It’s been awhile since my last blog post – been playing detective in a very interesting work task. Early this year the ICT-KM program offered CGIAR centers the opportunity to have their research outputs put to the test. What test, you wonder? When we in the CGIAR say the work we do, belongs to everyone as a public international good…how many of our research outputs really walk the talk?
My mission- first, find out how research outputs from six CGIAR Centers measured up in terms of being available online. This meant spending countless hours surfing the great worldwide web for Center publications, research journal articles, book chapters, conference and workshop papers armed with only an author name, title or year.
Having searched through the various center websites, CG Virtual library, Google, AGRIS, Scirus and CABI, if the document was found, the next piece of detective work involved seeing how accessible the document was? Could anyone access the document in full text or was access limited to the abstract alone?
The challenges were plenty!
And here’s what I observed:
Then why not just Google everything? Tempting but Peter clarifies further, “Google doesn’t find everything since it only indexes publicly available web pages while CGVlibrary specializes in searching and retrieving records from closed (and open access) databases. Therein lies the fundamental difference, which is also why you have to be more careful searching CGVlibrary since you’re actually searching the record metadata rather than the entire document content.”
CGVlibrary provides a link to agricultural information databases so you can stay current on CGIAR research- think of it as having a straw in 180 milkshakes i.e. searching from 180 different databases (open and closed access) based on metadata using standardized fields.
So while Google – the default go-to search engine we all adore, is great, it only searches based on what’s public which means you’re fishing in a smaller pool. Which brings us to the point – your research outputs fare better as public goods when they are made available via many search engines and databases. Google Scholar and Google Books can do much to make your research outputs more accessible. People stand a greater chance of finding your work this way.
However, if you have to register and pay a subscription fee to view a document in full text, it is accessible to a select few only. It may be argued that requests for hard copies of journal articles can be made from the Center libraries. But the time it takes just does not seem reasonable these days when information can soon become obsolete.
The six Centers that graciously allowed us to benchmark their research outputs are Bioversity, CIAT, CIMMYT, CIP, ICRAF and WorldFish. The percentage of their peer reviewed journal articles from year 2006 that are available in full text and accessible online range between 22 – 62 percent. This pans out to an average of 36% per center, meaning we still have a long way to go in making our PIGs fly.
ICT-KM in partnership with CIARD recently developed pathways to aid policymakers, research directors, researchers and information specialists with making their research outputs more available, accessible and finally…applicable. Knowledge is power only when applied. It is quite timely for us to scrutinize our policies when it comes to disseminating our research outputs and ensuring we do not put that power in the hands of a few.
Over the next few weeks, we’ll be exploring these pathways and how they can help your research outputs fly!
Till next time.
[...] This post was Twitted by FJ_Martin [...]
Interesting post, Meena
The percentage of accessible “peer-reviewed” journal articles varies from 22% to 62%; any clue why this gap is so wide? Do centres more to get indexed, or do they publish in other journals? (some peer reviewed journals, like those from Biomed Central and PLoS are accessible to all, while journals from may other publishers are not)
Hugo
Thanks for sharing, Meena. I think the low access figures you cite are somewhat misleading when one accounts for the fact that the research outputs themselves take on different formats upon publishing. For example, many IFPRI discussion papers are subsequently published in alternate formats in peer-reviewed journals. And, although the PR journal article version may not be openly accessible, the discussion paper version is 100% open access. This means that the research itself is accessible, but not all versions thereof may be fully open access. The goal, of course, remains to open access to all research outputs and I think many CG centers could improve their efforts in this area by proactively posting pre- and post-print full-text articles in their institutional repositories in accordance with the publishers’ copyright policies as outlined at http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/. Another model worth paying attention to is being promoted by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), which offers different versions of an addendum that authors can use to leverage open access when signing publishing agreements (see http://www.arl.org/sparc/author/).
I wish IRRI were included in the study. Here we have linked IRRI research outputs to our catalog and the rice database so that scientists within the IRRI campus can access full text materials. We couldn’t give public access to copyrighted materials. IRRI public goods are available via its web site at http://beta.irri.org/publications/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=21
IRRI books are available at Google Books, while photos may be viewed/downloaded via the web site or through Flickr. We also have started populating a DSpace repository dedicated to IRRI public goods at http://172.29.75.30:8080/dspace/
@ Hugo: Am still in analysis stage for the data but at a glance- it depends on the journal your article is submitted to. However some Centers have ingeniously shared the same research in final draft/pdf form in their websites- making that work accessible (as Peter mentions in his comment).
@Peter: Thanks for the input. What you say is true of some Centers (IFPRI is an excellent example), but not most of the centers I benchmarked. This is a study that aims to get people to realise there are many ways to share their research online (not many are aware).
Hi Mila,thanks. Looks like IRRI is doing a great job of sharing their research via website, Flickr and Google Books. Would be great to include more centers in the study, however, funds and time was limited.
Interesting how the desire to make research outputs fly seems to be universal:
(Image in the download links of all books to which IRRI owns copyright at http://books.irri.org)
Marco
Oops images don’t appear here. Check it at http://books.irri.org/download.gif
Excellent Internet connectivity is not a theory, it is something that centers (and institutions involved in research in general) need to invest in. It doesn’t come cheap, and it’s not a single DSL line going into a research center either.
Hi Marco. Thanks for the IRRI book link. You’re right about internet connectivity- it requires investment. The statement was more an assumption I had since I was in a Center with reasonable internet access (which probably invested more than some other research institutions or universities in the region, but that’s another story).