Location
Kwa Geok Choo Law Library, Learning Lab 3 & 4
Start Date
3-6-2026 9:30 AM
End Date
3-6-2026 12:00 PM
Description
Research information (or metadata) relates to the conduct and communication of research. his includes bibliographic metadata, information about research software, research data, funding, research contributors, and more. It is located in systems such as bibliographic databases, software archives, data repositories, and current research information systems. Many research information infrastructures are closed, and yet they play an important role in research assessment and resource allocation in many countries. The Barcelona Declaration on Open research Information seeks to drive fundamental changes in this landscape. How do these concerns play out in other regions—are they shared globally? In this session, with a series of questions as prompts, we will invite participants to explore and share diverse experiences and views about key information sources for decision-making in research assessment, policy, and funding across communities and disciplines. What can we learn from each other about different ways of achieving openness of metadata? What information are we confident in utilising for ey decision-making processes? To anchor the discussion, we’ll look at the registries and infrastructures that supply those sources. Local, regional, and global infrastructures can offer access to research information. In Asia alone, several registration agencies enable registration of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). Some of these agencies are focused on the regional ecosystem, while others, such as Crossref, enable the collection of metadata that facilitate connections globally. Further connectivity is facilitated by agencies using open infrastructural systems.
We’re hoping to map current practices in the use of open vs closed research information in decision-making about research and researchers, explore the role of different infrastructures, and capture existing opportunities for open alternatives, and best practices that can lead to filling the gaps in the metadata landscape.
Included in
Pre-conference Workshop 4: Global perspectives on Open Research Information
Kwa Geok Choo Law Library, Learning Lab 3 & 4
Research information (or metadata) relates to the conduct and communication of research. his includes bibliographic metadata, information about research software, research data, funding, research contributors, and more. It is located in systems such as bibliographic databases, software archives, data repositories, and current research information systems. Many research information infrastructures are closed, and yet they play an important role in research assessment and resource allocation in many countries. The Barcelona Declaration on Open research Information seeks to drive fundamental changes in this landscape. How do these concerns play out in other regions—are they shared globally? In this session, with a series of questions as prompts, we will invite participants to explore and share diverse experiences and views about key information sources for decision-making in research assessment, policy, and funding across communities and disciplines. What can we learn from each other about different ways of achieving openness of metadata? What information are we confident in utilising for ey decision-making processes? To anchor the discussion, we’ll look at the registries and infrastructures that supply those sources. Local, regional, and global infrastructures can offer access to research information. In Asia alone, several registration agencies enable registration of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). Some of these agencies are focused on the regional ecosystem, while others, such as Crossref, enable the collection of metadata that facilitate connections globally. Further connectivity is facilitated by agencies using open infrastructural systems.
We’re hoping to map current practices in the use of open vs closed research information in decision-making about research and researchers, explore the role of different infrastructures, and capture existing opportunities for open alternatives, and best practices that can lead to filling the gaps in the metadata landscape.