This was the headline of an American newspaper describing the British planter William French (1897-1960), who had greeted an American Museum of Natural History South Pacific expedition on the most easterly of the Solomon Islands in 1929. A small collection of letters written by French and a memoir on his life have recently been donated to The Royal Commonwealth Society Library, and an on-line record for it has just been added to Janus (RCMS 381). Together they vividly capture the spirit of a man whose wanderlust and intense interest in the natural world, and birds in particular, inspired him to travel widely within the British Empire.
William French was born into a farming community in Cumberland in 1897 and served in Europe and the Mediterranean during the First World War. His interests in ornithology and natural history developed following his return in 1918, when he began to intensify his collecting activities, and joined the Carlisle Natural History Society. Probably inspired by Australian soldiers he had met during the war, French travelled to Australia in 1924, where he found work wheat farming and grape picking in Victoria, and cutting timber in New South Wales. After visiting the East Indies and New Guinea, French began developing the Three Sisters copra (coconut) plantation in the Solomon Islands for Lever Brothers during the late 1920s. He managed Three Sisters until the outbreak of the Second World War in the Pacific. The advance of the Japanese forced him to destroy and evacuate the plantation, leaving behind many personal possessions and ornithological specimens walled up in a cave. Sadly French was never able to return and retrieve them. He was eventually relocated by Lever Brothers to West Africa, where he oversaw copra and palm oil plantations. In 1946, French was nearly killed in a lorry accident and sent home to Britain for convalescence. He left Lever Brothers and spent several years working in London and Ireland, before returning to Cumberland about 1950.
Although few in number, French’s letters from Australia and the Solomon Islands vividly portray the people and places he encountered. Most relate to the Solomons during the 1930s, where his nearest European neighbour was 16 miles away upon another island, and his only link to the outside world was a company boat which arrived upon average once every two months. Writing to his lifelong friend Ernest Blezard, Curator of Natural History, Carlisle City Museum in Sept. 1929, French presented a realistic account of the South Sea planter’s working and living conditions, ‘Now I presume you want to hear something of life in the “Savage Solomons”, romantic isles of cannibals and earthquakes, sandflies and mosquitoes, and all the other confounded pests that enhance the disadvantages of island life. I mentioned romance – I am afraid the romance is more in the imagination of fiction writers and tourists than in reality. To one who is destined to live here the romance soon loses much of its glamour and the reaction sets in. The terrible loneliness seems to sap all such feelings from a person after a few years of life as a modern ‘Robinson Crusoe.’ French’s accounts of the tropical storms he endured are striking, and particularly his description of the violent earthquake and tsunami which devastated the Solomon Islands on 3 Oct. 1931, killing 46 people.
French’s letters also reveal his enduring interest in ornithology. While abroad he collected birds’ eggs when opportunity allowed and learned taxidermy. Specimens he sent home from the Solomon Islands during the 1930s were presented to the British Museum (Natural History), now the Natural History Museum, and are represented in other collections. During the mid 1950s, French visited northern Scandinavia several times to identify the breeding grounds of European wading birds, on one occasion straying too close to the Finnish/Russian frontier and being fired upon by Soviet border guards.
To view the catalogue description for RCMS 381, please follow this link: http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0115%2FRCMS%20381
In his keynote speech to Repository Fringe 2015, titled ‘Fulfilling their potential: is it time for institutional repositories to take centre stage?’ David Prosser, Executive Director of Research Libraries UK (RLUK) gave a concise overview of the history surrounding open access and the situation we currently find ourselves in, especially in the UK.
What’s become clear is that ‘we’ is a problematic term for the scholarly communications community. A lack of cohesion and vision between librarians, repository managers and administrators means ‘we’ have failed to engage with researchers to make the case for open access.
I feel this is due to, in part, the fragmented nature of repositories stemming from an institutional need for control. If national (and international) open access subject repositories had been created and exploited perhaps researcher uptake of open access in the UK and around the world would have been faster. For example, arXiv continues to be the one stop shop for physicists to publish their manuscripts precisely because it’s the repository for the entire physics community. That’s where you go if you’ve got a physics paper. To be fair, physics had a culture of sharing research papers that predates the internet.
Repositories are only as good as the content they hold, and without support from the academic community to fill repositories with content, there is a risk of side-lining green open access*. This will in turn increase the pressure to justify the cost of ineffective institutional repositories.
