This short session looked at concerns with the new research outcomes reporting system that is currently being developed for reporting of outcomes from RCUK awards

Hubbard, Bill

McCutcheon, Valerie

English

Enlighten

        McCutcheon, V., and Hubbard, B. (2014) RCUK Research Outcomes Reporting Discussion. Discussion Paper. University of Glasgow, Glasgow.  Copyright © 2014 The Authors.  A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge   The content must not be changed in any way or reproduced in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder(s)   When referring to this work, full bibliographic details must be given    http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/94669/      Deposited on:  1 May 2015.          Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk ARMA OPEN ACCESS SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP  RCUK RESEARCH OUTCOMES REPORTING DISCUSSION 10th JUNE 2014 This short session looked at concerns with the new research outcomes reporting system that is currently being developed for reporting of outcomes from RCUK awards. 1) The key concern was lack of bulk upload. • There was concern that investment in institutional systems was undermined by loss of existing ability to bulk upload data to the RCUK research outcomes system and the low priority given to engagement on synchronisation options going forward. • RCUK requirements are only part of the metadata.  Institutions may collect and re-use metadata for several purposes.  They also collect data for a wide range of activities and awards that are not part of the research outcomes system. It does not seem to make sense to collect part of the data in separate systems with no interoperability and data synchronisation workflow agreed.   • Confusing and onerous for award holders who will have to re-key data they might already have keyed into organisational systems. • Who owns the data?  Where is the authoritative dataset?  Organisations have been used to being the authority.  Organisations often cleanse and maintain the data and have responsibility for it.  Organisations may want to check data before it is sent to third party systems which will facilitate better data quality. Other concerns noted (some of these are verbatim comments from post-it notes): 2) What is the future scope? 3) How (or will) the new system update/fill gaps in the Research Outcomes System data?  Will research organisations be given time to review the data before it goes live on the new system and address any concerns if they wish to? 4) Too many changes being made in future making it difficult to compare between years. 5) Getting a process that works efficiently for research organisations not just research councils.  It is all a cost to the tax payer regardless of where the work is incurred. 6) Clarity required on links to Gateway to Research   Action: Further engagement regarding planning and testing synchronisation options was requested.   

RCUK Research Outcomes Reporting Discussion

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/94669/1/94669.pdf

RCUK Research Outcomes Reporting Discussion

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Enlighten