ReconnectUK17 Event notes







Notice of Award thoughts - who could we engage (rcuk, flexi-grant users etc), what format to use (pdf metadata, xml file, api) bear in mind the simpler format might be easier for funders to implement, could we extend the idea to notice of unsuccessful award.

Also discussed award supplements. Agreed that some work to define supplements was needed before we could consider including them here.

We might need to include institutional application id in metadata. But question here about sensitivity of data.
Could we see what the Canadian common cv includes around awards. Reuse their definitions.

We think we could use the snowball definition of an award.



The prioritized issues:

  1. Defining various publication types (referring to journal articles and conference papers). Different publishers and authors mean different things, which is causing confusion for REF. ‘Letters’ can actually be research letters and this has different meanings across disciplines (e.g. contrast Physics with Humanities).
  2. UUK OA groups are carrying out work that CASRAI should link with. For example, the UUK efficiencies group is working on the terminology used by publishers, funders and research organisations.
  3. Correspondence from publishers to authors uses legal terms and this needs to be mapped to HEI legal services. All terms need to be consistent.
  4. Defining Author’s Accepted Manuscript: in an ideal world all publishers would have a simple ‘download’ button at the same stage of the publication cycle so that the Author’s Accepted Manuscript can be obtained.
  5. When will Jisc Publications Router be deemed a success? This seems to be dependent on the system as for some it is not necessarily adding benefit in terms of additional data provided. If HEFCE move to a deadline of 3 months within acceptance then will data be uploaded in time?
  6. Open Access in the arts re. non-textual/practice based outputs. May upload the whole output but restrict and make just a clip visible.


Research Outcomes Reporting


  1. Research outcomes reporting will very much benefit from the definition and adoption of the Career Levels Taxonomy, as it will help to identify the individuals whose outputs need reporting.

  2. There are frequent complaints about coverage and availability of outputs identifiers for arts, humanities and social sciences. It shouldn’t prevent us from continuing to progress at all levels. Education of all stakeholders is paramount.

  • Some identifiers exist but users (authors) are not aware or do not know how to use them: Educate.
  • Perception could be biased by historical anecdote and/or the natural difference between subjects (i.e. that arts and humanities comparatively uses less JA both in volume and frequency): Educate (e.g. how this is changing)
  • Some sources claim the coverage is increasing: Encourage, celebrate, communicate.
  • As workaround use the knowledge and position of subject librarians (e.g. to educate, to identify new outputs, to complete/link metadata, etc)
  1. Other output types need imaginative solutions for optimising the collection, curation and reporting. Identifiers are a key step. For example:
  • book chapters: ISBN is no sufficient
  • patents: Ids exist, but are not unique nor consistent (different patents can be filed in different jurisdictions, and or different applications of the same idea)
  • outputs as a result of contract research (opposite to grant funding) there is less need to report externally, or at output level but there is need of reporting at aggregated level, and there are considerations and synergies to be gained if integrating with ROs CRMs and/or confidentiality agreements.
  • BL thesis have Ethos Ids that could be used as identifiers (may not be global, data model doesn’t allow for efficient API)

Note: we haven’t covered all topics