“Knowing what their research process is, and how we can fit in.”
“I should understand what they’re doing, so I can support them better.”

In interviews with research support providers, Ithaka S+R asked how the RSS4S History Project could help inform their work through our interviews with chemistry faculty. The overwhelming response of academic librarians was focused on the desire to better understand the day-to-day work of chemists. Building a deep understanding of the work that chemists are engaged in–both in terms of how they conduct research with the scholarly literature and in the lab–was widely recognized as a foundational requirement for providing high quality services. A number of interviewees noted a primary challenge in supporting chemistry as being the technical barrier between chemists and librarians. Many librarians who work with chemists also support a number of other scientific fields, and are not always trained in chemistry themselves. While this distance between service providers and scholars exists in all disciplines, it is perhaps more difficult to traverse due to the highly technical nature of chemistry scholarship and lab work. None the less, librarians across institutions stated that bridging this gap and gaining a clear understanding of chemists’ research practices was a priority.

Interviewees expressed interest in

• Building a deep understanding of how chemists approach their research and use scholarly publications, including the life cycle of the research process and the information used and produced throughout
• Exploring more “fluid” ways to support the discovery process for chemists
• Hearing from chemists what they want from the library, both immediately, and in the long term
• Evaluating whether current collections and library services are meeting chemists’ research needs
• Learning how chemists are using, reusing and sharing data, what types of data they are producing and acquiring, what types of data they want to preserve, and what they need to support their work with data
• Considering how the chemistry community can most effectively interact with the government and funding agencies to communicate priorities and consider how best to move chemistry research forward, in effective, sustainable ways
• Addressing concerns about disparate approaches to data management and preservation across institutions and how to communicate these clearly to chemists
• Understanding how to address the ongoing “journal crisis” in chemistry, and the impact on institutional budgets, including moves towards open access publishing models

Overall, it was clear that deeper engagement with chemists about their research practices is widely needed by the research support community and will be immediately beneficial to those engaged in supporting their work. There is also wide awareness of the distinct information support and data management challenges that the chemists are currently facing, and sense of urgency for addressing these challenges. Many research support professionals are engaged in these issues, and continue to focus on and work with chemists to find practical, effective, sustainable research solutions that will be adopted by this community of scholars. These interviews with research support professionals will directly inform the upcoming interviews with academic chemists about their research and support needs.

Join the conversation – leave a comment!

We hope to engage the community – librarians, research support professionals, scholars, researchers, and funders alike –   in discussions about the Chemistry Project and the findings. Please share your thoughts and experiences with us. We welcome reactions and feedback via the comments section on this blog.

You can also download the full RSS4S Chemistry Project Interim Report.

Stay in touch: follow @jenrutner on Twitter for more updates on the Research Support Services for Scholars Chemistry Project.

“It’s harder to convert the mature researchers. I like to think there’s a real thirst and interest among the new entrant researchers.”

As in other disciplines, there was a feeling among chemistry research support professionals that focusing outreach efforts on graduate students can have a deep impact on the future of the field. While library instruction sessions tend to focus mainly on core issues, such as database searching and citation management, many are expanding the topics of instruction. Libraries are beginning to address issues of data management, open access publishing, journal impact factors, data preservation, and copyright with graduate students in chemistry.

One interview with librarians also included a facilitated discussion with PhD students in chemistry. The librarians were surprised to learn that students were not using ELNs in their lab research, opting instead for pencil and paper lab notebooks. As the conversation progressed, it became clear that the students were looking for functionality that a citation management tool or an ELN would provide; however, four out of the five students present weren’t aware of the options available to them. This is the type of conversation that is generally familiar to academic librarians, who make it a priority to stay up to date on research support tools. While there is interest and knowledge of these tools in science libraries (citation management programs, especially), there are currently not comprehensive efforts to promote the use of ELNs nor train students on how to use them in most libraries.

One interesting trend that came up repeatedly in conversations with research support professionals was the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of graduate student training in some chemistry departments. Students may have two advisors, or work in two separate labs on different aspects of their research. Challenges in coordination and collaboration are arising for some students in these interdisciplinary environments.

At one point it was mentioned that there is some concern about decreased funding for graduate students, perhaps in tandem with overall decreases in funding for research. This was not a major concern among research support professionals; however, it may be for chemists in the next phase of research.

The EPSRC program on Centres for Doctoral Training (CDT) is certainly worth noting as a significant–perhaps even unprecedented–initiative to transform and advance doctoral training in the sciences in the UK.[1]  There are currently about 50 centers in the UK, admitting around ten students each, per year. The program at the University of Bath Doctoral Training Centre in Sustainability Chemical Technologies[2] is one program that’s directly taking on many relevant topics in research support: collaboration, interdisciplinary work, relationships with industry, data management, and professional training. In this program, each PhD student is assigned two advisors–one academic and one from industry–to shape and guide the students’ research.

A notable aspect of the CDTs is the additional year of training that is incorporated into the curriculum. This extra time allows CDTs to focus on developing comprehensive professional skills and training students to work with new technologies to foster collaboration, data management, open access publishing, etc.. The program at Bath also focuses on developing the students as a cohort, emphasizing the value of a shared learning experience as they explore new ways of working and researching.

Programs like the CDT seem to be an ideal mechanism for introducing new methods and tools into the academic work of chemists. Because the programs are funded, they can provide new technology and, most importantly, technology support for the students. The graduate students are perceived as being ideally positioned to learn these skills while still forming their scholarly practices and habits. These students, it’s hoped, are also well positioned to influence and inform the work practices of their advisors and departments. It was not immediately evident from limited conversations with those involved what the role of the library is or might be in CDT programming; an area that could be considered further. It will be important to track these CDTs as the programs advance, particularly as more CDTs complete their funding cycles and move on to find sustainable sources of long-term funding support.

