The Role of the Library in the Research Enterprise

Journal of eScience Librarianship

Volume 2 Issue 1 Special Issue: Role of the Informationist or Embedded Librarian in the Scientific Article 4 Research Process

2013-05-02

The Role of the Library in the Research Enterprise

Christopher J. Shaffer Oregon Health & Science University

Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Follow this and additional works at: https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib

Part of the Library and Information Science Commons, and the Medicine and Health Sciences Commons

Repository Citation Shaffer CJ. The Role of the Library in the Research Enterprise. Journal of eScience Librarianship 2013;2(1): e1043. https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2013.1043. Retrieved from https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/vol2/iss1/4

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. This material is brought to you by eScholarship@UMMS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of eScience Librarianship by an authorized administrator of eScholarship@UMMS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JESLIB 2013; 2(1): 8-15 doi:10.7191/jeslib.2013.1043

The Role of the Library in the Research Enterprise

Christopher J. Shaffer

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

Abstract

Libraries have provided services to re- library services, briefly describes the eSci- searchers for many years. Changes in tech- ence and publishing landscape as it relates nology and new publishing models provide to libraries, and explores possible library pro- opportunities for libraries to be more in- grams in support of research. Many of the volved in the research enterprise. Within new opportunities require new partnerships, this article, the author reviews traditional both within the institution and externally.

Introduction journals – free and online. They see little need to visit the library or communicate with Data collection, management, and analysis librarians. Information professionals can technologies are changing the landscape of certainly do many things to improve the usa- research. Digital technologies, from sensors bility of the journal literature. More and bet- to analytical instrumentation, are increasing- ter tools are available to study researcher ly a core component of observational and use of articles, from reading to citation pat- experimental research. Meanwhile, changes terns, which can be leveraged to better tar- in scholarly publishing offer new opportuni- get purchasing and licensing decisions. ties for researchers to share the products of Search engines, from Google Scholar to their work in ways that weren’t previously PubMed, are continually being improved to possible. enhance retrieval of relevant information. Libraries have long provided training and There has been an increasing interest in the research consultation services to improve library field to better connect with the re- the efficiency with which end-users search search needs of faculty and students, and to literature databases. Librarians help re- explore how the skills, knowledge, and prac- searchers manage citations and articles, tices of librarianship could be applied to- providing training and support for products wards supporting evolving eScience para- such as EndNote and RefWorks. digms, particularly in the area of data curation. Proponents of open access are trying to in- troduce new financial models in support of Traditional Library Services transparent sharing of research results (Butter et al. 2012). The scholarly publishing In the naïve view, all researchers want from crisis (aka the library funding crisis) is forcing the library are journals, journals, and more research institutions to rethink services to

