understand developing research information management practices—and particularly the value add that libraries can offer in a complex ecosystem

Predicting reliability through structured expert elicitation with repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science)

As replications of individual studies are resource intensive, techniques for predicting the replicability are required. We introduce the repliCATS (Collaborative Assessments for Trustworthy Science) process, a new method for eliciting expert predictions about the replicability of research. This process is a structured expert elicitation approach based on a modified delphi technique applied to the evaluation of research claims in social and behavioural sciences. The utility of processes to predict replicability is their capacity to test scientific claims without the costs of full replication. Data from a pilot experiment supports the validity of this process, with accuracy that meets or exceeds that of other techniques used to predict replicability while providing additional benefits. The repliCATS process is highly scalable, able to be deployed for both rapid assessment of small numbers of claims, and assessment of high volumes of claims over an extended period through an online elicitation platform. An important advantage of the repliCATS process is that it collects qualitative data that has the potential to assist with problems like understanding the limits of generalizability of scientific claims. The primary limitation of the repliCATS process is its reliance on human-derived predictions with consequent costs in terms of participant fatigue although careful design can minimise these costs. The repliCATS process has potential applications in alternative peer review and in the allocation of effort for replication studies