In discussions with research support professionals across organizations, some of whom are or were academic chemists, various perspectives emerged on the state of chemistry scholarship today, the challenges facing individual chemists as well as the broader field, and solutions for addressing some of these challenges. This section outlines the perspectives of research support professionals on what support chemists require. Phase II of this project, interviews with academic chemists, will explore many of these themes in-depth with the academic chemists themselves, revealing first-hand evidence in relation to these perspectives.

Perceived Challenges for Chemistry Scholars
“They’re very self sufficient.”
“Chemists are very inquisitive and interactive.”

Discovery
As with many fields, it is perceived that chemists regularly experience frustration with the complex information landscape that’s emerged over the past two decades. The myriad of options for locating and using research information continues to grow, and interviewees felt that chemists are suffering from the common malady: information overload. Even as interfaces improve, the number of systems and the systems themselves grow more complex, contributing to a growing frustration among chemists. The market for search tools may also be saturated, as some research support professionals reported the difficulty in encouraging chemists to adopt new tools, in favor of their long-standing, well-trusted discovery practices.

Journal Landscape
Academic journals in particular seem to be a point of frustration for chemistry scholars and those research support professionals who work with them. The overwhelming perception unearthed in the interviews was “There are too many journals.” This perception seemed to touch on all aspects of the publication cycle–there are too many journals to publish in, there are too many journals to purchase, there are too many places to find the journals, and there are too many journals to read. This environment is seen to contribute to a number of negative phenomena: information overload, discovery challenges, the quality of published scholarship, the ability to keep up with the literature, and the ability to evaluate the quality of scholarship.

At the moment, it was felt by some that the traditional scholarly communication model that is currently in place–with journals at the core–continues to work for most chemists as a mode for distributing their scholarly work. There has not yet been overt pressure from outside of this scholarly communications ecosystem to take up open access platforms and adapt current models of publication and scholarly communications. However, the perspective on the proliferation of chemistry journals coupled with increased awareness and concern about the pricing and the reality of limited budgets contributed to a sense of urgency surrounding this issue. The impression is building that the situation is reaching a tipping point, and journal publishing in chemistry will undergo some (perhaps dramatic) shifts. Interviewees seemed to be indicating “something must change” when it comes to the current journal publication dynamic.

Collaboration
Copyright was raised as a challenge, in that the collaborative nature of chemistry–often with scholars from multiple institutions and even countries working on a single project–introduces complexity, and prevents productivity, when it comes to sharing scholarly literature. There is a perception that due to campus license agreements with publishers, scholars are not free to share the publications and materials that they’d like to with collaborators. This is seen as hindering productivity in a burdensome way, by some. One research support professional noted that some chemists are using Mendeley[1] to share resources with their research groups, and that this is seen as a primary benefit of that platform.

Funding
Funding came up a number of times as a perceived challenge for chemists. As noted earlier, funding for chemistry research has been reduced by both funding agencies and industry partners. There is a perception that the cost of chemistry is higher than other disciplines, and that many of the initiatives that are needed to help move the field forward are simply too expensive for the current funding landscape to support. Additionally, funding for the types of large-scale infrastructure projects that are currently needed can be an unusual fit for most funders. One potential consequence of this dynamic that was discussed by interviewees is further reliance on industry as a funding partner for research and infrastructure initiatives.

Existing practice
There are strong perceptions among research support professionals, particularly academic librarians, about perceived cultural characteristics of chemistry departments. On the one hand, some chemists are pushing issues like open access, data management, and scholarly communications forward in their departments. On the other hand, some chemists continue to work in traditional ways. There is also a perception of a wide distribution of computing skills and work habits among chemists–making it difficult to reach out to them about research practices or provide support. This duality of interests, values, and skills exists in nearly all academic departments today; however it’s interesting to note that science librarians felt that there was something unique about this dynamic in chemistry. Some felt that the departmental culture tended towards the “traditional” when it comes to new modes of scholarship. One related challenge that was discussed is the lack of technical support for chemists who are interacting with new institution-wide systems that are part of many new initiatives.

Another cultural observation that was mentioned was chemists’ tendency to work independently from the library–more so than other science departments. One librarian noted, “Chemists ask for the least amount of help.” The general impression was that chemists are independent scholars, self-sufficient, and self-reliant in most matters of research. While their lab research and scholarship work may be highly collaborative, there was not a great amount of evidence that chemists collaborate with those outside of academic departments in their desk research process.

Data management
Several themes emerged as perceptions of challenges for chemists regarding data management practices. The need for a chemist to have centralized, coordinated place to archive and share data was discussed repeatedly. Challenges relating to sharing data on this level were also discussed, namely the perceived risks of sharing data that has potential commercial value. Chemists are thought to keep data close in a competitive environment. This relationship with industry was also influential on data management practices in that industrial partners and funders are sometimes reluctant to work with university systems, and prefer to have academic partners interact with their proprietary, secure systems. This could present a barrier for more open data management initiatives in the future.

Campus Research Support Services

Three additional campus-oriented research support providers emerged in this round of interviews. One is the campus IT department which will of course be involved in the administration of the departmental computer networks to varying degrees. It was clear that academic chemists rely on a number of computing networks, including personal, group, departmental, institutional, national, international, and online or cloud. Another is the centralized campus administration support for research. These offices might provide grant writing, budgeting, or other planning and administration support for faculty. Finally, each chemistry department will likely house a number of measurement tools for analyzing chemical processes and structures, such as various types of spectrometers and diffractometers.[1] Each of these machines in a department may have an individual technician who manages and operates the machine, and organizes the data produced by the tool for the department, or chemists and research group members may be responsible for running their own analyses and collecting and interpreting the data. The role of each of these service providers and partners will be further explored in interviews with chemists in phase two of this project.

