# data[].attributes.body
Even though collaborations between researchers and industry are important and valuable, how do we avoidable cultivating the impression that research done in concert with industry is somehow qualitatively different to research done without industry partnerships? Not all disciplines and research projects lend themselves to industry partnerships, but this in itself is not a reflection of the quality/importance of research.

# data[].attributes.body
This seems relevant, though I'm not sure how. Maybe those HDRs or ECRs who aren't publishing much could lean into curation as a way of becoming known? Especially if disciplines other than biology do something similar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Open Access

Community Page

Community Page The Community Page is a forum for organizations and societies to highlight their efforts to enhance the dissemination and value of scientific knowledge.
See all article types "

Yuqi Wang,

Qinghua Wang,

Hongzhan Huang,

Wei Huang,

Yongxing Chen,

Peter B. McGarvey,

Cathy H. Wu,

Cecilia N. Arighi,

on behalf of the UniProt Consortium

Subject Areas

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

We want your feedback. Do these Subject Areas make sense for this article? Click the target next to the incorrect Subject Area and let us know. Thanks for your help!

?

This is an uncorrected proof.

Figures

The UniProt knowledgebase is a public database for protein sequence and function, covering the tree of life and over 220 million protein entries. Now, the whole community can use a new crowdsourcing annotation system to help scale up UniProt curation and receive proper attribution for their biocuration work.

Citation: Wang Y, Wang Q, Huang H, Huang W, Chen Y, McGarvey PB, et al. (2021) A crowdsourcing open platform for literature curation in UniProt. PLoS Biol 19(12): e3001464. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001464

Published: December 6, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health ( https://www.nih.gov, ROR: https://ror.org/01cwqze88) under Award Number U24HG007822 (YW, QW, HH, YC, PBM, CHW, CNA). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

UniProt is a public source of protein sequence and function information. It includes proteins from the entire tree of life, serving a wide user community across diverse fields. The UniProt knowledgebase (UniProtKB) contains protein information derived by expert curation (Swiss-Prot section) and automated annotation (TrEMBL section) [ 1]. Expert curation involves a critical review of the experimental data from the literature and interpretation of the results from sequence analysis tools [ 2]. Currently, the UniProtKB contains over 220 million protein entries (Release 2021_03). Proteins from most organisms are unreviewed and only annotated via automatic annotation. This is due in part to a lack of direct experimental data available and a limited curation task force. Still, there is a significant number of proteins with some level of characterization or new information, awaiting annotation from the literature. Many UniProt users are highly engaged and motivated in providing feedback about entries in the database, especially when data are missing or an update is needed as UniProtKB is a highly valued resource and critical to their work. Users have vested interest that the knowledgebase is comprehensively annotated.

Engaging the research community in helping support curation or directly curating a resource has been an ongoing and evolving effort by many biological knowledge resources [ 3- 5]. Here, we present a novel crowdsourcing community annotation system that enables researchers to quickly add annotations from the literature to UniProtKB protein entries. As opposed to past feedback options, this mechanism provides a systematic solution for community input, with a fast turnaround for presenting the added information to the community, and uses ORCID ( https://orcid.org/) for authentication and acknowledgment of the contributions.

There are many reasons to contribute. As an expert on a given subject area, you are up-to-date with the literature and know what information is missing for a protein of interest. Thus, you can play an important and active role in improving the database and helping scale up curation. An improved database better supports the entire research ecosystem and moves science forward. To link a publication to a UniProt entry, you do not have to be its author, but to understand the content. In return, you get recognition for the biocuration work you do, you can cite it, and add it to your research portfolio.

The community submission system

Our lightweight solution allows UniProt users to add publications and annotations to proteins of their interest, with a simple design and requiring minimal information, while providing options to contribute more details, and, most importantly, for acknowledging contributions. To develop such system, we adopted a user-centric approach, where a prototype was released to the community and feedback was collected through a survey to improve the design. The project homepage can be accessed at https://community.uniprot.org/bbsub/home.html and offers links to the submission system, the statistics, documentation, and code.

