Pages

Monday 28 October 2013

Notes from 'OA: Understanding the New Environment' Event at Kent

Last week saw an international focus on Open Access (OA), and the University played a part by hosting an event to explore the brave new post-Finch world.

Dr Steven Hill
Dr Steven Hill, Head of Research Policy at HEFCE,  started the ball rolling. He traced current academic publishing practices back to 1665, when the first Secretary of the Royal Society, Henry Oldenburg, set up Philosophical Transactions. It was the world's first scientific journal, and set the template  for almost half a millennium of academic publishing.

450 years is pretty good going, but the old machinery is beginning to creak. 1.5m articles are published every year, roughly one every 20 minutes. We no longer have the ability to read - or even know about - all of these. OA offers us the tools to access and 'mine' this mountain. If we ignore it then we risk being suffocated in an academic landslide.

Hill went on to describe HEFCE's current consultation on incorporating OA in a post-2014 REF. The ultimate goal, said Hill, was to get 'maximum access to research outputs whilst sustaining the scholarly communication system.' To do so HEFCE believed that outputs submitted to the REF should be OA, but the devil was in the detail: what should be the criteria? What the definitions? What should be excluded? Hill outlined HEFCE's current thinking, and the issues it was grappling with.

Prof Rosemary Hunter
Prof Rosemary Hunter (KLS, Kent) took to the podium next with an inspiring tale of how she and her editorial team had used an online OA journal to overcome some of the problems inherent in traditional academic publishing. These included a lack of control over style, format and production, little or no remuneration, and the resulting journal being inaccessible to most of the world.

They decided, in 2006, to grasp the nettle and founded feminists@law to publish research on feminist legal studies. The cost of doing so was low: they were already providing their labour 'free' to the publisher, and the Open Journals System (OJS) was relatively low cost. Information Services provided some seedcorn funding for the initial venture, and the online journal has not looked back since. Feminists@law retains a robust peer review system, but is now accessed from a huge range of countries across the globe, allowing a wide diversity of voices to join the debate, to inform, to challenge and to discuss.

What surprised Hunter, when the Finch Report was published, was the apparent lack of attention given to this type of publishing, despite the potential benefits it offered. The debate was all about green versus gold, and there was little room for alternatives.

This issue came up time and again throughout the afternoon, with a number of speakers expressing their exasperation with  this polarity. Not only should the OA debate not be seen as just Green/Gold, but the assumption should not be made that Gold means expense: over two thirds of Gold OA journals are free.

Hunter finished by highlighting how light and flexible this new form of publishing was. It was light in terms of expense (a single Article Processing Charge (APC) could pay for the cost of a whole journal, using online OA), and flexible in terms of the type of media that could be accepted (it no longer had to be solely text-based); but it was not lightweight in terms of academic rigour or seriousness.

Hunter was followed by Dr Mari Williams, Deputy Director of the BBSRC and a member of the RCUK Research Outputs Network. She was inspired by Hunter's talk, and I got the sense that she had been at times frustrated by the pace of change elsewhere in the sector. RCUK had been having 'robust discussions' with publishers. Perhaps inevitably some were seen to be dragging their feet over OA, or rather were making the most of being able to generate income from both charging subscriptions and APCs, whilst also relying on 'free' academic labour.

Nevertheless, change was in the air, and RCUK had made considerable progress on the back of Finch since the policy had come into force in April. The landscape was moving quickly, she admitted, but 'not always in the direction we would have hoped for.' RCUK were hoping for 100% OA compliance by 2018, with 75% of that being Gold.

You could almost hear the sharp intake of breath across the audience. Here's hoping.

Dr Caroline Edwards
After a brief break Dr Caroline Edwards took to the stage. Edwards is a lecturer at Birkbeck, and co-founder of the Open Library of Humanities (OLH). This project aimed to build a 'mega journal' for the humanities, in the style of the Public Library of Science (PLoS), as well as piloting a scheme for OA monographs. She put up a slide that showed the huge rise in the cost of serial publishing compared to inflation: it looked out of kilter and unsustainable.