Cross-Institutional Research Support

A number of cross-institutional research support professionals were included in the first phase of this research project, including organizations or groups whose services or tools support chemistry research in a centralized, distributed way, rather than campus-centered research support providers. (See Appendix A.) Many of the services being discussed were conceptualized and implemented by chemists who identified a need in their own work, or in the community, and are working towards developing a solution that can be widely adopted by academic chemists. For some of these services, in particular ChemSpider and the Chemical Data Service, there was awareness in the academic libraries and use of the service. For others, however, it remains unclear what their relationship with on-campus research support networks may be or should be.

Information management was a central theme that many of the cross-institutional support services are addressing. Collocating data and resources to facilitate easier access to critical information in chemistry is a widely shared goal. There was an overall impression that the publications and data resources used in chemistry are too disparate and growing rapidly; mainly referring to the proliferation of academic journals and databases, many of which have overlapping subjects and content. Institutional repositories, which don’t yet seem to have a strong foot-hold in chemistry, add another layer of information access to the landscape as well. In chemistry, as in other disciplines, there are many information “silos” for chemists to access in their research routines, each with individual infrastructures, organizations, and search tools. Some cross-institutional research support services, much like academic libraries, are focused on bringing these resources together, improving searchability, and greatly increasing easy access to information for chemists.

There was also concern about the ability to share research data effectively, emphasized by chemistry’s extremely interdisciplinary position within the sciences. (Chemists regularly cross departmental boundaries, collaborating with biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and engineers, as well as working with their partners in industry.)  In order to make an impact on the field, and improve the efficiency and quality of research, interviewees noted that more efforts need to be put towards supporting open access to research data and the associated publications. Progress in this area is seen to have an impact on effective, efficient collaboration, as well as providing a deeper level information access for the broader community of chemists.

Interviewees consistently expressed the view that centralization and coordination of research support services is needed to best support the broad landscape of academic chemistry research. Separate initiatives are addressing unique challenges in the different parts of the research information life cycle in this way. The Chemical Data Service aims to centralize chemical information resources, mainly publications, for the UK.[2] ChemSpider, now a product of the Royal Society for Chemistry, is an open database of chemical structures from hundreds of published sources, and invites contributions from the chemistry community.[3] Dial-a-molecule is a an EPSRC Grand Challenge Network that aims to enable “100% efficient synthesis” of molecules through a network of experimental data.[4] Each of these initiatives is taking a critically important broad view of supporting chemistry research in the UK and abroad through data management.

Electronic lab notebooks (ELNs) were discussed repeatedly by various interviewees, although none of the interviewees were directly involved with an ELN development or implementation initiative. ELNs are seen as a key component to the management of research information for the academic chemistry community, and are widely used in industry. While it is hoped that ELNs will help chemists plan and manage their research projects, share data with colleagues, and publish data in an open access forum, another major benefit will be enabling chemists to gain intellectual control over the work of their research groups by collecting and organizing experimental procedures and results of students assigned to projects, and making this information immediately accessible to the academic chemist. There are a number of ELN initiatives at work in the UK today, and this will certainly be a follow-up theme for the second phase of the project.[5][6]

The premise of these cross-institutional research support initiatives speaks to concerns about rising costs of supporting chemical information resources, including the cost of journal subscriptions, and complex, disparate systems currently in place for managing and applying the vast numbers of data and information resources available to and created by academic chemists today. While there is an interest in uncovering unpublished experimental chemistry data for the benefit of the community (to further support efforts to ensure reproducibility of results), there is also concern about the quality of data that is now being shared widely, both published and unpublished. One interviewee showed great concern about data quality and reproducibility of experimental results, citing instances where articles and supporting data were incorrect or unable to be reproduced. Further efforts to make research data available in an open access way are believed by some to have a positive impact on the quality of science being conducted in chemistry.

Overall, it was clear that the academic chemistry community, through various research support professionals and organizations, is establishing new modes for exploring and implementing research support services and tools that are recognized as necessary to help move the chemistry community forward. Each of the groups included in these interviews is thought well of within the community, and has demonstrated a level of success in achieving their mission and impacting the research landscape, providing a needed, valuable service. However, it was also clear that each service is facing some type of challenge in increasing adoption and impact throughout the chemistry community. The challenge of disrupting research routines–even with very good reason and very good tools–remains a concern for all who are thinking in innovative ways about supporting chemistry academics. Further exploration of the data management practices of academic chemists will be a major focus of the Phase II of this research project.

Challenges for Cross-Institutional Research Support Services
Cross-institutional groups which are working to address research needs in chemistry face a different set of challenges than the academic library. Funding, of course, remains a major concern. For these independently resourced groups, their operating budgets are sometimes at risk, or the budget constraints on their market have posed new challenges for furthering adoption of their resources. Many of these groups start out with grant funding, and the transition to a more sustainable, stable funding model is a challenge. Some of the interviewees discussed their experiences in considering different funding models as they move off of temporary grant funds. Some have effectively moved to open access or subscription models, and have fee structures. Others are seeking hard funding from an associated academic institution or scholarly society. As more of these types of initiatives will continue to emerge in the coming years, funding will certainly remain a challenge and have a notable impact on furthering research support for academic chemists.

Another set of challenges appeared to stem from the position of these organizations as independent entities, rather than campus-oriented initiatives. Outreach to chemistry faculty was a notable challenge for some. Ensuring that awareness is wide spread so that the services and tools may be utilized is not easy. Even more so, coordination and outreach to publishers, academic institutions and libraries requires navigation of many complex systems and organizational cultures. In general, these new services are taking on a complex set of problems, and providing a solution that many chemists may not currently feel an implicit need for. Outreach about open access publishing and data management services may feel immature to some scholars, as the use cases for these services continue to develop. Again, as many of these services exist outside of the institutional structures in which academic chemists work, incentives for uptake of a new service may not be immediately understood. One interviewee noted, “we haven’t got the sticks; we can only make the carrots.” It was widely recognized that many of these external services are still in early, developmental stages, and the community will need to continue to engage with these issues and services before they will fully mature. Additionally, demonstrating the impact of these initiatives was cited as a challenge by most interviewees.

