Transcript Science Benchmark Korea

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 Pallandt
Director Africa & Middle East
Iran, 12th of June 2006
Let’s look at the Middle East and the Gulf and
compare but also globally.
2
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.
3
The macro economics
Correlation between; output and journal spend/R&D spend per researcher
Country
Russia
Population X Mio
142
GDP x Mio
$ 1,287,000
GDP/capita
$
8,230
GDP growth rate
7.3%
Inflation
13.7%
R&D spending as a % of GDP
1.2%
R&D spending x Mio
15,444
R&D spending per capita
$
109
Researchers per mio pop.
3,494
Researchers pop.
496,148
Article output 2003
26,723
Article output per 100 researchers
5.4
Internet users x Mio.
6.0
Total journal market
€ 11,326,176
Total journal spend/researcher €
23
Iran
$
72
133,2 $
1,850 $
0.3%
414
$
6 $
698
50,326
3,276
6.5
4.8
€ 20,000,000 €
€
397 €
China
1,313
6,449,000
4,580
9.1%
1.2%
1.1%
70,939
55
584
758,527
42,369
5.5
79.5
120,250,180
159
$
$
$
€
€
India
1,081
3,033,000
2,670
8.3%
3.8%
0.8%
24,264
22
99
107,019
18,169
16.0
18.5
54,614,500
510
UK
60
$
1,666,000
$
26,150
2.2%
1.4%
1.9%
31,654
$
525
2,667
160,743
58,350
36.3
25.0
€ 116,870,622
€
727
Sweden
$
$
$
€
€
9
238,300
26,050
1.7%
1.9%
4.6%
10,962
1,234
5,186
46,083
13,447
29.2
5.1
26,633,304
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
4
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 !!!
5
Iran
Next to macro economic factors (R&D spend); what are other factors to
look at… or the arguments to use?
1. Listings of top research institutes
2. Quality of your research output
3. Comparison of usage of electronic resources
4. Are further efficiency gains possible? (case studies/research data)
5. Status of current Iranian Digital Library and where could you be?
6
# of universities in the Times top 200
2005 Time’s list
7
# of universities in the Times top 200
70
62
60
No university from Iran in top 200 yet…
50
40
30
30
20
9
10
6
1
0
India
8
Japan
China
UK
US
Top institutes per country by article output ’04
India
Indian Inst of Tech
Kuwait
1493 Tehran Univ
468 Kuwait Univ
320
Indian Inst of Science
Tehran Univ of
Med Sc
519
295 Kw Inst for Sc Res
47
Bhabha Atom Res
354 Sharif Univ
289 Kw Cancer Control c
8
UK
9
Iran
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.
Scientific output (country level)
Total Article Output of Selected Countries 2000-2004
18000
16000
14000
Country
TURKEY
12000
Articles
IRAN
10000
EGYPT
TUNISIA
8000
MOROCCO
6000
ALGERIA
LIBYA
4000
2000
0
1
2
3
Year
10
Source: Thomson Scientific
4
5
Scientific output (country level)
Total Article Output 2000-2004
Articles
4500
4000
IRAN
3500
SAUDI ARABIA
3000
KUWAIT
2500
JORDAN
2000
UNITED ARAB
EMIRATES
1500
LEBANON
1000
QATAR
500
0
2000
2001
2002
Year
11
Source: Thomson Scientific
2003
2004
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
12
Source: Thomson Scientific
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.
13
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.’
H-index 2 mouse clicks away in for instance Scopus…
Author A
Doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Cit
55
45
20
10
5
4
3
2
1
Author B
Doc
1
2
3
4
Cit
55
45
20
10
Scientific output / impact on a country level
0.7
0.6
Iran
0.5
Jordan
Kuw ait
0.4
Lebanon
0.3
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
0.2
UAE
0.1
0
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
-
Relative Impact (citations/papers)
Relative impact of papers 1994-2004 (relative to world)
16
Source: ISI
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.
17
Usage Iran is good; however, room for improvement…
6000000
Iran
5000000
Turkey
Saudi Arabia
4000000
Tunisia
3000000
Egypt
Lebanon
2000000
UArab Emirates
Jordan
1000000
0
2003
18
2004
2005

Iran and Turkey (excl. Gov research): accelerated growth
•
In countries such as France usage is four times higher than in Iran.