Those involved in OLH had taken heart from the 'hacker' culture in the sciences since the 1960s, the idea of 'gifting' knowledge for the advancement of the sector, and peers sharing and commenting on each others work.  Edwards had also set up Alluvium, a journal that allowed for the sharing of articles prior to publication, along the lines of arXiv, developed by physicists Paul Ginsparg as a way of getting feedback quickly from peers on 'pre-print' articles.

Kevin Ashley
At first Edwards' successor at the podium, Kevin Ashley, appeared to have the toughest call of the day: explaining and making the case for research data management. But he was an engaging speaker, and made a very convincing case: open sharing of data prevents both deliberate and accidental mistakes by allowing experiments to be reproduced, or sources to be investigated.

 However, this is not without its challenges: many researchers and academics are reluctant to release what they had spent years collecting. Moreover, even if they are willing (or forced) to share, how can all this data be archived and curated? The Digital Curation Centre, of which Ashley is the Director, is helping with this, but the task is not to be underestimated.

After the aspirational and inspirational, Dr Michael Jubb, Excecutive Director of the Research Information Network, gave some perspective on actual progress towards OA. After 20 years of OA, why have we not got further? Whilst a passionate believer in the cause, he recognised many of the issues which needed to be addressed. Many - on both sides - had very entrenched views, and there needed to be more compromise along the road. Perhaps more importantly, the UK is a minor but important player in the research world: 94% of articles have no UK investigator. The UK cannot implement OA alone.

The second Finch Report was due to be published imminently, and would assess developments since July 2012. Certain of these had the potential to completely change the landscape. For instance, some publishers were giving public libraries 'walk in' access to all of their titles. This could have the effect of giving public libraries access to a better range of cutting edge research than those of universities. What was really needed was coordination: funders, researchers, universities, publishers and learned societies needed to work together if the vision was to have any chance of being realised.

The University's VC, Prof Dame Julia Goodfellow, drew the event to a close by pulling together the strands that had been explored throughout the day. Issues of Gold or Green (or Hunter's 'inbetween'), of coordination, of 'double dipping' by publishers: much needed to be resolved, but OA had the potential to change how research was accessed and knowledge advanced. After 450 years, it's about time.

Wellcome Trust - Society & Ethics

The Wellcome Trust has recently expanded its Society and Ethics stream from a tight focus on bioethics to a much broader interest in the social, economic and cultural factors that influence health, biomedicine or health research.

Paul Woodgate, a Funding Adviser at the Trust, visited the University last week to explain the widened remit of the stream, and how it funds a wide range of work with implications for the development and implementation of healthcare practices and health interventions.

Funding Streams 

Essentially, there are five potentially interesting streams within Society and Ethics:

  • Strategic Awards: these are large scale grants that engage with the Trusts five ‘strategic challenges’.
  • Investigator Awards: the Trust’s ‘flagship’ scheme, offering awards of between £500k-£1m over five years in three broad areas: new investigators, senior investigators and joint investigators. It had funded 17 awards in its first two years, to lawyers and philosophers, anthropologists and economists, sociologist and psychologists. It has recently moved from an annual application cycle to a six monthly one, with deadlines in March and September. 
  • University Awards: Unlike the investigator awards, these are aimed at those who are not in permanent academic posts. They are intended as a way into academia, and the host institution for this form of postdoctoral fellowship have to guarantee a permanent position to the award holder at the end of five years. 
  • Fellowships: another form of postdoc fellowships, but with no expectation of a permanent position at the end of it. 
  • Small grants: offer up to £5k with a rolling, monthly deadline. Outcome times are approximately 6 weeks, and success rates roughly 50%. 
The Application

At the heart of the application form is a 3,000 word case for support.