Overall, it was clear that many of these cross-institutional research support services are in the early stages of development. Ensuring that they have the proper resources to support their work through maturation will be a fundamental issue to address, before the community can fully explore and adopt the services that best support scholarly work.

Library Research Support
“That’s what our role should be – advocating for the needs of the department.”
“Together, we’re stronger.”

Interviews with a number of academic chemistry librarians showed that the role of the library–in terms of the types of research support services are provided directly to chemists–has remained quite stable over the years. Academic librarians consistently saw the acquisition, provision, and management of subscriptions to scholarly journals and databases as the central service being provided to academic chemistry departments today. In many of the larger research libraries included in this study, the departmental liaison model continues to be employed for research support, with such libraries having a Chemistry Librarian dedicated to that collection and department. In another common model, however, there may be a general science librarian who has responsibility for multiple disciplines and collections. Some academic institutions in the UK have, or are in the process of, transitioned away from a departmental library model, where the chemistry department housed and supported a library separate from the administration of the centralized library services. This departmental model for chemistry is extremely rare, but still the case on some campuses. (The most notable example of an effective departmental chemistry library is Cambridge University.) Many academic libraries have become the central administrators for the institutional repository platforms[1], and this set of services has started to enter the dialogue between the library and the academics. Overall, chemistry librarians communicated great dedication to supporting the research needs of their departments, and focused their efforts primarily on maintaining the collections.

Departmental Library Liaisons
For academic librarians, the liaison relationship with chemistry faculty was central to conversations about supporting research, and it is clear that librarians place great value on communication with the chemists with whom they work. Chemistry librarians typically serve on academic and departmental committees, attend faculty meetings, and are regularly in conversation with the chemistry department’s faculty liaison to the library. In some cases, librarians are invited to give presentations or lead discussions with the entire chemistry department. Two-way communication is key to maintaining these relationships. The librarians keep chemistry faculty updated on new services and resources, and are able to glean valuable information about the departments’ work and strategic priorities through these meetings. One librarian noted that the cultural and professional differences between the library and the chemistry department can be extensive, but they can always discuss the collections, as a middle ground. The liaison relationship can lead to true partnership and collaboration in some cases. A conversation with one librarian revealed how the library and chemistry faculty had partnered to push back against the rising costs of publications, with great success.

Collections
Collections remain central to the research support that academic libraries provide to chemistry departments, primarily through journal subscriptions. It can be argued that journals are even more important to chemistry than other science disciplines. As noted, the vast majority of journal subscriptions have moved from print to electronic formats. Though the transition has not been completed in full at most institutions, and some resources remain available in print-only. In some cases, chemists must visit the library to use a resource, but these visits have become extremely rare as scholars’ access resources conveniently online. This online access is perceived as being highly valued by the departments. In light of recent cuts to chemistry collections budgets, enacted at nearly every institution included in this project, conversations with faculty about collections have increased. Faculty involvement is seen as a crucial component to collections decisions, especially as more science libraries find themselves in the position of needing to cut a subscription in order to purchase new materials. Librarians commonly shared their experiences in considering new resources to purchase, managing the collections budgets, and seeking feedback from faculty about their priorities. In many instances chemistry faculty requested, or were asked, to trial a subscription or tool in order to evaluate it before purchase. This was seen as incredibly valuable by library staff. There were many reports of partnerships between faculty and librarians in reviewing the collections budgets and making purchasing decisions. Deep collaboration, feedback, and transparency have been part of the process of managing these collections to meet scholars’ needs in light of sometimes harsh budgetary realities.

Library Spaces
It was interesting to note how the physical spaces in which chemistry librarians work now vary dramatically, as a result of wide spread science library reconfigurations in the past ten years. Many academic libraries in the United States and the UK have consolidated science libraries, moving away from the departmental model. In some cases, these reorganizations also included budgetary changes, with the loss of departmental funds that may have been contributed to a branch library.   A chemistry librarian could be working in a central library, a science library, departmental library, or an independent office not associated with a physical library space. (While information commons have also entered the landscape in the UK, these tend not to be focused on supporting science researchers.) Obviously, each of these environments will have an impact on the type of services offered, and the interactions with chemists. However, it appeared that regardless of setting, core services (collections, instruction, and reference) were present, though they may be realized in different ways.

Data Management and Institutional Repositories
Two significant new areas of research support services for chemists that were discussed at length are institutional repositories and data management support. Based on conversations with academic librarians, it appears that most UK universities and colleges have moved towards implementing some version of an institutional repository to collect and disseminate the scholarly output of students, researchers, and faculty.[2] In many of the institutions included in these interviews, the campus library has a significant role in administering the repository. Many institutions have a repository coordinator on staff at the library. When the library does not house the repository, library staff contribute various levels of support for repository services. Among science librarians who were interviewed, nearly all support the repository initiative through outreach to faculty; acting as an ambassador or promoter of the repository and open access scholarship. Of course, campus or departmental mandates for depositing compel different levels of motivation and incentive to engage with the repository. As in the United States, some science funders in the UK are requiring open access to research outputs,[3] which also compels deposit for some researchers.

Adjacently, support for data management is expanding on many campuses, and the libraries often play a role in this. Institutional repositories typically accept data sets in various forms; though many have faced limitations due to file size. Supporting the management of “big data” is a topic of interest for most of libraries interviewed. However, the role of the library is typically not yet defined here. Many institutions have campus-wide or departmental initiatives exploring the best ways to provide robust support for data management. Science librarians were eager to be included in these discussions, and generally are. One interviewee stated “We’re not leading the initiative, but we want to be involved.” Some librarians see themselves as well-suited to take on this type support, due to the longstanding history of managing campus-wide information resources. Others felt that it was a new direction that was notably different from the traditional roles of librarians, and did not feel prepared to take on an initiative in data management.