The submission process, described in Fig 1, starts with users and publication(s) to add one or more protein records. There are 2 access points, from the UniProt website or the community homepage ( Fig 1, 1). To add one publication to a protein at a time, the "Add a publication" link in a UniProtKB entry page brings users to the submission page for such entry ( Fig 1 and 2a). Alternatively, a batch submission option is available from the homepage ( https://community.uniprot.org/bbsub/batch.html) ( Fig 1 and 2b). ORCID identifiers are used for log in and contributor validation, as well as for credit attribution for community curation ( Fig 1, 3). In the protein-centric submission case, the next step is to add the publication. The user has options to perform additional tasks, such as categorizing the publication into UniProt annotation topics and to input free text annotations related to protein/gene name, function, and disease (see sample form: https://community.uniprot.org/bbsub/sampleform.html) ( Fig 1, 4a), whereas for submission in batch, the user would upload a file with multiple proteins, publications, and annotations ( Fig 1, 4b). In both cases, submission triggers the review process ( Fig 1, 5). Upon the reviewer's approval, publications and annotations are publicly available on the submissions' information page with ORCID and submitter's name ( https://community.uniprot.org/bbsub/bbsubinfo.html; Fig 1, 6) and will appear in the UniProt protein page under the "Community curation" link 24 to 48 h later ( Fig 1, 7). Publications are also integrated into the UniProt bibliography in sync with the database release cycle ( Fig 1, 8).

There are multiple checkpoints in place both to help the user and for data integrity, including (a) automatic retrieval of publication title and authors via PubMed API, to confirm the publication of interest; (b) checking that the publication has not been already curated by UniProt for such protein; (c) checking data changes in the upcoming UniProt release (private), like obsoletion or merging of entries, and warning the user to choose an alternative entry; (d) checking submissions are updates versus a new annotation; and (e) helping with text editing with auto-correction capability, warnings for non-ASCII characters, and checking for valid email format. In terms of information content, a UniProt curator ensures that the publication is associated to the correct protein entry (organism and accession number) and that the information added is concise and appropriate. If any problem arises, the curator contacts the user for clarification via email.

Community participation and impact

The number of users and submissions have increased steadily since the inception of the system (UniProt Release 2019_08) ( https://community.uniprot.org/bbsub/STATS.html). As of release 2021_03, a little more than half of the submissions provide annotations for unreviewed entries, whereas the rest offer updates for reviewed ones; roughly half of the contributions are done by students or researchers who are not authors on the submitted publications. Most importantly, the submissions add information to proteins from all superkingdoms and cover a variety of annotations topics, with majority related to Function, which is of high interest to UniProt. Regarding this last point, the community curation adds value to the UniProt entries. For example, it adds proper names to proteins annotated as uncharacterized in UniProt. Many offer functional information that is incorporated when publications are later curated by UniProt. For example, in release 2020_06, UniProtKB:Q8DPQ3 was an unreviewed entry with name "Uncharacterized protein" and lacking functional information ( https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q8DPQ3.txt?version=95); however, at the time, a community submitted publication added names (Pyrimidine nucleotidase A; PynA) and functional information to this entry ( https://community.uniprot.org/bbsub/bbsubinfo.html?accession=Q8DPQ3). This publication and similar annotations were later incorporated when the entry was curated by UniProt ( https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q8DPQ3.txt?version=96). This and other representative examples ( https://community.uniprot.org/bbsub/doc/public/uncharacterized_proteins.xlsx) show that the publications and annotations added by the community are relevant. The crowdsourcing effort also provides a number of annotations for unreviewed proteins, which can be retrieved in the information submission page, by selecting field "UniProt status" and "TrEMBL" in query box. In addition, the community submission system has enabled successful collaborations with research groups for improving annotations in defined research areas. Box 1 describes 2 of these examples.

Conclusions

Our system provides a solution for the scientific community to contribute their knowledge and enrich information for proteins in UniProt. Crowdsourcing the literature curation has been an asset both to UniProt and the users of the knowledgebase. Moreover, to cite your biocuration work, you can simply link to your public contributions using: https://community.uniprot.org/bbsub/bbsubinfo.html?ORCID=<ORCID>, where <ORCID> should be replaced with your ORCID.

Box 1. Collaborations-Success stories

Here are 2 illustrative examples of users who are actively providing valuable annotations to unreviewed entries for specific taxonomic groups.