  • This needs to focus on a compelling research question. The whole application hinges on this, and it is this that the shortlisting panel will judge to decide whether the budget and timescale are justified, and whether it should be put forward to the interview stage. 
  • However, a strong research question needs to be coupled with a watertight methodology. You need to convince the panel that you have a well planned project with clear objectives and appropriate methods to provide answers. 
  • As with other funders, you need to write for a mixed audience. Paul put it succinctly: ‘assume intelligence but don’t assume knowledge.’ 
  • Include advisory boards, particularly if there’s any area of weakness in your expertise, or if your project will inform policy or effect practitioners.  
The Process 

All of the major schemes (other than for small scale funding, such as Small Grants) have a three part process:

  • A preliminary outline: for some schemes this is mandatory (such as Fellowships); for others it is recommended. This is the point at which applicants can get feedback from the Trust on their research ideas. Is it worth exploring further? Officers might offer advice on how the full application should be prepared, in readiness for the second stage. 
  • Shortlisting: the full application is looked at by an Expert Review Group. They whittle down the list of applications, taking out half to two thirds of the applications. 
  • Interview: those left go through to interview. Of these, about half are funded. This gives an overall success rate of between 20-25%. The Trust will provide anonymised reviewers comments for unsuccessful applicants. 
Whilst the Trust is happy for applicants to put in concurrent applications to the Research Councils or other funders if they are applying for Fellowship funding, they do not let them to do so if they are applying for standard grants.

The Future 

The Trust has clearly decided that the relationship between science and society is important. The broadening of this stream demonstrates that. Funding for the Society and Ethics is guaranteed until 2016, and the current Strategic Plan is due to run until 2020. However, Paul could not imagine the stream contracting again.

In the meantime, the Trust will on occasion offer specific calls. One such is the current Health Systems Research Initiative. This is intended to support research that will generate practical measure to improve health systems in low and middle income countries. Grants will be offered for between 1-5 yrs, £100-800k, £15m total. The call is looking for research that will inform evidence-based interventions or structural changes and be of direct relevance to decision makers and users in the field. The deadline will be in January.

Monday 21 October 2013

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Grants Factory
Essential Elements of a Good Application
30 October, 12-2pm
Keynes Seminar Room 23

Everyone’s research is different, but successful funding proposals share a number of common elements. Mastering these is essential if your application is going to get the consideration it deserves, no matter how good your underlying research idea is.

The next Grants Factory session will look at these, and will provide insights into how to get them right. The speakers come from very different disciplines, but it is their diverse backgrounds which is their strength: it shows that, whether you’re applying to the AHRC or the BBSRC, the EPSRC or the ESRC, you need to understand the basics.

Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences, with experience of BBSRC, Wellcome and Levehulme) will start by providing an overview of these ‘essential elements’, before being joined by colleagues for a panel discussion to look at the specifics expectations of different funders. Those taking part include Prof Sarah Vickerstaff (SSPSSR, with experience of the ESRC), Prof Simon Thompson (Computing, with experience of EPSRC) and Prof Gordon Lynch (SECL, with experience of AHRC). They will be very open to questions; if you have something specific you want them to address it would be useful if you could let me know beforehand.

Following this session, these four (and other colleagues) will be offering Writing Group sessions, to help, support, mentor and motivate staff in preparing successful proposals. These will be split into four broad areas:

·         The Arts & Humanities
·         The Social Sciences
·         Life & Health Sciences
·         ICT, Maths & Physical Sciences.

More detail on the dates and format for these will be circulated by the Faculty Funding Officers in due course, but if you would like to come along to either the Essential Elements session, or the Writing Groups, do let me know.


All the sessions are free and open to all staff, and lunch will be provided on 30 October.

Friday 18 October 2013

EPSRC Bingo

You know how it is. You're sitting there, listening to EPSRC outlining its strategy, and, well, it all just seems to blend. The words jumble, and you get lost amongst the Grand Challenges and the Great Technologies, the Strategic Partnerships and the Sustainable Commitments.

Well, help is at hand. As part of it's public service remit Fundermentals has developed a framework with which to make sense of it all. 

Yes, it's a game of bingo. But at least it will help you to pay attention.

First to spot all the words and finish the grid wins. Extra points if you manage to combine words from two or more boxes to create your own vapid strategic priority. 




