1. Description/analysis of situation – example
What is/was the researcher's 'problem'?
The BFI expert groups are responsible for assessing which journals and publishers should be on the authority list for each academic field. They have requested input on which journals (not on the authority list) researchers in a specific academic field publish in. In other words, they want to know which journals are candidates for the authority lists. Furthermore, they want to gain an impression of the levels of the authority lists with regard to more general impact factors and of the book series and conferences in which the authors in the expert groups publish. Three lists are therefore needed.
2. Description/analysis of the process – example
a. What is/was the role of the library?
To advise on the BFI system and to create work tools for the expert groups.
b. How was contact established?
We received requests from individual members/chairs of the BFI expert groups and provided a service for all the expert groups.
c. What decisions had to be taken?
Shall we simply accommodate the individual wishes of the expert groups or create a single system for all the groups?
3. Description/analysis of solution – example
Using a system parallel to PURE at Aalborg University, which functions on the basis of a copy of the PURE database, we make a database extract with the following criteria:
1) Choose ISSN/ journal title for journals (not on the authority list) containing publications whose authors publish in journals that are on the authority list in a certain discipline.
2) Choose the total number of publications in the last five years and with BFI points for journals (incl. SNIP and BFI level) in a certain discipline.
3) Choose conferences and book series in which the members of the academic group publish.
4. Evaluation – example
a. Was the problem solved fully, or did the researcher want something 'more'?
They were given a tool to support their work. ISSN and conference series URLs were missing on the lists – we rectified that.
b. Has the result been evaluated jointly with the recipient? How and what was the response?
Good response, although not overwhelming.
c. How was the library’s work put to use?
It was used in the academic group’s work in the sense of new proposals for the authority lists and for division into categories.
d. Was the support from the library backed up by any other support (from other units)? Which ones?
e. What is the next step with this case?
Dialogue with the academic groups on new measures and improvements.