19
Let’s have look at potential usage per researcher.
http://web.utk.edu/~tenopir
Average number of articles
read per scientist
Ave. Readings per Univ. Scientist
www.dlib.org/dlib/october03/king/10king.html
250
216
200
150
150
172
188
100
50
0
1977
1984
1993
Year of Studies
2000-03
UKB research (374 respondents/ Oct 2004)
Dutch Consoria (‘mature’)
Prof. Hans Roosendaal
Percentage of researchers reading a certain amount of
articles
UKB Research Oct. 2004
24
Usage (SDOL) per researcher (2003)
country
25
usage per
researcher
# researchers
downloads
*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, back
files, integration tools etc.
Print To Electronic - Activity Based Costing (ABC)
Main budget 2001
Step 1:
Define cost types
Personnel
costs
Housing
costs
IT Hardware
IT Support
Out of pocket
expenses
Data carriers
Step 4:
Allocate costs
to activities
Step 2:
Define activities
& processes
Select
Acquisition
Catalogue
Info. access
Assist
customer
Supply
Store
Manage
lib. system
Info. mgmt.
Etc.
17 in total
Infrastructure mgmt.
Step 5:
Assign activities
to services
Step 3:
Define services
View
periodicals
Full text
access
Borrow
books
Work
space
Search
assistance
Etc.
10 in total
Future situation = bottom-up approach
27
Print To Electronic – Example Utrecht (atos/kmpg)
Total costs per service
Work space
€ 25,000,000
+33%
Signalling (SDI)
€ 20,000,000
-0%
Passive search assistance
+13%
Active search assistance
+39%
€ 15,000,000
Electronic copies
-8%
Paper copies
-39%
Full text access
+66%
View periodicals
-57%
View books
-26%
Borrow books
-30%
€ 10,000,000
€ 5,000,000
€-
Current costs
€ 15,1 Mil.
Future Costs
€ 14,3 Mil.
-5%
28
Future product
volumes Efficiency
+40%
gains: yes! Imagine
if in Iran the whole library is
digital… including archives!
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)
Time spending per activity for one project
(overall estimation)
Explanation: all roles
together spend 1,620
hours per annum on the
experiments phase
Source: UMCU / Elsevier
 The bulk of the work is concentrated in the experiments and
development phases
 Project definition, manuscripts and thesis also require considerable effort
29
Source: UMCU / Elsevier
 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%
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)
Key trends
 Evolution of enabling technologies
 Increase in the number of available titles
 Search time being reduced
 More need to read
Source: UMCU / Elsevier
Explanation: increasing
volumes at constant
time spending per
search and book or
journal read
 Volumes of content increased by 100%
 Time spending on content-related activities decreased by
25%
30
Conclusions from a pilot academic research study
Conclusions

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.
31
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
-
32
Integrated search functionality
Integrated with relevant search on web sources
Easy navigation; from search to full text in easiest way
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
33
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
34
Conclusions / suggestions:
You did qualify … (e-only, usage is good…)
35
…but it could be substantially better…
And close the gap to bridge to best
in class…
36
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…
37
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.
38
S & T Sales & Marketing
A & G International Markets
Region 5 – Charles Pallandt
February 2006
Region 5 Middle East plus Iran/Turkey (not
Israel)/Africa (not South Africa)
Charles Pallandt
Sales Director
Lorenzo Fabbri
Product Sales Manager
Said Taha
Sales Manager
Ramy Hassanien
Sales Manager
Ferruh Sengun
Sales Manager
Olivier Diesnis
Senior A/c Dev Manager
Ali Jalal Jalali
Sales
Manager Iran
New Sales Manager Iran and
IIN, Integrated Information Network, our agent, play an important role
39
40
Thank very much you
for your attention!