You might have noticed little codes on journal articles and other resources that look something like 10.1000/xyz123 – these are known as DOIs (digital object identifiers). In this post we talk about why we’ve decided to start adding DOIs to our own outputs, including our Outlines and any other resources we publish.
One of the biggest challenges we come across when searching for evidence relating to social care and services that’s published outside of the traditional model of academic publishing (e.g. journal articles) is that quite often, links to documents are broken, known as “LinkRot”, and results in problems like “404 not found” messages. This is a huge problem in articles; doi.org have found that in some cases within four years half of the links in an article are broken. In the Evidence Search and Summary Service we spend a lot of time trying to track down pdfs of reports on very relevant, important and potentially impactful work – including research, practice and expert opinion – and often this knowledge is lost, inaccessible, no longer online or impossible to find. This can be for any of several reasons, including because the organisations or groups that conducted and published the work are no longer funded and no longer exist, or because the outputs produced by an organisation at one stage of its existence aren’t carried over when they get a new name and a new website.
Another challenge we have is that very often, this work (what’s often referred to as grey literature) is hard to search for and identify, or even evaluate based on the information that is available about its production. This can limit our ability to evaluate the relevant evidence and use it in ways that would be useful to the practitioners we work for. This is a significant issue in evidence use across health and social care, where grey literature is understood to be a valuable resource in systematic reviews (Arsenio Paez 2017) and other processes based on finding and using evidence, such as knowledge mobilisation.
As we’ll discuss, DOIs are a useful way of addressing these and other challenges, and we’ve decided to practice what we preach by registering our own content with Crossref to assign DOIs to our publications.
What’s a DOI?
DOI is an acronym for “digital object identifier”, meaning a “digital identifier of an object”. A DOI name is an identifier (not a location) of an entity on digital networks. It provides a system for persistent and actionable identification and interoperable exchange of managed information on digital networks. A DOI name can be assigned to any entity — physical, digital or abstract — primarily for sharing with an interested user community or managing as intellectual property. (doi.org)
Christine Cormack Wood from Crossref explains DOIs like this:
Unlike a URL, a DOI is a persistent identifier [PID] —a life-long reference—that sticks to the content of an online object, not the location, therefore remaining associated with the work, irrespective of changes to work’s web address. The DOI is associated with a URL, but this can be updated centrally, so it always redirects to the current location of the content.
Why use DOIs?
There are several benefits to adding DOIs to your grey literature outputs, that we think make it a good idea for our Outlines. These include: permanence; discoverability; citeability; capturing reach; and opportunities for organised growth.
One of the main benefits of DOIs is their permanence:
A DOI is unique, and once allocated can only ever apply to that object. For example, a publication might change its owner as a result of business mergers; but the DOI of that publication does not change. The new owner might move the content to a different hosting server or additional locations, or add new data about it; the DOI does not change. Anyone looking for that publication using the DOI can be sure they have found the correct material, even though it’s not owned by who they thought or located where they expect it to be. Other information can be associated with the object through the DOI system, such as a statement of rights ownership, or links to related material, or anything else. (doi.org)
This is great for our service because its future is uncertain. We don’t know where the future of the Evidence Search and Summary Service will be, but we don’t want to lose track of our resources or end up with broken links from third party websites should we have to relocate our online content. With DOIs, we can future-proof our links. As the APA Style Blog says:
The DOI is like a digital fingerprint: Each article receives a unique one at birth, and it can be used to identify the article throughout its lifespan, no matter where it goes.
It’s our hope that DOIs will make our work more discoverable online. Richard Corlett (2011) says:
Google Scholar claims to find relevant work from ‘articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites’, but the published scientific literature overwhelmingly dominates search results. To a large extent this reflects the invisibility of most gray literature to the automated software—web crawlers—that Google Scholar uses to locate documents for inclusion in search results.
This is particularly helpful for us, because although our outputs are indexed in databases such as the Social Care Institute for Excellence’s Social Care Online, and the National Health and Care Institute for Excellence Evidence Search, it’s still important for social care and services practitioners who don’t necessarily know about these search tools, to be able to find our work online.
Being able to find accurate information about resources when they come up in online search results is also important. Richard Higgins at Indiana University writes about how assigning DOIs to resources can help reduce the problems of the “metadata mega mess” that exists in search tools:
Keyword searches by title or author in Google, for example, and even Google Scholar, which relies on mechanisms rather than unique IDs, often return inaccurate information: titles are attributed to the wrong authors, especially those with common names; citations of articles are mistaken for the original article; publication years become volume numbers; and a score of other inaccuracies.