Libraries have significant perceived strengths to bring to the implementation and management of institutional repositories, including expertise in information management and metadata creation and management. However, there is also a recognized need to expand skill sets in libraries to better support repository initiatives. At least one interviewee referred directly to concerns about the preparedness of library staff to take on support for a repository, despite the organizational desire to do so.

Librarians interviewed were aware of and concerned about the challenges that chemists are facing in data management, and providing open access to their research data. In some interviews there was lengthy discussion about the sometimes urgent needs of scholars to manage, store, preserve, and share their research data. The interdisciplinary nature of chemistry also adds a level of complexity, with a diversity of types of data sets to support. Some interviewees felt that chemists were often leading campus-wide conversations about data management, making this a particularly relevant, pressing topic for those who support chemists. The University of Bath was a notable example, where the library has developed a robust program for supporting, promoting, and managing their institutional repository, including the hiring and training of staff. In general, it was felt that libraries do not currently employ the skill sets needed to provide this level of data management support to scientists, but the interest in continued dialogue and exploring opportunities for involvement was consistent across institutions.

Instruction
While formal information literacy instruction in science libraries remain focused on students (and therefore outside of the scope of this project), librarians feel that faculty can also benefit from instructional research support. One interviewee noted that his library is working on challenging their long held assumptions about the information literacy skills that undergraduates, post-graduates, and faculty bring to their research, acknowledging that sometimes all three groups could be brought up to speed on a topic. Recent efforts to standardize skills expectations for students have helped shape these discussions and reform instruction services across the board. In general, libraries continue to develop online research guides, teach citation management, and provide database instruction and support. Newer topics like copyright, open access publishing, data management, bibliometrics, and more advanced searching techniques are entering the classroom. As access to information through online interfaces becomes increasingly more user-friendly, library instruction can focus on these other support issues. Supporting scholars in navigating these resources has traditionally been the role of the librarians. One interviewee claimed, “This is where we come in. To facilitate access to collections that aren’t logically findable.” Another interviewee noted, “It’s no longer necessary for me to train them on how to use databases.” As the discovery landscape continues to shift, there will be more opportunities for librarians to rethink their roles as instructors.

Support Challenges for Libraries
“We need to understand the cultures [of these departments] in order to keep the vitality of the libraries.”
“We have to be open-minded. More than we’ve ever been.”
“It’s tough to get these things accepted; let alone embedded.”

Funding
From all perspectives, budget cuts, and reduced grant funding due to the recent economic downturn present the greatest challenge to providing research support, or expanding support services, for chemistry. For science libraries, this has typically meant a reduction in collections budgets, which has had a variety of impacts on the breadth of resources they are able to provide for scholars. Of course, budgetary limitations also make the expansion of service models difficult if not impossible at many institutions. Interviews with the libraries focused on the impact of budget reductions in terms of collections, specifically subscriptions to journals.

The financial downturn experienced in the UK in the past three years has contributed to tighter budgets across academic institutions, government departments, and funding bodies; putting increased pressure on the research support environment in chemistry. There was lengthy discussion with interviewees about the challenge of investing in infrastructure to support new research needs in the chemistry community, and identifying funding to do so.

Information Resources
As chemistry research continues to progress, and interdisciplinary and sub-field publications continue to be introduced, libraries are struggling to maintain a balance in the collections between core resources and following the cutting edge in new sub-fields. Publishers continue to launch new journal titles in subfields, usually in competition with each other. One librarian noted that the “big deal” will no longer be a viable option for their institution. Libraries need to be able to be more selective about the titles they maintain due of budget pressures and increasing specialization among faculty research interests and the journals themselves. Reduced budgets have made it challenging-to-impossible for some chemistry collections to keep up with expanding research interests and needs of faculty, without simultaneously cutting titles from the collection.

Integrated Support Services
As chemistry collections have moved increasingly towards e-only, the role and reality of the library has changed dramatically. One negative impact is a felt distance on the part of science librarians – physically and collegially – from the scholars. (One librarian noted the extreme of having to advocate for access to the chemistry department in order to meet with scholars; because of tight security measures the building was literally closed to her.) Chemistry librarians repeatedly expressed the need to bridge the gap between chemists and libraries, in order to build a more thorough understanding of chemists’ work and research support needs. Some librarians noted the demands on chemists’ time as a major barrier to strengthening relationships – chemists, like all scholars, are required to juggle three roles: researcher, professor, and administrator. Meetings with the librarian tend to be few and far between for chemists, and tend to be focused on supporting the collections and information literacy support for students. It was widely recognized that efforts to “knock down walls” between libraries and academic departments are critical to building dynamic, collaborative relationships between chemists and librarians.

One aspect of this felt distance may be attributed to the changing physical reality of chemistry libraries. Many science libraries have consolidated or closed branch libraries in the past decade, moving to a centralized model. In rare cases, science librarians maintain their offices outside of a library–near the department–and are not associated with a physical library. Another aspect of this distance hinges on the evolving roles of chemistry librarians, and the nature of supporting research through building collections has changed. In general, it seemed that librarians were generally more imbedded in the library culture, rather than the departmental culture.

Although the interviews did not directly address the training of chemistry and science librarians in the fields which they support, this is an area that should be explored further, and could likely be a contributing factor to this perceived gap. Research support professionals in other sectors supporting chemistry tend to be staffed, to some degree, by trained chemists, including PhDs and practicing researchers. The challenge of recruiting science librarians with training in the fields which they will support is widely recognized in the United States[4]. This is complicated further by the needs for one librarian to serve multiple science departments in nearly all academic libraries in the United States and the UK. The opportunities for engaging deeply with these disciplines about research, with limited formal training in the subject matter, could be a potential barrier to establishing new research support services in libraries.

