information literacy… is there a gap between where iran is and where it could be…? the...
TRANSCRIPT
Information literacy… Is there a gap between where Iran is and
where it could be…?
the importance of electronic scholarly information in the research process
Drs Charles PallandtDirector Africa & Middle East
Iran, 12th of June 2006
2
Let’s look at the Middle East and the Gulf and compare but also globally.
3
The Middle East… a gap to history … before the pre-Renaissance period, during a 700 hundred year period, Arabic Science was at the forefront of scientific development…
Whereas nowadays:
… 20% of the world population consists of Muslims, they only possess 1% of the scientist…
… the brain drain in the Arab region is among the world’s worst with roughly 25 percent of graduates in science, medicine and engineering emigrating each year… (United Nations Development Program report of 2003)
… a Institute of Science receives 17 percent of its annual $180 million budget from donations. Can wealthy Arabs rival their counterparts in their support of research?... (by Dr Faisal Sanai, Armed Forces Hospital in Riyad)
Do Iranian universities profit from private funding or foundations?
Yes, there is a gap… and if this leads to less access to e-resources and a slower advancement of science, Iran should try to close it.
4
The macro economicsCorrelation between; output and journal spend/R&D spend per researcher
Country Russia Iran China India UK Sweden
Population X Mio 142 72 1,313 1,081 60 9 GDP x Mio 1,287,000$ 133,2 6,449,000$ 3,033,000$ 1,666,000$ 238,300$ GDP/capita 8,230$ 1,850$ 4,580$ 2,670$ 26,150$ 26,050$ GDP growth rate 7.3% 9.1% 8.3% 2.2% 1.7%Inflation 13.7% 1.2% 3.8% 1.4% 1.9%R&D spending as a % of GDP 1.2% 0.3% 1.1% 0.8% 1.9% 4.6%
R&D spending x Mio 15,444 414 70,939 24,264 31,654 10,962R&D spending per capita 109$ 6$ 55$ 22$ 525$ 1,234$
Researchers per mio pop. 3,494 698 584 99 2,667 5,186
Researchers pop. 496,148 50,326 758,527 107,019 160,743 46,083Article output 2003 26,723 3,276 42,369 18,169 58,350 13,447Article output per 100 researchers 5.4 6.5 5.5 16.0 36.3 29.2
Internet users x Mio. 6.0 4.8 79.5 18.5 25.0 5.1Total journal market 11,326,176€ 20,000,000€ 120,250,180€ 54,614,500€ 116,870,622€ 26,633,304€
Total journal spend/researcher 23€ 397€ 159€ 510€ 727€ 578€
• CIA website: the world fact book: www.odci.gov/cia/• UNESCO: http:www.uis.unesco.org/profiles/EN/GEN/countryProfile_en.aspx?code=3560•www.irandoc.ac.ir
5
The macroeconomics
relatively low number researchers per Mio population: 698 compared to UK and Sweden very low
R&D as % of GDP also relatively low: 0.3% (globally 1.3%)• Journal / content spend per researcher low (based on Elsevier spend)• Article output only 6.5 article per researcher.
Let’s escalate this situation with appealing evidence to the government, deans or rectors of universities to close the gap.
We also know that globally (Iran no solid information): - University budgets increase by 7-8%...- But the library budget increases at (much) lower pace (2-3%)…
Equally important to promote / market the library within the university !!!
6
Iran
Next to macro economic factors (R&D spend); what are other factors tolook at… or the arguments to use?
1. Listings of top research institutes2. Quality of your research output 3. Comparison of usage of electronic resources4. Are further efficiency gains possible? (case studies/research data)5. Status of current Iranian Digital Library and where could you be?
7
# of universities in the Times top 2002005 Time’s list
8
# of universities in the Times top 200
1
6
9
30
62
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
India Japan China UK US
No university from Iran in top 200 yet…
9
Top institutes per country by article output ’04
India Iran Kuwait
Indian Inst of Tech 1493 Tehran Univ 468 Kuwait Univ 320
Indian Inst of Science 519Tehran Univ of
Med Sc 295 Kw Inst for Sc Res 47
Bhabha Atom Res 354 Sharif Univ 289 Kw Cancer Control c 8
UK US
Univ. Cambridge 3,053 Univ. Texas 6,247
Univ. Oxford 2,493 Harvard Univ. 5,473
Univ. London Imperial Coll. 2,164 Univ. Washington 3,395
In the region may be on par or ahead but internationally a gap to bridge.
