Disciplinary differences: some findings and conclusions

© Rightscom 2005 – All rights reserved

Disciplinary differences:some findings and conclusions

Presentation to the Research Communications Forum

Sue SparksNovember 22nd, 2005

JISC Disciplinary differences findings


Aims, methodology, caveats

►Aims► Inform JISC of the needs of academic researchers in

different disciplines for information resources ►Help JISC to understand the barriers and opportunities

facing researchers both in access to research resources and in publishing their work

►Methodology►Desk research►Web-based survey (750 responses across all RAE UoAs)►Validation workshop

►Reporting only broad-brush groups here but there are significant differences within groups

►Problems defining “discipline”►Growth of cross, inter and multi-disciplinary work



What researchers can’t do without

► Pre and post-prints, conference proceedings each named by about 6% of physical sciences/engineering

► Datasets by 8% of social sciences, 3-4% of physical and biological sciences

► “Other textual” sources by 10% of languages and 15% of arts/humanities

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Me

dic

al a

nd

bio

log

ica

lsc

ien

ces

Ph

ysic

al

scie

nce

s a

nd

en

gin

ee

rin

g

So

cia

l sci

en

ces

La

ng

ua

ge

s a

nd

are

a s

tud

ies

Art

s a

nd

hu

ma

niti

es

Discipline

% o

f res

po

nse

s

Journal article

Book



Single essential discovery tool

►Google not the overwhelming choice►Sciences lean to subject-specific resources►22% of medical/biological chose subject-specific

online gateways as their single essential tool

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Medical andbiologicalsciences

Physicalsciences andengineering

Socialsciences

Languagesand areastudies

Arts andhumanities

discipline

% o

f re

sp

on

se

s

Search engine

Subject-specific A&I

Citation databases

General bibliographic



Problems in access to resources

► A majority in medical and biological sciences and arts and humanities reported problems in access to resources

► Sizeable minorities – over 40% - in all other groups also experience problems

0102030405060708090

100

Medicaland

biologicalsciences

Physicalsciences

Socialsciences

Languagesand areastudies

Arts andhumanities

Library does not take the journalsI need

Library does not buy the books Ineed

Library does not subscribe to thedatabases I need

I cannot get access to theconference proceedings I need

Key information is proprietary

I need to travel to accessresources and funding isn’tavailable



Problems in dissemination

► Around half of respondents in medical and biological and social sciences and 40% of arts and humanities researchers reported problems in dissemination

► Most important problems: space in highly-rated journals, speed of review, fewer monographs published

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Physical sciences Social sciences Languages andarea studies

Arts andhumanities

Pressure on space and/or high rejectionrate in journals rated highly in RAE

Slow speed of reviewing and decisionmaking in the publication process

Funding is not available to pay pagecharges or other fees to publish

Fewer monographs being published

No funding available to attend the rightconferences

Cannot find an appropriate outlet for myinterdisciplinary research

Cannot find an appropriate outlet for mycreative or performing arts research



Informal communication

► Around 80% in every disciplinary group seek information from colleagues face-to-face, via phone and email

► Reading email newsletters and blogs and posting queries to email lists is more prevalent in social sciences and arts/humanities than in other groups

► Scientists (especially in the physical sciences and engineering) are less likely to circulate drafts of work among colleagues for comment but much more likely to engage in face to face collaboration and to use shared online collaborative environments compared with social scientists and arts/humanities researchers

► Social scientists and arts/humanities scholars are more likely to take an active part in discipline-specific online communities and email discussion lists and to write blogs, compared with scientists



Peer communication and the RAE

► Journal articles: quite close fit between ‘most effective peer communication’ and ‘biggest impact on RAE score’; biggest gap in physical sciences and engineering

► Many of these researchers view pre and post-prints and especially peer-reviewed conference proceedings as the most effective forms of peer communication

Journal article

0102030405060708090

100


Physicalsciences andengineering

Social sciences Languages andarea studies

Arts andhumanities

discipline

% o

f re

sp

on

se

s

Most effective P2P

Biggest RAE influence

Physical sciences

05

101520253035404550

Mosteffective

P2P

BiggestRAE

influence

Mosteffective

P2P

BiggestRAE

influence

Mosteffective

P2P

BiggestRAE

influence

Pre print Post-print Peer reviewedconference

Relative impacts of type of dissemination

% o

f re

sp

on

ses



Journal preferences

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%M

ed

ica

l an

db

iolo

gic

al

scie

nce

s

Ph

ysic

al

scie

nce

sa

nd

en

gin

ee

rin

g

So

cia

lsc

ien

ces

La

ng

ua

ge

sa

nd

are

ast

ud

ies

Art

s a

nd

hu

ma

niti

es

Prefer to publish in traditionalcommercial journals

Prefer to publish in OA journals

Prefer to publish in societyjournals

The prestige of the journalmatters more than the type

My department has a preferredlist of journals

I have no preference



The RAE and innovation in scholarly communication

► The vast majority of researchers across all disciplines agree that the RAE skews both the practice and dissemination of research

► High awareness (60-70%) was shown of the open access debate

► The majority of researchers in all disciplines favour research funding bodies mandating self-archiving

► Most scholars across the disciplines think the journal article will remain relevant to their discipline in the next ten years, but they also think new forms of dissemination will grow in importance



Some conclusions

► Significant differences exist between disciplines in resource use, dissemination and informal communication - no surprises there

► Problems in finding appropriate outlets for interdisciplinary research occur mainly in social sciences and arts and humanities

► The effect of the RAE on research practice and dissemination is critical

► Arguably, a combination of wide provision of e-journals to the desktop and perceptions of the judgements of RAE panels has driven a ‘convergence’ of disciplinary use and publication around the journal article

► But the ‘single most essential resource’ still displays considerable disciplinary variation

► Researchers both expect and are open to change in the scholarly communications process


Thank you

Full report is at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Disciplinary%20Differences%20and%20Needs.doc

Documents

Disciplinary differences: some findings and conclusions