As David correctly identified, scholars will happily take the time to do things they feel are important. But for many researchers open access remains a low priority and something not worth investing their time in. Repositories are only capturing a fraction of their institution’s total publication output. At Cambridge we estimate that only 25-30% of articles are regularly deposited.Providing value
The value of open access, whether it’s green or gold**, isn’t obvious to the authors producing the content. Yet juxtaposed with this is a report prepared by Nature Publishing Group on 13 August: Perceptions of open access publishing are changing for the better. This examined the changing perceptions of researchers to open access. While many researchers are still unaware of their funders’ open access requirements, the general perception of open access journals in the sciences has changed significantly, from 40% who were concerned about the quality of OA publication in 2014, to just 27% in 2015.
Clearly the trend is towards greater acceptance of open access within the academic community, but actual engagement remains low. If we don’t want to end up in a world of expensive gold open access journals, green repositories must be competitive with slick journal websites. Appearances matter. We need to attract the attention of the academics so that open access repositories are seen as viable places for disseminating research.
The scholarly communications community must find new ways of making open access (particularly green open access) appealing to researchers. One way forward is to augment the reward structure in academic publishing. Until open access is adopted more widely, academics should be rewarded for the effort involved in making their work openly available.
In the UK, failure to comply with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and other funders’ policies could seriously affect future funding outcomes. It is the ever-present threat of funding cuts which drives authors to choose open access options, but this has changed open access into a policy compliance debacle.
Open access as a side effect of policy compliance is not enough; we need real support from academics to propel open access forward.Measuring openness
As a researcher, the main things I look for when assessing other researchers and their publications are h-index, total and article level citations, and journal prestige (impact factor). I am not aware of any other methods which so simply define an author’s research.
While these types of metrics have their problems, they are nonetheless widely used within the academic community. An annual openness index, which is simply the ratio of open access articles to the total number of publications, would quickly reveal how open an academic’s research publications are. This index could be applied equally to established professors and early career researchers, as unlike the h-index, there is no historical weighting. It only depends on how you’re publishing now.
Developing such a metric would spur on open access from within academic circles by making open access publishing a competition between researchers. Perhaps the openness index could also be linked to university progression and grant reward processes. The more open access your work is, the better it is for you, and as a consequence, the community.
Open access needs to stop being a ‘fringe’ activity and become part of the mainstream. It shouldn’t be an afterthought to the publication process. Whether the solution to academic inaction is better systems or, as I believe, greater engagement and reward, I feel that the scholarly communications and repository community can look forward to many interesting developments over the coming months and years.
However, we must not be distracted from our main goal of engaging with researchers and academics to gather content for the open access repositories we have so lovingly built.Glossary
*Green open access refers to making a copy of a published work available by placing it in a repository. This can be thought of as ‘secondary’ open access.
**Gold open access is where the research is published either in a fully open access journal – which sometimes incurs an article processing charge, or in a hybrid journal – which imposes an article processing charge to make that particular article available and also charges a subscription for the remainder of the articles in the journal. This can be thought of as ‘born’ open access.
From the East View website for the journal:
“Chinese Cultural Relics is the official English translation of the prestigious award-winning Chinese archaeology journal Wenwu (Cultural Relics). Published since the 1950s, Wenwu is well known in China and abroad for its quality articles and in-depth reporting of Chinese archaeological surveys and fieldwork. Until the publication of Chinese Cultural Relics, the information presented in this key resource has only been accessible to those who can read Chinese.
“Each issue of Chinese Cultural Relics contains content from three recent issues of Wenwu. In addition to high-quality translation, each article includes the same detailed photographs and beautiful hand-drawn illustrations as in the Chinese publication.
“Subjects covered in Chinese Cultural Relics include:
– new archaeological findings
– research and exploration
– bamboo slips and documents
– bronze wares
– inscriptions and epitaphs
– ancient towns and villages
– archaeological preservation
– the archaeology of science and technology
– museum exhibitions…and more”
Now available to the University of Cambridge electronically from volume 1 (2014) to present.
‘Ancient Chinese Pillow’ by Jan on Flickr – https://flic.kr/p/9SJv3u
‘_MG_5560’ by Elaine on Flickr – https://flic.kr/p/6takdu
If a tree falls in the forest and no one was there to hear it, did it happen? You could ask the same philosophical question of research – if no-one can see the research results, what was the point in the first place?
Moving science forward and increasing the knowledge of the world around implies exchange of findings. Society cannot benefit from research if there is no awareness of what has been done. Managing and sharing research data is a fundamentally important part of the research process. Yet researchers are often reluctant to share their data, and some are openly hostile to the idea.
This blog describes the research data services provided at Cambridge University which are attempting to encourage and assist researchers manage and share their data.