Correspondence to Christopher Shaffer: [email protected] Keywords: Library, eScience, research, data 8 JESLIB 2013; 2(1): 8-15 doi:10.7191/jeslib.2013.1043 support researcher access to the literature, senting new data management challenges especially in times of shrinking budgets in for researchers. Resource Navigators work- higher education. Increasingly, when re- ing with The eagle-i Consortium discovered searchers can’t access the journal articles that the vast majority of academic biomedi- they need, they bypass traditional library ser- cal research laboratories do not have an ef- vices such as document delivery and interli- fective inventory system for managing physi- brary loan, which may be perceived as ex- cal or digital resources (Shaffer 2012). The pensive and cumbersome, and instead email proliferation of computer files can transform authors and colleagues. Commercial organi- the traditional lab notebook into a complex zations, from publishers to aggregators, are mess of spreadsheets and documents that marketing individual articles via pay-per- can only be interpreted by the producer, if view, in partnership or competition with li- they can be found and interpreted at all. braries. Breaking down the traditional unit of the journal volume or issue into commercial- Beyond the simple, yet massive, increase in ly marketable units challenges the old mod- the volume of research data collection, the els of collecting and acquiring journal litera- complexity and diversity of data is increas- ture for researchers. ing. Data manipulation technologies and algorithms can be so intricate that some re- Changes in Research and Researchers searchers have posed fundamental questions about the reproducibility of computa- As Jim Gray described it, eScience is a tional research (Stodden 2010). Technology “transformed scientific method” or “the fourth is also allowing the integration of quantitative paradigm.” Research was originally empiri- and qualitative data in ways not previously cal. In the last few hundred years, theoreti- possible, raising new data management is- cal models emerged. More recently, re- sues (Estabrooks 2009). Funding agencies searchers have been able to use computa- are beginning to mandate data sharing plans tional tools to explore simulations of complex in grant applications to facilitate data reuse environments. Now we have access to vast and eliminate redundancy. Technology is quantities of data from experiments and in- facilitating the sharing of research infor- struments, massive simulations, meta- mation prior to traditional publishing pat- analysis of research results, and more. Gray terns, as seen in the emergence of “Science argues that this is a new way of doing re- 2.0” or open science (Waldrop 2008). search and requires a new model for con- ducting scientific inquiry (Gray 2009). How- Technology is also changing the culture of ever, not all research that falls under the ru- research. The emergence of team science bric of eScience is conducted at the grand challenges investigators to work together in scale of particle physics or genomic experi- new ways. In the example of health scienc- ments. There are many challenges facing es, the dominance of the R01 grant is slowly researchers working at a variety of scales of giving way to the rise of Program Project and data. Center Grants. Wuchty, et al. (2007) showed that teams are growing larger, and The explosion of publishing, driven by an their articles are more highly cited than solo increasingly competitive tenure and promo- authored articles. The National Institutes of tion environment and the growing specializa- Health’s emphasis on translational science is tion of science, has made a vast amount of bringing basic science investigators together journal literature available to researchers. with clinicians to speed the transfer of Researchers are reading more and more knowledge from the bench to the bedside. articles every year, yet spend less and less Schools are revising tenure policies to rec- time reading each individual article (Tenopir ognize that not every researcher will have 2009). It is clear that technology is also pre- the opportunity to be first author, and articles

9 JESLIB 2013; 2(1): 8-15 doi:10.7191/jeslib.2013.1043 Figure 1: Knowledge Transfer Data Life Cycle (Humphrey 2012).

with 20 or more authors are not uncommon. ducted by the teams took place with an un- The institutional organization needed to derstanding that an exploration of the re- manage multidisciplinary and team research search environment must include perspec- and is promoting the development of new tives that are outside of the normal context skill sets and support structures (Boardman of library research. Participation in planning 2013). Superstar researchers are managing by researchers, research administrators, and teams of hundreds, rather than individual other service providers is essential. Outside labs staffed with a small group of students, voices provide important contextual infor- research associates, and postdoctoral schol- mation and opinions that help to inform the ars. broader discussions taking place around eScience and data management. The Research Enterprise The E-Science Institute teams, which includ- In order to identify new roles for libraries in ed at least one person external to the library, the research enterprise, librarians must first created an inventory of the services and re- gain a deep and multi-faceted understanding sources currently available to research of the research environment at their own in- teams. Some teams found that there was stitutions. In the DuraSpace/ARL/DLF E- significant centralization of research admin- Science Institute, teams from dozens of re- istration, information technology, financial search libraries examined their local environ- services, and other units providing services, ments through interviews with stakeholders, while other teams found silos and fragmen- surveys, identification of primary areas of tation. Understanding the often complex ar- research emphasis, and analysis of institu- ray over overlapping services and providers tional culture. The landscape analysis con- helped libraries begin to identify gaps, which