10
Scientific output (country level) Total Article Output of Selected Countries 2000-2004
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
1 2 3 4 5
Year
Art
icle
s
Country
TURKEY
IRAN
EGYPT
TUNISIA
MOROCCO
ALGERIA
LIBYA
Source: Thomson Scientific
11
Scientific output (country level)
Total Article Output 2000-2004
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Art
icle
s
IRAN
SAUDI ARABIA
KUWAIT
JORDAN
UNITED ARABEMIRATES
LEBANON
QATAR
Source: Thomson Scientific
12
Scientific output (country level)
- Turkey and Iran: faster growth than global average (2-3%)- Turkey and Iran; longest on Science Direct (and other e-resources) - However, Iran; approximately 4 times lower output compared to Turkey!- Oxford or Cambridge University alone have a higher output than Iran as a country - Good cases for budget holders or decision makers in Iran
Source: Thomson Scientific
13
It’s not (only) about quantity; The H-index
To compare the quality of your authors amongst each others, within your institute or with any other
author in the world.
Hirsch-index
• Published by Jorge E. Hirsch in August 2005• Consequently, subject to discussion amongst scholars• Generally well-received (Ball, 2005; Van Raan, 2005;
Moed, 2005; Popov, 2005)• Now gaining a lot of momentum.
Nature (2005):‘The h-index is the highest number of papers a scientist
has published, at least having that number of citations.’
Author A
Author B
Doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Cit 55 45 20 10 5 4 3 2 1
Doc 1 2 3 4
Cit 55 45 20 10
H-index 2 mouse clicks away in for instance Scopus…
16
Scientific output / impact on a country level
-
Source: ISI
Relative impact of papers 1994-2004 (relative to world)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Rel
ativ
e Im
pact
(cita
tions
/pap
ers)
Iran
Jordan
Kuw ait
Lebanon
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
UAE
17
Scientific output / impact on a country level
-
- Iran and Lebanon; highest impact and Iran most output; there seems to be a correlation between access to e-resources and good usage…
- However, still not even having half the impact of countries such as UK or France (1.3)
- Again good cases for decision makers for investment proposals.
18
Usage Iran is good; however, room for improvement…
Iran and Turkey (excl. Gov research): accelerated growth
• In countries such as France usage is four times higher than in Iran.
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
2003 2004 2005
Iran
Turkey
Saudi Arabia
Tunisia
Egypt
Lebanon
UArab Emirates
Jordan
19
Let’s have look at potential usage per researcher.
http://web.utk.edu/~tenopir
150172
188216
0
50
100
150
200
250
1977 1984 1993 2000-03
Ave. Readings per Univ. Scientist
Ave
rag
e n
um
ber
of
art
icle
s re
ad
per
scie
nti
st
Year of Studies
www.dlib.org/dlib/october03/king/10king.html
UKB research (374 respondents/ Oct 2004)Dutch Consoria (‘mature’)
Prof. Hans Roosendaal
24
Percentage of researchers reading a certain amount of articles
UKB Research Oct. 2004
25
Usage (SDOL) per researcher (2003)
country # researchers downloadsusage per
researcher
*000 Mio
Russia 500 0.6 1
China 750 32.0 43
India 100 4.5 45
UK 160 22.0 138
Iran 50 3.0 60
Benefits of Digital Library (atos/kpmg)
Effects on library and faculty processes/costs: the library’s perspective
Case of Utrecht University with wide variety of content sources, backfiles, integration tools etc.
27
Print To Electronic - Activity Based Costing (ABC)
Step 1:Define cost types
Step 2:Define activities
& processes
Step 3:Define
services
Step 5:Assign activities
to services
Step 4:Allocate costs
to activities
Future situation = bottom-up approach
Personnel costs
Housing costs
Data carriersIT HardwareIT Support
Out of pocket expenses
Main budget 2001
Select Catalogue Assistcustomer
Store Manage lib. system
Etc.17 in total
Infrastructure mgmt.Acquisition Info. access Supply Info. mgmt.
Viewperiodicals
Full text access
Borrow books
Work space
Search assistance
Etc.10 in total
28
€ -
€ 5,000,000
€ 10,000,000
€ 15,000,000
€ 20,000,000
€ 25,000,000
Current costs Future Costs Future productvolumes
Work space
Signalling (SDI)
Passive search assistance
Active search assistance
Electronic copies
Paper copies
Full text access
View periodicals
View books
Borrow books
+33%
-0%
+13%
+39%
-8%
-39%
+66%
-57%
-26%
-30%
Print To Electronic – Example Utrecht (atos/kmpg)
Total costs per service
+40%-5%
€ 15,1 Mil. € 14,3 Mil. Efficiency gains: yes! Imagineif in Iran the whole library is digital… including archives!