Overall, communication was seen as a central value of the library community’s work with chemists. As dynamics in the research environment continue to change, this relationship will become more important. One interviewee noted, “Communication has always been a challenge, but it’s vital. Without good communication and trust within the department, it would be very difficult to do any of this.” Librarians were committed to maintaining strong communication with chemists as they pursue new research support services that are built on collaborative relationships.

Finally, perceptions (and self-perceptions) of the library’s role seem to remain rooted in traditional services. Some chemistry librarians noted that while their libraries are considering new roles and are interested in data management, open access, copyright, grant writing, institutional repositories, and open notebook science, faculty do not typically reach out to the library to discuss these issues or request support. One interviewee commented, “They wouldn’t even think we’d be involved in something like open notebook science.”

Campus Support Models
Of course, the scope of many of these types of new information support initiatives goes well beyond what a typical academic library can support, given current staffing and budgetary models. On most campuses the library is one of a number of departments considering how to support innovative research and build the information systems to do so, alongside centralized research offices, IT departments, academic departments, and various task force and committees that might be established. While on some campuses libraries have taken a leadership role in these initiatives, this is not always the case. Organizational culture, both academic and library, combined with a myriad of other factors, can make change difficult. One interviewee recognized, “We can be slow to embrace new things,” in reference to implementing support services for new technologies. In another case, when discussing a campus-wide data management strategy, the librarian stated that the library is interested and involved, but not taking the lead in defining what the library’s role could and should be in this initiative.

While one challenge is to develop a deeper understanding of how chemists work in order to best support them, a parallel challenge lies in considering how the academic library as a system can respond to increasingly specialized needs, both within the sciences and across the institution. These two dynamics seem to be increasingly in competition with one another. Related, many chemistry librarians work with faculty from a number of departments, due to the interdisciplinary nature of chemistry work, while some chemistry librarians have responsibility for supporting multiple or all of the science departments at an institution. This can present a very real barrier in terms of bandwidth and practical ability to engage new modes of research support for a discipline.

Another challenge is the simple fact that chemistry is a complex science with many sub-fields and inter-disciplinary ties. Experimental research methods can vary dramatically within this one field. While most chemistry librarians have some academic training in chemistry or the sciences, the degree of ongoing engagement with the intellectual content of chemistry is limited. This was reported as a barrier by some librarians in these interviews. While most chemistry librarians have developed and maintain a level of knowledge in order to use and support relatively sophisticated journal and database tools, there often remains a fundamental distance between the chemists and the librarians as academic practitioners in the sciences, which may be more pronounced than in other fields.

Evolving skill sets
As new research support needs emerge across institutions, science libraries are faced with the challenge of staffing to support a new set of services. This has been done either through creating new positions and hiring–increasingly difficult on tight budgets–or preparing current staff to take on new roles. Many of the research support initiatives at institutions today require skill sets that are not present in any department on campus. While this is a challenge that many interviewees described, it is seen as an opportunity by some who are keen to take this opportunity to define what skills and staffing are necessary to properly support new research infrastructures.

Introduction and Methodology

Funded by JISC, Ithaka S+R’s Chemistry Project, part of the Research Support Services for Scholars Program, explores the unique information support needs of academic chemists in the United Kingdom. The continuing development of new tools and services has enabled academic chemists to reshape their methods for sharing ideas, performing research independently and in collaboration, and communicating research findings and supporting data. Scholars across sub-fields continue to benefit from access to a rich variety of digital resources including publications, patents, structures, reactions, and data repositories. These new information systems are driving the practice and outcomes of chemical information into a more public realm, with the intention of benefiting academia, industry and society. In some cases, these new possibilities and procedures have reduced scholars’ reliance on many of the traditional information service providers which have historically supported their work, and gaps have developed between new needs and the services available to support scholars. The Chemistry Project will explore, in depth, the current research practices of academic chemists, seek input from thought leaders in the field of chemistry, and make recommendations as to how research support providers can best adapt to support the field of chemistry.

For the first phase of the Research Support Services for Scholars Chemistry Project, Ithaka S+R interviewed twenty-three research support professionals from a variety of organizations and higher education institutions in the UK. Nine of these professionals were science or chemistry librarians. The remaining fourteen were from other campus entities outside of the library, or from external organizations. (See Appendix A.) This diverse group of interviewees provided a rich overview of the dynamic environment that currently supports research in academic chemistry. This Interim Report summarizes these interviews.

Interviews were primarily conducted via phone conversations; each interview was about 60 minutes in length. Interviews were recorded for transcription and analysis purposes. Interview questions focused on three areas: current services provided to chemists, planning for future services, and challenges. (See Appendix B.) While the majority of the interviewees are focused on supporting chemists, some professionals work more broadly with scientists throughout the academy. In many cases, it was necessary and beneficial to talk about a wider spectrum of scholars, and locate chemists within this context.

The information gathered in Phase I of this project, along with the feedback provided on this interim report, will inform the next phases of research. Phase II of this project will include interviews with up to forty practicing academic chemists at higher education institutions in the UK. Phase III will include a nation-wide (UK) survey of academic chemists. The project is scheduled to conclude in winter 2012.

Throughout this project, three aspects of the chemistry research process will be addressed. One aspect of interest will focus on the experimental work that is conducted in the lab (“lab research”) and the slew of data and contextual information that is produced by these research and experimental processes. Another aspect of interest will be the “desk research” which chemists conduct continuously throughout their research cycle, referring to their use of research publications and published data sets to inform their research. A third area of interest is the publication, broadly speaking, of scholarly work. Interviewees included in the first phase of the Chemistry Project are research support professionals who are involved with any of these phases of the research process. By exploring these processes, Ithaka S+R hopes to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the current state of chemistry research in the UK, and clarity about the types of research support that is needed.