Tuesday 15 October 2013

Notes from Leverhulme Visit, October 2013

A Soap Opera: the source of the Leverhulme millions
The new Director of the Leverhulme Trust, Prof Gordon Marshall, visited the University last week. Whilst we've had visits from his predecessor, Prof Sir Richard Brook, and I've heard Marshall speaking at the LSE, this was the first time he's come to Kent. Anticipation was high, and was shown in the strong turnout: there was standing room only at the back.

Gordon Marshall is a sociologist by training, and has had a long and illustrious career in senior management within higher education. He taught at Bath, Essex and the LSE, was Chief Executive of the ESRC and VC at Reading. After climbing to these dizzy heights, Marshall is enjoying life at the helm of what he described as a 'small peer review shop off Fleet Street'.

The Trust gives out less than half the value of awards of the ESRC (£80m, compared to some £200m), but processes four times as many applications (4,000 pa, compared to the ESRC's 800). Moreover, it does so with just 14 people, compared to the ESRC's 125. With such a small team, 'we can't generate much bureaucracy', said Marshall.

96% of their awards are responsive mode. The exception are the Programme Grants, which offer substantial funding (up to £1.75m) in areas identified by the Trustees. The disciplinary distribution of awards generally follows applications: they get more science applications, so tend to give out more science awards. The divide is roughly as follows:

  • Sciences: 50%
  • Humanities: 30%
  • Social Sciences: 20%
 However, these figures should be treated with caution: Leverhulme encourages interdisciplinary work, so its sometimes hard to pin down exactly which discipline any project belongs to.

The Trust does not 'manage demand', as many of the Research Councils have had to do. 'If your quality is acceptable we fund you,' said Marshall. Whilst the Trustees have the ultimate say on who gets funded, they rely for advice on reviews and on a small group of academic advisors. The Trustees, claimed Marshall, 'were the last group of people in the country who have respect for the academy'. They recognised the worth of good research, and wanted to fund it. In terms of what shape this should take, Leverhulme was very open. It covers all disciplines except:

  • clinical medical research (which is already well covered by Wellcome); 
  • policy-driven research, which should be funded by the Government;
  • 'advocacy' projects;
  • those with immediate commercial applications, which should be funded by industry.
The Trust wanted to fund the best, but didn't want to be in competition with the Research Councils or, worse still, be the 'funder of last resort' for those who have already tried the Research Councils. However, if your work is exciting, ground-breaking and robust, but can't get funding with the Research Councils (perhaps because you're emeritus, or you're seeking studentships, or the project's too risky, or too interdisciplinary), then the Trust would be interested.

Marshall finished by highlighting some common failings of unsuccessful applications. These included:

  • An overly detailed review of the literature. Whilst the Trustees need some context, you should concentrate on the specifics of what you are actually going to do. This leads on to the second failing:
  • Under specified research design;
  • Claims of scholarship. Leverhulme isn't interested in H-Index, REF scores, or any other indication of prestige. They look solely at the potential of the project and your ability to undertake the research;
  • Supposition of a hidden agenda. There is no agenda. Leverhulme just wants to fund the best research, wherever it is found;
  • Incremental work. They don't provide funding for 'empire building', or work that doesn't lead to a step change in understanding. Excite them.
  • Claims of impact. They have no interest in this agenda.
I will make a recording of his talk and Marshall's slides available on the Research Services website shortly. If you would like me to email these to you, drop me a line.

Monday 7 October 2013

ECR Network: Planning your Career

Whilst some early career researchers might have a very clear and definite idea of where they want to be in five, ten or twenty years time, others may be less sure. Even those with certainty might not know how to make it happen. This session, the first ECR Network event of the new year, will be led by Prof Sally Sheldon (Kent Law School) and Dr Simon Black (Human Resources/School of Anthropology & Conservation). Both have had very different careers, and between them represent a number of different issues, from juggling the needs of family with the demands of your career, to dealing with workloads whilst keeping your eye on your long term goal, to making the most of opportunities, even if they’re the ones you might not necessarily have initially chosen. As well as a researcher in his own right, Simon is Learning & Development adviser for HR, with particular responsibility for the development of researchers, so can advise on the support the University offers in planning and developing your career.