29
The researcher’s perspective
How do researchers spend their time? Participants estimated their time spent per activity per phase for one research project
Time spending per activity per phase for one project (overall estimation)
The bulk of the work is concentrated in the experiments and development phases
Project definition, manuscripts and thesis also require considerable effort
Source: UMCU / Elsevier
Time spending per activity for one project(overall estimation)
Benchwork is by far the most time consuming activity Content-related activities (browse/scan, search and read) account for
25% of all time spent on a research project. If we take write into account this percentage increases to 31%
Source: UMCU / Elsevier
Explanation: all roles together spend 1,620
hours per annum on the experiments phase
30
Participants estimated how time spent per activity for one research project in an ideal complex of projects changed over the course of five years
Time spending on content-related activities for one project (overall estimation)
Evolution of enabling technologies
Increase in the number of available titles
Search time being reduced
More need to read
Key trends
Source: UMCU / Elsevier
Volumes of content increased by 100% Time spending on content-related activities decreased by
25%
Explanation: increasing volumes at constant time spending per
search and book or journal read
31
Conclusions from a pilot academic research study
In the As Is situation UMCU appears to be a digital faculty already: content-related activities (browse/scan, search and read) account for 25% of all
time spent on a research project (or 31% if writing is taken into account) time spending on content by participants is almost fully electronic
Compared to the As Was situation, in the As Is situation: slightly less time is spent on content-related activities: researchers now spend
less time on browse/scan (-30%) and search (-10%) and read slightly more (+5%)
however, searches in abstracting & indexing databases and internet search engines increased by an estimated 200% and the volume of books and P&E journals read increased by an estimated 25%
Efficiency gains: more information consumption in less time.
Conclusions
32
Simplified picture of the Ideal Digital Library A. Content
- Wide variety of full text content sources - Starting at first publication date (back files / old issues also digital)- Specialised dbases - Own publications / research data
B. Tools to disclose / search the content available easily
- Integrated search functionality - Integrated with relevant search on web sources- Easy navigation; from search to full text in easiest way
33
Current status of ‘the’ Digital Library in Iran
• move to e-only was an important step forward • good variety of current full text content available but still important titles are missing (based on Elsevier titles)• depth is missing (back files) • true navigational tools, a large dbase, which may be used as first point of entry or ‘portal’ is lacking• true tools to navigate optimally are not implemented yet: e.g.; direct links from a search hit list to the full text paper is not in place• specialised dbases in engineering, life sciences etc. could be added
34
Gains by moving to the ‘ideal’ Digital Library in Iran
• depth is missing (back files): UP TO 30% OF INCREASED USAGE IS EXPECTED BY INVESTMENTS IN BACK FILES • true navigational tools, a large bibliographic dbase, which may be used as first point of entry or ‘portal’ is lacking: RESEARCH SHOWS THAT UP TO 40% OF THE MATERIALS ACTUALLY CANNOT BE FOUND, DUE TO THE LACK OF INTEGRATION… whereas they are available (in the library)! • true tools to navigate optimally are not implemented yet: such as; direct links from a search hit list or navigational tool to the full text paper is not in place: RESEARCH SHOWS THAT 40% OF THE USERS QUIT AT EVERY CLICK!• specialised dbases in engineering, life sciences etc. can be acquired: INDEXED AND STRUCTURED DBASES INCREASE RESEARCH EFFICIENCY BY STRONGLY REDUCING TIME SPEND ON SEARCHING AND BROWSING
35
Conclusions / suggestions:
You did qualify … (e-only, usage is good…)
36
…but it could be substantially better…
And close the gap to bridge to best in class…
37
Conclusions / suggestions Create awareness to invest more in access to e-information to improve efficiency of research and increase output and quality.
To market and promote the library; use indicators such as:
- GDP spend per capita on research - scientific output and impact to build the case - use the H-index to map and compare scientific institutes / authors / research groups - potential usage / full text down loads per researcher (Prof Tenopir / Dutch Cosortia)- use rankings such as the Time’s List or the Shanghai Ranking - use the efficiency improvement shown by the case studies …Turkey, Tunisia and other countries in the Middle East are making substantial investments in archives/back files and large (bibliographic) dbases… let’s not get behind…
38
What can Elsevier / suppliers do to close the gap?
I Business models / pricing models… think ‘international… act local’… suppliers should help.
II Help you collecting the evidence build the case together. We don’t want you to not close the gap.
39
Charles PallandtSales Director
Region 5 Middle East plus Iran/Turkey (not
Israel)/Africa (not South Africa)
Ferruh SengunSales Manager
S & T Sales & MarketingA & G International MarketsRegion 5 – Charles PallandtFebruary 2006
Olivier Diesnis Senior A/c Dev Manager
Ramy HassanienSales Manager
Said TahaSales Manager
Ali Jalal JalaliSales
Manager Iran
Lorenzo FabbriProduct Sales Manager
New Sales Manager Iran and IIN, Integrated Information Network, our agent, play an important role
40
Thank very much you for your attention!