Environmental Context for Chemistry Research

Chemistry Departments
The structure of chemistry departments has a long history and definitive impact on how research is conducted and managed. Group-based work is the standard, with the faculty member leading and supervising the research work of a team of students. Students can be undergraduate chemistry majors or masters degree students, but are more typically PhD students. (In the UK, chemistry PhD studies have a three year program.) Groups can range from three to a dozen or more students, depending on the scope of the projects and funding the faculty member has secured. (Student positions are typically funded directly from grants, though some departments do have a budget to support PhD positions.) While this is certainly not always the case, it is typical that within these groups, students perform the majority of the lab work involved in the research, while the supervisor manages and directs the research. These groups are often highly cohesive units, with a strong sense of “cohort.” More experienced students are expected to train new comers in lab procedures, equipment, and various scientific methods. While the group model is quite standard, the way that each supervisor runs their group can vary dramatically.

One notable, ongoing change that’s influenced the chemistry research and support landscape at some institutions in the UK has been the reorganization of science departments over the past decade, and in some cases the closing of chemistry departments, in attempts to reduce costs.[1] While this has been an ongoing process for some institutions, there continue to be reorganizations, which continue to have impact on the scope of services available to chemists on a given campus. For those institutions that have closed, re-opened or reorganized chemistry departments, reinstating research support services for these scholars will likely present significant challenges.

The Role of Industry
The involvement of the chemical industry in academic research is long standing, wide spread, and significant to the academic research environment. Industry has partnered with academic research in a number of ways; however discussions with research support professionals focused on the role of industrial partners as funders of chemistry research. While the interviews did not specifically explore the implications of these relationships, collaborations with industrial partners will be considered in further research with practicing academic chemists in the following phases of this study.

Funding
The funding landscape for chemistry research was also addressed in the interviews. While there have been reductions in the amount of funding available to support chemistry research in the recent years, funders remain committed to funding a balance of high quality projects that reflect national priorities as well as “blue sky” research. Interviewees noted that a valuable role for the Royal Society of Chemistry is to facilitate conversations between the academic community and the funding agencies, as the financial environment continues to change. Building a deeper understanding of academic chemists’ views on the current funding environment will be an important aspect of the next phase of research.

Two additional funding-related trends were also noted in discussions with research support professionals. One, there has been increased funding available to support interdisciplinary projects in chemistry. Two, there has been increased focus on demonstrating the impact of funded research. These two dynamics, perceived by some interviewees, may contribute to further shifts in the funding landscape, and influence research practices and support networks available to chemists.

The REF 2014
The HEFCE Research Excellence Framework (REF) initiative is currently a major motivator for thinking about scholarship in chemistry, and all science fields, in the UK.[2] As the REF process requires scholars and institutions to submit extensive reports and evidence of research outputs for review, the impact of the process has been felt throughout the academy. Based on the interviews conducted with research support professionals about chemistry research, a few notable impacts of the REF process were highlighted. The REF process requires institutions to make the output of scholarship available for review. Some higher education institutions are facilitating this process through the use of campus institutional repositories. This has provided an opportunity for libraries and campuses to invest more robustly in supporting or establishing institutional repositories, and has encouraged faculty to interact with the institutional repositories. While the REF process at each institution is managed by a centralized group, in general, the library has been seen as a partner in the REF process, and is responsible for some degree of outreach and support to the chemistry departments on most of the campuses that are engaging the use of an institutional repository.

The REF process has re-emphasized the value of research output, motivating institutions and departments to think strategically about how they will support innovative research in chemistry, while also maintaining a high standard for teaching. New chemistry staff, with new areas of expertise, and needs for robust research support are now entering institutions where the teaching and learning support might have been the priority in the past. This puts new emphasis on building library collections to support new areas of research, in addition to the ongoing support for materials for the classroom.

Open Access Movement
There was lengthy discussion with research support professionals about the momentum building around issues of open access publishing and data sharing with research support professionals in chemistry. While the deposit of published articles in open access repositories seems to be widely understood and generally accepted by chemists–as a philosophy if not a practice–applying the open access approach to data sets is something that many chemists continue to grapple with, according to interviewees. Some in the field are leading conversations about the benefits of open data initiatives, including some of the interviewees for this project. It is believed that open sharing of experimental data, while contrary to previously held professional values, stands to benefit chemistry in the UK dramatically. Because the chemistry landscape is considered to be quite competitive, many in the field are cautious about this level of data openness. However, there is wide support for open access publications from many research support professionals in chemistry, as the awareness of the restricted availability of publicly funded research output increases. The awareness and discussion of this topic, and belief that research institutions should not have to “buy back” the output of their research, was overwhelmingly wide spread in the interviews.

Deposit Mandates
The increasing prevalence of deposit mandates is contributing to the rapidly increasing awareness of open access repositories, and some increase in deposit among chemists, according to interviews with research support professionals. The mandates registered by the EPSRC[3] and the REF[4] process have had the widest impact, while many institutions and chemistry departments are also developing local mandates and guidelines for the open access deposit of published works. The significance of these mandates was widely discussed in interviews, and the on-the-ground experiences of chemists working within these new frameworks will be explored in Phase II of this research project. Each institution is developing independent processes, policies, services, and infrastructure to support open access scholarship in response to local and EPSRC mandates and the REF process. Some interviewees felt that the environment in which chemists are required to deposit is growing increasingly complex, and more support will be needed to clarify requirements for academics and facilitate the deposit process.