1. Annotation of Giardia intestinalis protein. G. intestinalis is a eukaryotic parasite that causes giardiasis, with diarrhea and stomach cramps as main symptoms (https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/giardia/index.html). A search in UniProt (release 2021_03) with the query taxonomy "Giardia [5740]" retrieved 43,668 and 66 unreviewed and reviewed Giardia protein entries, respectively. A search in PubMed (accessed on June 30, 2021) with query terms "giardia AND (intestinalis or lamblia or duodenalis) AND "Amino Acids, Peptides, and Proteins"[MESH]" retrieved 1,825 articles, suggesting that a significant number of potentially relevant publications could be added to Giardia protein entries. Thus, Dr. Touz (Instituto Ferreyra, Cordoba, Argentina), an expert on Giardia, has helped in this task by contributing annotations and contacting other experts in the community. So far, over 50 unreviewed entries now have publications and annotations.

2. Annotation of Haloarchaeal proteins. Halophilic archaea are unique microorganisms adapted to survive under high salt conditions, and biomolecules produced by them may possess unusual properties, thus they are of high interest in the biotechnology field [6]. Dr. Pfeiffer (Max Planck Institute, Germany) has actively provided feedback to UniProt on the annotation of prokaryotic proteins. Since the community annotation functionality started, he has now contributed over 250 submissions, especially adding publications and annotation to proteins from haloarchaeal genomes while developing a strategy for curation of their corresponding genomes [7,8].

Acknowledgments

UniProt Consortium: Alex Bateman, Maria-Jesus Martin, Sandra Orchard, Michele Magrane, Rahat Agivetova, Shadab Ahmad, Emanuele Alpi, Emily H. Bowler-Barnett, Ramona Britto, Borisas Bursteinas, Hema Bye-A-Jee, Ray Coetzee, Austra Cukura, Alan Da Silva, Paul Denny, Tunca Dogan, ThankGod Ebenezer, Jun Fan, Leyla Garcia Castro, Penelope Garmiri, George Georghiou, Leonardo Gonzales, Emma Hatton-Ellis, Abdulrahman Hussein, Alexandr Ignatchenko, Giuseppe Insana, Rizwan Ishtiaq, Petteri Jokinen, Vishal Joshi, Dushyanth Jyothi, Antonia Lock, Rodrigo Lopez, Aurelien Luciani, Jie Luo, Yvonne Lussi, Alistair MacDougall, Fabio Madeira, Mahdi Mahmoudy, Manuela Menchi, Alok Mishra, Katie Moulang, Andrew Nightingale, Carla Susana Oliveira, Sangya Pundir, Guoying Qi, Shriya Raj, Daniel Rice, Milagros Rodriguez Lopez, Rabie Saidi, Joseph Sampson, Tony Sawford, Elena Speretta, Edward Turner, Nidhi Tyagi, Preethi Vasudev, Vladimir Volynkin, Kate Warner, Xavier Watkins, Rossana Zaru, and Hermann Zellner at the EMBL-European Bioinformatics Institute; Alan Bridge, Sylvain Poux, Nicole Redaschi, Lucila Aimo, Ghislaine Argoud-Puy, Andrea Auchincloss, Kristian Axelsen, Parit Bansal, Delphine Baratin, Marie-Claude Blatter, Jerven Bolleman, Emmanuel Boutet, Lionel Breuza, Cristina Casals-Casas, Edouard de Castro, Kamal Chikh Echioukh, Elisabeth Coudert, Beatrice Cuche, Mikael Doche, Dolnide Dornevil, Anne Estreicher, Maria Livia Famiglietti, Marc Feuermann, Elisabeth Gasteiger, Sebastien Gehant, Vivienne Gerritsen, Arnaud Gos, Nadine Gruaz-Gumowski, Ursula Hinz, Chantal Hulo, Nevila Hyka-Nouspikel, Florence Jungo, Guillaume Keller, Arnaud Kerhornou, Vicente Lara, Philippe Le Mercier, Damien Lieberherr, Thierry Lombardot, Xavier Martin, Patrick Masson, Anne Morgat, Teresa Batista Neto, Salvo Paesano, Ivo Pedruzzi, Sandrine Pilbout, Lucille Pourcel, Monica Pozzato, Manuela Pruess, Catherine Rivoire, Christian Sigrist, Karin Sonesson, Andre Stutz, Shyamala Sundaram, Michael Tognolli, and Laure Verbregue at the SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics; Cathy H. Wu, Cecilia N. Arighi, Leslie Arminski, Chuming Chen, Yongxing Chen, John S. Garavelli, Hongzhan Huang, Kati Laiho, Peter McGarvey, Darren A. Natale, Karen Ross, C. R. Vinayaka, Qinghua Wang, Yuqi Wang, Lai-Su Yeh, and Jian Zhang at the Protein Information Resource.