10 JESLIB 2013; 2(1): 8-15 doi:10.7191/jeslib.2013.1043 the library might help fill. Libraries also dis- an experiment or project through the publica- covered unexpected pockets of research in tion of results (Humphrey 2012). institutes, departments, and units that were not traditionally considered research centers Research data services can be seen as a on their campuses (The DuraSpace/ARL/ natural extension of the research library’s DLF 2012 E-science Institute 2012). mission to collect, preserve, and make available to scholars a documented record of re- At the University of North Carolina at Chapel search. Libraries have traditionally fulfilled Hill (UNC), the Provost’s Task Force on the this charge at the end of the research pro- Stewardship of Digital Research Data, which cess: making articles available via journal included representatives from the Library subscriptions, assisting with citation man- and across the campus, conducted a re- agement, assessing research impact search data stewardship survey (Provost’s through bibliometrics and citation analysis, Task Force on the Stewardship of Digital Re- and assisting researchers with finding rele- search Data 2012). In partnership with the vant published literature. In recent years, Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) libraries have begun assisting with regulato- Research Council, the OHSU Library imple- ry compliance, most notably in assisting re- mented the UNC survey (revised to better fit searchers with required deposit of article the local setting in Oregon). Getting direct manuscripts in PubMed Central to comply feedback from researchers at the local insti- with the NIH Public Access Policy. In re- tution is crucial to identifying their pain points sponse to changes in scholarly communica- in management of data and other research tion, librarians have promoted open access products. and formed organizations like the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coali- The Role of the Library tion (SPARC).

There are many roles that libraries have as- Librarian expertise with metadata design, sumed in supporting eScience. In 2009, the selection, and application could be applied to Association of American Universities, Asso- the data curation and sharing process. Les- ciation of Research Libraries, Coalition for sons learned in preservation and archiving Networked Information, and the National As- seem to be applicable to the challenges re- sociation of State Universities and Land searchers face in storing data and making it Grant Colleges issued a call to action urging available for analysis and reuse. The sug- libraries to become involved in the dissemi- gestion that data citations could be used in nation of the full range of products of faculty tenure and promotion has a clear analogue research and scholarship throughout the re- to article citation and bibliometric analysis. search lifecycle (Hahn 2009). The E- Science Institute was one of many respons- However, there are many potential barriers es to that call. However, there is little con- to data sharing. Some potential partners, sensus on which, if any, objectives research such as technology transfer and business libraries should pursue in this arena. development offices, might want to restrict data sharing in ways that seem antithetical New NSF and NIH regulations requiring re- to many librarians’ philosophy of free and searchers to include data management open sharing of information. Libraries must plans in grant applications appear to offer find ways to work with these partners in the libraries a new entrée into the research pro- service of researchers, rather than treating cess. The data lifecycle model of describing them as competitors and wasting limited re- the products of research provides a way for sources on conflict. There are many rea- librarians to examine issues related to the sons that privacy of information may be curation of information from the inception of more important to the institution or the re-

11 JESLIB 2013; 2(1): 8-15 doi:10.7191/jeslib.2013.1043 searcher than data sharing. The severe  Collection development (policies, areas, penalties associated with release of individu- methods); ally identifiable health information under the Health Information Portability and Accounta-  Technical infrastructure bility Act, protection of the safety of re- (cyberinfrastructure, HPC, grid, storage). searchers working in controversial fields like primate research, and the need to respect There are also potential roles for libraries in the cultural and privacy rights of study popu- promoting the scholarly outputs of their insti- lations are just three examples. In some dis- tutions. At OHSU, the Library participates in ciplines, researchers have a natural inclina- Research Week, an annual celebration of tion to keep data secret to prevent being campus research that brings together people ‘scooped,’ or because they fear data misuse. from across disciplines. Librarians and bio- In any case, curating data – publishing and informaticists at the Bernard Becker Medical archiving for preservation - is difficult and Library of Washington University have devel- time consuming. This should not be dis- oped a model for assessment of research counted as perhaps the largest impediment impact (Sarli 2010). Expertise systems are to data sharing. being used by libraries on some campuses to highlight interests and accomplishments Some libraries are already promoting best of researchers at an institution. practices in data management. Laboratory information management systems (LIMS), Expertise systems, such as VIVO, SciVal once limited to the largest and best-funded Experts, and Harvard Profiles, have been labs, are now available as web services and implemented at many research institutions. have been promoted as tools to better or- These tools can be used to promote an insti- ganize and describe research resources and tution, to help build multidisciplinary or trans- data. Librarians are assisting lab managers lational research teams, and to help re- with the development and implementation of search administrators make investment and metadata schema, and libraries have drafted recruiting decisions. The eagle-i Consortium templates for data management plans to use is indexing research resources, such as core in grant applications. Information scientists facilities, model organisms, antibodies, and and domain specialists are developing ontol- plasmids, to facilitate sharing and re-use ogies and implementing linked open data (Vasilevsky 2012). At many campuses, li- (LOD) to facilitate data harvesting and reuse. braries are key players in building and publi- cizing expertise systems. However, other But data isn't everything. At the E-Science campuses have implemented systems with- Institute, teams were encouraged to consid- out library involvement, so this is an area er potential services in: where the role of the library is not universally accepted.  Scholarly communication (connecting data to articles, “data papers”); The OHSU Library Ontology Development Group is developing an Integrated Semantic  Virtual organizations (distributed re- Framework (ISF), which will merge expertise search teams, shared compute); and resource ontologies and allow for the integration of linked open data between dis-  Physical space (visualization labs, group parate systems (Torniai 2011). This project study); is one of many multi-institution ontology col- laborations with partners from industry and  Policy development (IP or sharing, inte- academia, bringing together domain special- grating, citing, preservation); ists, computer scientists, librarians, and other information scientists. This work is a nat-