Sharing Experimental Data
Another aspect of the research and scholarly communication cycle that came up repeatedly in interviews with research support professionals was the desire to extend the scholarly communication framework to include experimental data from all points in the research process, in addition to that which is typically published alongside an article. Typically, accompanying supplements or tables will be published alongside an article, sometimes a data set will be made available. However, there is rising desire to share experimental data that is not formally published, as well as data from the experiments that lead to the final, publishable experiment. Many research support professionals felt strongly that sharing more chemistry data and more contextual information for that data, will contribute greatly to the advancement of chemistry in the UK.

Ithaka S+R is pleased to release this Interim Report of the Research Support Services for Scholars Chemistry Project, summarizing our interviews with research support professionals who support the field of chemistry in the UK. We hope to engage the community–librarians, research support professionals, chemists, scholarly societies, and funders alike–in discussions about the RSS4S Chemistry Project findings. Please share your thoughts and experiences with us. We welcome reactions and feedback via the comments section on this blog.

We’ll be posting consecutive sections of the Chemistry Project Interim Report every Tuesday and Thursday starting March 27th, along with conversation topics that we hope will engage the community on the blog. You can also download the full RSS4S Chemistry Project Interim Report.

Stay in touch: follow @jenrutner on Twitter for more updates on the Research Support Services for Scholars History Project.

Executive Summary

The Research Support Services for Scholars Chemistry Project, funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC), is an in-depth, scholar-oriented study of the research support needs of academic chemists in the United Kingdom. This study is well positioned to understand researcher behaviors, perspectives, and requirements through direct interaction with, and analysis of, the research practices of academic chemists. The study comprises three phases of research, designed to build a comprehensive view of current scholarly practices in the academic chemistry community. The researchers expect that the findings of this study will inform and inspire research support professionals across disciplines and further the research support community’s aims to develop robust, relevant, innovative research support services.

Phase I–summarized in this interim report–included interviews with twenty-three research support professionals, from various sectors of the scholarly community, who are actively engaged in supporting research and researchers. Phase II will include in-situ and phone interviews with up to forty academic chemists and PhD students in the UK, focusing on their daily research practices, areas of challenge, and support needs. Phase III of this study will employ a nation-wide (UK) online survey of academic chemists, to further explore topics surrounding research support needs and confirm observed trends.

The Phase I interviews with more than twenty research support professionals,[1] including academic librarians, funders, scholarly societies, and independent research support organization, revealed a landscape of research services that is evolving, including a wide spectrum of providers and the services they offer to chemistry scholars. These interviews were intended to gauge the current research support landscape for chemists, and explore research support professionals perceptions of chemistry research; creating a foundational level of understanding for the study. Academic libraries, campus offices, and cross-institutional, independent organizations and initiatives alike were engaged in identifying areas of challenge for individual scholars and the field of chemistry as a whole, and introducing new tools, services, and solutions to fill gaps and improve the management of scientific research.  While Ithaka S+R felt it was important to begin the study by building an understanding of research support professionals and their perspectives, the primary findings of the study will come from Phases II and III, which will contribute a direct understanding of the practices, challenges, and needs of chemistry researchers. Phase I of this qualitative study is not meant to be representative of the entire population of research support services for chemists in the UK. The Interim Report indicates trends and critical issues observed by Ithaka S+R during the interviews and background research, many of which have been observed widely, including in the United States.

Key insights based on conversations with research support professionals:

• Chemists make use of a vast network of research support services including their local research groups, departmental services, academic libraries, campus offices for research, campus IT, national and international computing and equipment services, publishers, and independent organizations.
• Library liaisons who work directly with departments continue to value relationships with academics enormously, and see these relationships as fundamental to doing their jobs well. Despite the value of these relationships, many librarians expressed concern about the distance between the daily work of chemists and the library. This gap in mutual understanding prevents partnerships from developing between chemists and the library.
• Library services to, and relationships with, chemistry departments continue to regard journal collections as the primary service provided by the library. Discussions between the library and the departments remain focused on collections budgets and the acquisition, provision, and maintenance of journal subscriptions.
• Library services other than collections, including library space and instruction programs, are typically focused on students’ needs rather than faculty research support. Many academic libraries in the UK, much like the United States, have moved away from a departmental model for library spaces and collections and have consolidated library services and spaces into a centralized science library. For the most part, centralized library services and spaces aim to meet students’ needs.
• Academic libraries in the UK are now involved with or responsible for the provision of the institutional repository on campus. Depending on the role of the library in the managing the repository, promoting institutional repository services may now be part of ongoing library outreach to the chemistry department. This was widely acknowledged to be a significant new research support service provided by libraries.
• Cross-institutional organizations and initiatives are developing new, innovative tools to address the needs of chemistry researchers, typically focused on issues of research information management. In many cases, these initiatives are led by academic chemists who have identified a need in their own work, and throughout the discipline.
• Research support professionals agreed that there are inherent, immense challenges in developing new tools and services that will necessarily disrupt the established research habits of academic chemists.
• Graduate students emerged as a critically important population in supporting and conducting chemistry research, and the group-model of chemistry departments presents research opportunities and challenges. Many research support professionals, from all sectors, viewed graduate students as an ideal population for exploring new methods and interventions aimed at improving the research process. The general intention is to inform research practices while they are being shaped, before methodological research habits are formed.
• Research support professionals across the spectrum were concerned with addressing the perceived needs of chemists regarding information and research data management, access to and use of the literature including discovery services, challenges with the procurement of funding for research, and open access to scholarly publications.

It is important to note that while this research project is focused on academic chemists, it is expected that many of the findings and recommendations will be applicable to other science disciplines, and perhaps even more broadly within the academic community. It is the intention of Ithaka S+R and JISC that this study be used as a point of discussion and consideration for all academic librarians and research support professionals, regardless of subject area, to engage with scholarly practices and consider future paths for research support services.[2]