We also would like to thank the UniProt users for their valuable contributions, especially Dr. Touz from Instituto Ferreyra, Córdoba, Argentina, and Dr. Pfeiffer from Max Planck Institute, Germany, who have contributed to the use cases indicated in this piece.

The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

8. Pfeiffer F, Dyall-Smith M. Open Issues for Protein Function Assignment in Haloferax volcanii and Other Halophilic Archaea. Genes [Internet]. 2021;12(7). Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/12/7/963. pmid:34202810

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A crowdsourcing open platform for literature curation in UniProt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UniProt Knowledgebase is a public database for protein sequence and function, covering the tree of life. This Community Page article present a community submission system to harness timely scientific knowledge via crowdsourcing of the literature, creating a research ecosystem where researchers play an active role in scaling up UniProt curation, while receiving proper attribution for their biocuration work.

# data[].attributes.body
https://en.unesco.org/science-sustainable-future/open-science/recommendation

Published November 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At the 40th session of UNESCO's General Conference, 193 Members States tasked the Organization with the development of an international standard-setting instrument on Open Science in the form of a UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science to be adopted by Member States in 2021.

The Recommendation is expected to define shared values and principles for Open Science, and identify concrete measures on Open Access and Open Data, with proposals to bring citizens closer to science and commitments to facilitate the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge around the world. The Recommendation will be developed through a regionally balanced, multistakeholder, inclusive and transparent consultation process.

UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science will complement the 2017 Recommendation on Science and Scientific Research. It will also build upon the UNESCO Strategy on Open Access to Scientific Information and Research and the new UNESCO Recommendation on Open Educational Resources.

UNESCO Recommendations are legal instruments in which "the General Conference formulates principles and norms for the international regulation of any particular question and invites Member States to take whatever legislative or other steps may be required in conformity with the constitutional practice of each State and the nature of the question under consideration to apply the principles and norms aforesaid within their respective territories". Emanating from the Organization's supreme governing body and hence possessing great authority, recommendations are intended to influence the development of national laws and practices.

In line with the 40 C/Resolution 24 of the UNESCO General Conference and according to the Roadmap for the development of the UNESCO Recommendation on open Science, the first draft of the Recommendation was transmitted by the Director-General to the UNESCO Member States for their consideration. The Circular letter CL/4333 is available online in English and French.

First draft of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science
English | Français | Spanish | Russian | Arabic | Chinese

As per the Circular letter CL/4333, UNESCO Member States are invited to provide their comments on the first draft of the Recommendation on Open Science by 31 December 2020.

The Second draft of the Recommendation, on the basis of the received comments, will be shared by the end of March 2021.
Inputs to the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science
In addition to the inputs received though the multistakeholder global and regional consultations, the following inputs were received in response to a call for inputs for the development of the first draft text of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science.

The ideas and opinions expressed in the following papers are those of the authors; they are not those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.
Resources:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the 40th session of UNESCO's General Conference, 193 Members States tasked the Organization with the development of an international standard-setting instrument on Open Science in the form of a UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science to be adopted by Member States in 2021.

# data[].attributes.headline
How do we curate our research software recommendations

# data[].attributes.subject
How do we curate our research software recommendations

# data[].attributes.body
Open Source tools vs proprietary tools are different in many aspects. We have to actively seek OS tools as they do not have the marketing budget proprietary tools have. Should we prioritise OS options, as long as they tick boxes in quality, availability, accessibility and sustainability? That would fit in the Open Research/Science recommendations. In any case, we will never cover or control the totality of what researchers need to do achieve their goals: they will always look around for what works best for them. However, we author guides, compile lists, offer training, and make choices as to what is on UQ/Library computers and what isn't.

# data[].attributes.body
I read an article recently (I think it was this) that suggested that there are manifold reasons for not sharing data. Maybe if we understood these reasons better (and with appropriate discipline divisions) we could help researchers understand that data management is not just a requirement of grants, an administrative chore, etc. but a relatively straightforward way to participate in fostering better research integrity: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03493-4 (although I suppose that this touches on a number of ideas raised here...)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WORLD VIEW

Helping every scientist to improve is more effective than ferreting out a few frauds.