The event is free and open to all, and tea/coffee/water/biscuits will be provided. However, do let me know if you intend to come along so that I can get an idea of numbers.


Friday 4 October 2013

'Funderland' (TM)

The ERC HQ: Heaven
I've just come back from a couple of days in Brussels with a great idea that, quite frankly, I can't believe no-one else has ever thought up. No-one. Ever. I'm slightly scared about revealing it here because it's an idea of such monstrous beauty, as well as being a potential source of happiness for millions and - let's not beat about the bush - everlasting world peace, that there's probably a Mahatma Gandhi out there reading this and thinking, 'I'll have that, thank you very much'.

But before revealing my genius, let's take a step back and see how the idea came to be.There were two triggers, which both came from the recent trip:

  1. The Parliamentarium. This is the latest effort by the EU to convince all the naysayers that the Parliament is not just an expensive way to straighten our bananas, but has actually, y'know, stopped neighbours tearing chunks out of each other for the last sixty years. And you know what? It's actually very good. What could potentially have been a deathly tour into the minutiae of supranational legislative processes is actually presented in such a way that it inspires and cheers you. So what if they straighten a few bananas? They've found a way of getting people to talk to each other on equal terms. Museums tend to dwell on warfare and horror, on sacrifice, grimness and, well, pustules. But here was one that focused on quiet determination and success through bureaucracy. That's quite a feat for visitors' centre. 
  2. The ERC Headquarters. Like the poisoned characters entering Heaven at the end of Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, we stared around at our surroundings in disbelief. Choirs of angels sang away in the distance. Lions lay down with lambs amongst the verdant greenery. Little elfin children skipped happily around around our feet. This was the entrance to the Covent Garden Building which houses the ERC. It was exciting enough to be at the epicentre of pure research in Europe, the beating heart of the beast that discards all other criterion in favour of Excellence. But for the reality to match my dream! It was almost too much.
Which is when I came up with my Great Idea. A visitors' centre - nay, a visitors' experience - based around research funding. If some American fella can build one around an oversized mouse, then surely, surely there's room for Funderland (TM)? Obviously, the details are still to be finalised, but here are some broadbrush ideas:
  • 'Doom': This gives the public a sense of the grant writing process. It's a log flume ride. First, you go through a long dark tunnel that at times seems endless. You lose the will to live and are just praying for it to be over. However, before you know it the end is in sight and you start to panic. 'Wait!' you think, 'I'm not ready!' Whoosh you go, down the flume, and you feel momentarily exhilarated. This doesn't last. A big rubber hammer marked REJECTION hits you on the head and you enter the tunnel again.
  • 'High n' Low': This is a giant, swooping rollercoaster that tries to reflect the typical reviews and grades for a funding proposal. Extreme highs! Unjust lows! Breathtakingly short! Interminably long! It's all here.
  • 'Herding Cats': For animal lovers, FP7 coordinators and research administrators everywhere. You're given 13 cats, a rattle and a short piece of string. You have to try to herd all 13 cats through a complicated maze before the 'Submit' klaxon sounds. 
  • 'The Treadmill': There's a giant screen showing Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein doing a big, complicated experiment involving lots of expensive machines. They've just reached a point where they're about to solve a big, complicated question when - oh no! - the screen flickers and fades! It turns out that the screen is powered by sixteen treadmill 'grant' generators. Each has to be constantly kept going. If a visitors gets bored and steps off, someone else better step up! Ah the joys of the big project!
  • 'Let's Interdisciplinate!': Visitors are given a random selection of five household objects. They have to work out how each can inform the others, and can benefit from the experience of the others.
I could go on all night, but I see that ol' Mahatma in the corner is taking notes. You'll have to come along to the grand opening. I'm negotiating with Swindon Borough Council on some prime real estate off Death Star Avenue. I think that's them on the phone now.