12 JESLIB 2013; 2(1): 8-15 doi:10.7191/jeslib.2013.1043 ural extension of libraries’ traditional role to librarians need to be hired? Or will new pro- index and catalog information for retrieval. fessional roles need to be developed? In the remainder of this issue, librarians and infor- The E-Science Institute demonstrated that mation scientists will try to answer these there is wide interest in providing eScience questions, as they describe a new kind of services by libraries. It also demonstrated collaboration: information professionals em- that libraries are all over the map in develop- bedded in research teams as informationists. ing and implementing services. There is as yet no consensus on what services should or References will be considered essential for libraries to provide. This is not the first time that librar- Boardman, Craig and Branco Ponomariov. ies have developed new services and pro- “Management knowledge and the organiza- grams, which are then seen as essential for tion of team science in university research research libraries to adopt in order to stay centers.” The Journal of Technology Trans- current. However, the institutional repository fer (2012): 1-18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ serves as a cautionary warning. Even where s10961-012-9271-x there is a defined need and service to re- spond to the need, it’s not clear that libraries Butter, Karen, Anneliese Taylor, Emma Cry- will be the ones to take on new roles - com- er, and Patricia Thibodeau. “The growing peting service providers may be more suc- crisis: Scholarly publishing pressures facing cessful (Carlson 2013). Perhaps the library health sciences libraries.” Journal of Library can play a role as a connecting unit that Administration 52, no. 8 (2012): 672-698, helps unify the institution it serves, as the http:// “Switzerland” of the research enterprise dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2012.746873 (Wirz 2012). Carlson, Jake and others. "The E-Science The five organizational stages for data cura- Institute Experience: How it Happened, What tion developed by Kenney and McGovern We Learned, and Where We Go From (2003) could provide libraries that are con- Here." Unpublished article (2013). sidering development of eScience services a tool with which measure their current status Duraspace.org. “The DuraSpace/ARL/DLF and future potential. Institutions may 2012 E-science Institute.” Accessed Decem- acknowledge that there is an issue to ad- ber 1, 2012. http://duraspace.org/esi-course- dress (stage 1), determine that e-research is description. of interest locally; act (stage 2), initiating relevant projects; consolidate (stage 3), shifting Estabrooks, Carole A., Janet E. Squires, from projects to programs; institutionalize Greta G. Cummings, Gary F. Teare, and Pe- (stage 4), incorporate the broader environ- ter G. Norton. “Study protocol for the trans- ment and rationalizing programs; or external- lating research in elder care (TREC): Build- ize (stage 5) embracing inter-institutional col- ing context–an organizational monitoring laboration and dependencies. program in long-term care project (project one).” Implementation Science 4, no. 1 There are also questions about the work- (2009): 52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748- force required for e-science initiatives. In 5908-4-52 addition to traditional library roles, such as cataloger, systems specialist, and reference Gray, Jim. “Jim gray on eScience: A trans- librarian, libraries will also need new types of formed scientific method.” In The fourth par- expertise, such as domain specialists, ontol- adigm: Data-intensive scientific discovery, ogists, and data curators. Will the existing edited by Tony Hey, Stewart Tansley and workforce need retooling? Will non- Kristin Tolle, xixMicrosoft, 2009.