Malcolm Macleod

Malcolm Macleod is the academic lead for research improvement and research integrity at the University of Edinburgh, UK, where he is also a professor of neurology and translational neuroscience.

Most scientists reading this probably assume that their research-integrity office has nothing to do with them. It deals with people who cheat, right? Well, it's not that simple: cheaters are relatively rare, but plenty of people produce imperfect, imprecise or uninterpretable results. If the quality of every scientist's work could be made just a little better, then the aggregate impact on research integrity would be enormous.

How institutions can encourage broad, incremental improvements is what I have been working to figure out. Two things are needed: a collective shift in mindset, and a move towards appropriate measurement.

Over the past 2 years, some 20 institutions in the United Kingdom have joined the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN), a consortium that promotes best practice in research. They have created senior administrative roles to improve research and research integrity. I have taken on this job (on top of my research on evaluating stroke treatments) at the University of Edinburgh. Since then, I've focused on research improvement rather than researcher accountability. Of course, deliberate fraud should be punished, but a focus on investigating individuals will discourage people from acknowledging mistakes, and mean that opportunities for systems to improve are neglected.

At the University of Edinburgh, we have audits as part of projects to shrink bias in animal research, speed up publication and improve clinical-trial reporting. These are not the metrics that most researchers are used to. Many people are initially wary of yet another 'external imposition', but when they see that this is about promoting our own community's standards - and that there are no extra forms to fill in - they usually welcome this shift in institutional focus.

Here's what we are learning to look for at my university.

Integrity indicators. Counting papers published in Science or Nature or prizes received is a poor reflection of performance. Measures should reflect the integrity of research claims: for instance, the proportion of quantitative studies that also publish data and code, and that pre-register their hypothesis, study design and analysis plan. At the University of Edinburgh, we are focusing on the reporting of randomization and blinding in published animal studies that test biomedical hypotheses. Existing tools can be applied to such tasks. The DOIs of publications that match a series of ORCIDs (author IDs) can be identified, the open-access status ascertained through the Unpaywall database, and these details can be linked back to institutions, departments or even individual research groups.

I care more about how my institution is doing compared with last year than about how it performs relative to other organizations. That said, benchmarking can be useful - and working with other organizations can help to develop standard reporting tools without reinventing the wheel.

Evidence of impact. Having data in hand allows an institution to focus on what can be improved, and how. In 2019, only 55% of Edinburgh clinical trials were fully reported on the European Union Clinical Trials Register. Programmes to reach trial organizers (by e-mailing reminders and mentoring them through the process) increased this to 95% in 2021. To build on that, I am working with members of UKRN and others to develop institutional dashboards that will provide real-time data across a range of measures, such as clinical-trial reporting and the quality and timeliness of reporting animal research.

Evidence of effectiveness. When a simple, inexpensive intervention improves reporting from 55% to 95%, you don't need a randomized controlled trial. But it's important to make sure that more-involved interventions have the desired effect. The scientific skills needed to establish causality can be applied to assess efforts in and across institutions. For example, at the University of Edinburgh, we offer researchers free consultations on methodology as they write grant applications, and this requires both applicants and consultants to invest much more of their time. We are also designing randomized studies to see whether and how methods and award rates improve.

A culture of trust. Many scientists have been scarred by successive, energy-sapping evaluations. More than one university has based layoffs on counts of faculty members' high-impact papers or high-value grants, a practice that will make researchers sceptical of claims about prioritizing quality. Approaches to improvement need to be open and transparent, and constructive rather than punitive.

Learning from each other. No institution should go this alone. UKRN members are collaborating to ease workloads and encourage standardization, for instance in deploying a common research-culture questionnaire. Creating standards is the best way to change norms, otherwise early-career researchers will be tempted to concentrate on impressing future employers rather than on their current role.

My goal is that institutions should focus on what they can do to increase research integrity, not on the integrity of their researchers.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Want research integrity? Stop the blame game

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WORLD VIEW Helping every scientist to improve is more effective than ferreting out a few frauds. Malcolm Macleod Malcolm Macleod is the academic lead for research improvement and research integrity at the University of Edinburgh, UK, where he is also a professor of neurology and translational neuroscience.