A tough start
The Data Management Facility project at Cambridge began operations in January 2015. At the time there was very little user support for data management in place. There had been a considerable body of work undertaken in XXXXXXXX resulting in the Dataman project, but nothing from the recent past. There was no advocacy, no training and no centralised tools to support researchers in research data management. The lack of both awareness of the repository and support for researchers was reflected in the numbers: during the first decade of the repository, only 72 datasets had been deposited.
One of the initial challenges was an out of date institutional repository. Cambridge University was one of the original test-bed institutions for DSpace in 2005. While there had been considerable effort invested in the establishment of the repository, it had in recent years been somewhat neglected.
In addition, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) had compliance expectationsfor funded research kicking in May 2015. This gave us five months to pull the Research Data Facility together. It was a tough start.
Understanding researchers’ needs
Tight deadlines often mean the temptation is to create short-term solutions. But we did not want to take this path. Solutions created without prior understanding of the need have no guarantee they will resolve the actual issues at hand.
So we started talking with researchers. We met and spoke with hundreds of researchers across all disciplines and fields of study – Principal Investigators, postdocs, students, and staff members. These were both group sessions and individual meetings. We told them about the importance of sharing research data, and in return we listened to what researchers told us about their worries and possible problems with data sharing.
To date, we have spoken with over 1000 researchers, and from each meeting we kept detailed notes of all the questions/comments received.
We have additionally conducted a questionnaire to better understand researchers’ needs for research data management support. Of the researchers surveyed, 83% indicated that it is ‘very useful’ for the University to provided both information about funders’ expectations for research data sharing and management, and support.
Solution 1 – Providing information
In March 2015 we launched the Research Data Management websitewhich is a single location for solutions to all research data management needs. The website contains:
- Key information about what researchers need to know about research data management
- Summaries of and links to funder requirements for research data sharing
- Information about making data available
and much more.
The key idea behind the website is to provide an easy to navigate place with all necessary information. The website is being constantly updated, and new information is regularly added in response to feedback received from researchers.
Concurrently we have been conducting tailored information sessions about funders’ requirements for sharing data and support available at the University of Cambridge. We run these sessions at multiple locations across the University, and to audiences of various types. The sessions ranged from open sessions in central locations to dedicated sessions hosted at individual departments, and speaking with individual research groups. Slides from information sessions LINK www.data.cam.ac.uk/files/20150513opendata.pdf are always made available for attendees to download.
Solution 2 – Assistance with data management plans and supporting data management
In the survey 82% of researchers said it would be very helpful if there were someone at the University available to help with data management plans. To address this, we have:
- Added tailored information about data management plans to our information sessions.
- Linked the DMPonline tool from our data website. This allows researchers to prepare funder specific data management plans
- Organised data management plan clinic sessions (one to one appointments on demand)
- Prepared guidelines on how to fill in a data management plan.
Additionally, 63% researchers indicated that it would be ‘very useful’, and further 31% indicated that it would be ‘useful’ to have workshops on research data management. We have therefore prepared a 1.5 hour interactive introductory workshop to research data management, which is now offered across various departments across the University. We are also developing the skill sets within the library staff across the institution to deliver research data management training to researchers from their field.
Solution 3 – Providing an institutional repository
Finally, 79% of researchers indicated that it would make data sharing easier if the University maintained its own, easy to use data repository. We therefore had to do something about our repository, which had not been updated for a long time. We have rolled-out series of updates to the repository, taking it to Version 4.3, which will allow minting DOIs to datasets.
Meantime we also had to think of a strategy to make data sharing as easy as possible. The existing processes for uploading research data to the repository were very complicated and discouraging to researchers. We did not have any web-mediated facility that would allow researchers to easily get their data to us. In fact, most of the time we asked researchers to bring their data to us on external hard drives. This was not an acceptable solution in the 21st century!
Researchers like simple processes, Dropbox-like solutions, where one can easily drag and drop files. We have therefore created a simple webform, which asks researchers for the minimal necessary metadata information, and allows them to simply drag and drop their data files.
It turned in the end it was really worth the effort of understanding researchers’ needs before considering solutions. As of 30 July 2015, the Research Data Management website has been visited 8,661 times. Our training sessions on research data management and data planning have received extremely good feedback – 73% of respondents indicated that our workshops should be ‘essential’ to all PhD students.
And most importantly, since we launched our easy-to-upload website form for research data, we have received 122 research data submissions – in four months we have received more than 1.5 times more research outputs than in ten years of our repository’s lifetime.
So our advice to anyone wishing to really support researchers is to truly listen to their needs, and address their problems. If you create useful services, there is no need to worry about the uptake.
This infographic demonstrates how successful the Research Data Facility. Prepared by Laura Waldoch from the University Library, it is available for download.
To know more about our activities, follow us on Twitter.