13 JESLIB 2013; 2(1): 8-15 doi:10.7191/jeslib.2013.1043 Hahn, Karla, Charles Lowry, Clifford Lynch, Stodden, Victoria C. “Reproducible research: David Shulenberger, and John Vaughn. “The Addressing the need for data and code shar- university's role in the dissemination of re- ing in computational science.” Computing in search and scholarship--A call to ac- Science & Engineering 12, no. 5 (2010): 8- tion.” Association of American Universities, 12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ 2009. http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/ MCSE.2010.113 DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8924. Tenopir, Carol, Donald W. King, Sheri Ed- Heidorn, P. Bryan. “The emerging role of li- wards, and Lei Wu. “Electronic journals and braries in data curation and esci- changes in scholarly article seeking and ence.” Journal of Library Administration 51, reading patterns.” Aslib Proceedings 61, no. no. 7-8 (2011): 662-672, http:// 1 (2009): 5-32, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2011.601269 dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012530910932267

Humphrey, Charles. e-science and the life Torniai, Carlo, Matt Brush, Nicole Va- cycle of research. Alberta, CA, Available silevsky, Erik Segerdell, ML Wilson, Tenille from http://datalib.library.ualberta.ca/ Johnson, Karen Corday, Chris Shaffer, and ~humphrey/lifecycle- Melissa Haendel. “Developing an application science060308.doc (accessed December 1, ontology for biomedical resource annotation 2012). and retrieval: Challenges and lessons learned.” Paper presented at Proceedings in Kenney, Anne R., and Nancy Y. McGovern. International Conference on Biomedical On- “The five organizational stages of digital tology, Buffalo, NY, 2011. http:// preservation.” In Digital Libraries: A Vision ctsaconnect.org/system/files/Torniai%20et% for the 21st Century.A Festschrift for Wendy 20al_ICBO-2011.pdf. Pratt Lougee on the Occasion of Her Depar- ture from the University of Michigan, 2003. Vasilevsky, Nicole, Tenille Johnson, Karen http://quod.lib.umich.edu/s/spobooks/ Corday, Carlo Torniai, Matthew Brush, Erik bbv9812.0001.001. Segerdell, Melanie Wilson, Chris Shaffer, David Robinson, and Melissa Haendel. Provost’s Task Force on the Stewardship of “Research resources: Curating the new ea- Digital Research Data. “Research Data gle-i discovery system.” Database: The Jour- Stewardship at UNC: Recommendations for nal of Biological Databases and Cura- Scholarly Practice and Leadership. Chapel tion (2012): bar067, http:// Hill, NC, 2012. http://sils.unc.edu/sites/ dx.doi.org/10.1093/database/bar067 default/files/general/research/ UNC_Research_Data_Stewardship_Report. Waldrop, M. Mitchell. “Science pdf. 2.0.” Scientific American 298, no. 5 (2008): 68-73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ Sarli, Cathy C., Ellen K. Dubinsky, and Kristi scientificamerican0508-68 L. Holmes. “Beyond citation analysis: A model for assessment of research im- Wirz, Jackie. “Leveraging libraries for se- pact.” Journal of the Medical Library Associ- mantic infrastructure projects and data man- ation: JMLA 98, no. 1 (2010): 17-23, http:// agement services for maximum data reuse dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.98.1.008 and visibility.” Accessed December 1, 2012. http://www.vivoweb.org/files/ Shaffer, Christopher. “Challenges in sharing presentations/12Fri/ research resources.” Accessed December 1, Wirz_VIVO_Annotated.pdf. 2012. https://www.aamc.org/ download/263818/data/shafferoctober18.pdf. Wuchty, Stefan, Benjamin F. Jones, and Bri-

14 JESLIB 2013; 2(1): 8-15 doi:10.7191/jeslib.2013.1043 an Uzzi. "The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge." Science 316, no. 5827 (2007): 1036-1039, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/ science.1136099

Disclosure: The author reports no conflicts of interest.

All content in Journal of eScience Librarianship, unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

ISSN 2161-3974