# data[].attributes.body
Have "pop up AI" option for users to use, if there is no readily available answers, the last option is to "contacts"

# data[].attributes.body
At each "library touch" spot, provide link to relevant guides or web page, training, videos, AND contacts"

# data[].attributes.body
NTRO = non-traditional research output

Researchers in disciplines (e.g arts, music) where citations may be under-represented requiring more support and training to identify and fit their work into NTRO frameworks to provide more quantifiable measures for their research

# data[].attributes.body
Publishing, data-sharing -> easier to just follow well-worn paths set out by peers, supervisors and just doing what everyone else is doing, publish where everyone else is publishing.

Misunderstanding of open data / open access increasing footprint of researchers using (poorly) researchgate, figshare, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
uncommon, misunderstood

# data[].attributes.body
What is the role of the library in supporting researchers who need to, or already do, engage with industry?
What opportunities are there for partnering with researchers to do this industry work better/smarter?
Are there areas in which we are best placed to provide support e.g. data sharing plans, tracking impact/designing for impact?
What is the best way to disseminate this type of scholarship? Are we doing enough to support/encourage diverse research output/outcome communications?

# data[].attributes.body
Should we be doing more for our researchers in our spaces/with our spaces?

# data[].attributes.headline
Audio/visual files attached to the "Research Journey Planner"

# data[].attributes.subject
Audio/visual files attached to the "Research Journey Planner"

# data[].attributes.body
30-40 seconds video clips demonstrating basic steps, no talk, just the screens. mouse movements and nice music.

Or H5P "hot spot" on Research Journey Planner.

# data[].attributes.headline
Communities of Practice to be a part of:

# data[].attributes.subject
Communities of Practice to be a part of:

# data[].attributes.body
* Open Scholarship CoP (weekly, internal to Library)
* UQ:MORE (Metascience and Open Research, fortnightly)

Contact Scott to be added to either mailing list / calendar events

# data[].attributes.headline
Customer experience: Journey mapping in LinkedIn Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
Customer experience: Journey mapping in LinkedIn Learning

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.linkedin.com/learning-login/share?account=2340058&forceAccount=false&redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Flearning%2Fcustomer-experience-journey-mapping%3Ftrk%3Dshare_ent_url%26shareId%3DUSBpCSmySWmErK1gJbEtEg%253D%253D

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
International Prospective student journey - Customer Experience Program (CXP) - UQ Confluence

# data[].attributes.body
How does this tie in?
https://research.uq.edu.au/rmbt/myresearch

# data[].attributes.body
How to stop monetisation of research lifecycle?

# data[].attributes.headline
“Responsible” or good researcher practice

# data[].attributes.subject
“Responsible” or good researcher practice

# data[].attributes.body
And researcher development!
How do we contribute to great research and great researcher practice?

# data[].attributes.body
How do we ensure we match our resources with the value they deliver to UQ?
E.g. need to stop doing metrics for ECRs and ensure high level support for strategic grants

# data[].attributes.body
perceived as a chore
requirements pushing it forward

# data[].attributes.headline
Honours research students planning checklist

# data[].attributes.subject
Honours research students planning checklist

# data[].attributes.body
Similar to assignment planner

# data[].attributes.body
Understanding complexity of lifecycle and current and future role of library

# data[].attributes.headline
Planning for grant applications - potential checklist for researchers 

# data[].attributes.subject
Planning for grant applications - potential checklist for researchers 

# data[].attributes.body
Could include guidance around metrics collection, impact evidence, data management planning etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Data about individuals to inform outreach
Rolled up to disciple/School/Faculty level
For library staff to proactively manage services and outreach

# data[].attributes.headline
Automated support v human intervention support

# data[].attributes.subject
Automated support v human intervention support

# data[].attributes.body
When and at what point should the research infrastructure have automated features to save researchers time - automated minting DOI or pre-populate the forms using the exiting information?  Pros and cons of automated minting DOIs.

Along the same line, should curation/preservation of datasets be automated or semi-automated?  When is the best time for data librarians to intervene?

# data[].attributes.body
How to leverage info about researchers to drive better/more targeted comms

# data[].attributes.body
Researcher journeys

# data[].attributes.body
How do we get more out of our interactions/touch points with researchers?

# data[].attributes.body
Instrument records & RDM

# data[].attributes.body
What do researchers do, what does UQ offer, what is missing? What can the Library do to fill this gap?

# data[].attributes.body
If we can get information exported into csv file from Instrument Registry, then bulk ingest the csv file into UQRDM or eSpace, this semi-automated way will still save a lot of time, it is probably the second best then the two fully integrated systems.