As Richard Corlett (2011) writes; “[e]ven when gray documents are located, they are often poorly indexed because the software is unable to identify bibliographic data.” This means that it can be hard to work out who’s produced a piece of work, as well as how to cite it should you come to use it in your own work. DOIs are a way of making it really clear at the very least who the author is, when it was published, and by what organisation. This means it’s easier to evaluate the work based on information about its producers, as well as easier to accurately and appropriately reference it as a source.
Crossref also has a handy tool where if you enter information about the item you want to cite (e.g. title, author, DOI) you can export a formatted reference (as RIS/APA/Harvard etc.) which makes citing sources a little more efficient than manually typing it all out.
A benefit of being registered with Crossref is that you can track the reach of your outputs:
Cited-by provides members with a way to look at the Crossref metadata to find out how your publications are being cited and share that information with your readers and authors. (Crossref)
Another benefit of having a fixed DOI for outputs, particularly in social services, where several organisations create ‘one stop shops’ or mini ‘evidence hubs’ of potentially useful resources, is that:
DOIs…can also resolve to other services and to multiple locations of the same object with certainty that the objects are indeed the same – for example, the same material residing in a publisher’s hosted content and in a third party open repository. (doi.org)
Having a PID and asking people to use it when referring to your resources means that the reach of these outputs and where they’re being shared (e.g. on blogs, Twitter, social bookmarking sites like Mendeley and CiteULike) can be captured more comprehensively:
PIDs provide citation aggregators like the Data Citation Index and Impactstory.org an easy, unambiguous way to parse out “mentions” in online forums and journals. (Stacey Konkiel for e-Science Community Blog)
Richard Higgins talks about how DOIs increase reach and impact:
Publishers, repositories, aggregators, indexers, and providers of research and academic profiles are now relying on DOIs to identify specific works accurately, which in turn more reliably links that work to its authors and creators. Furthermore, metadata and information about individual works are increasingly tied to DOIs.
This is really important for us because as well as trying to make our Outlines and other outputs as useful as possible to the people who commission them, we also try to design and produce them so they have relevance to social care and services more widely. The better able we are to find out where our resources are being used (using citation metrics and other resources), the better able we are to work out how we can more effectively develop them (and, identify where we’re having an impact and be able to justify the continuation of a currently temporary/precarious information service).
Opportunities for well-organised growth
We’ve got high hopes for our service, and who knows where the future will take us. It’s early days so far but the amount of Outlines we’ve created so far is steadily growing. We thought DOIs were a good idea to help us manage our ‘assets’ efficiently:
Over time, assets evolve. What started life as for example a single video might come to exist in different electronic formats, in different language versions, in edited or extended variations. New services arise to be offered with your assets. Keeping track of all of these is a challenge in itself. But without efficient management of all this information, sharing content and information with others – whether in a commercial transaction or in a collaborative effort – becomes increasingly difficult. (doi.org)
Iriss ESSS Outline DOIs
As CrossRef explain, when you register with them as a publisher, they give you a DOI prefix. This prefix is unique to your organisation, and allows you to create identifiers that are also unique to your organisation. CrossRef give you your DOI prefix (our prefix is 10.31583). Then you must come up with a suffix pattern that works for your organisation. There are rules about what characters you can use in suffixes and recommendations as to how you should make these work for your own organisation. We’ve decided that our suffixes will be “esss.” followed by the date the product was published.
Together these two pieces of information give you an identifier that is unique to that specific piece of work. So for example, the first Outline we’ve assigned a DOI to is the ESSS Outline: Experiential therapies for children who have experienced trauma, and its DOI is 10.31583/esss.20180723.
Once we’ve registered this information with Crossref, the identifier can be used as a way to persistently link to the output. The link looks like this: https://doi.org/10.31583/esss.20180723
The process of depositing metadata with Crossref is quick and easy and there’s a whole range of tools available to us now we’re registered with Crossref. We’re looking forward to seeing how the process and resources work for us in the future.
The Iriss Evidence Search and Summary Service (ESSS) was set up to help social services providers use evidence to help support practice, service improvement and continuous learning the social services sector in Scotland. As a part of this, we’ve been looking into the research around evidence-based practice (EBP) in social work. In this post, we’ll be sharing some of the key issues highlighted in the literature.
Defining evidence-based practice
“EBP is a process, a verb, not a noun.” (Thyer and Myers 2011)
Like so many slippery subjects in social services, there is disagreement about how we define EBP (Gray et al. 2009). Some researchers argue that the phrase itself, which originates from medicine, is too rigid, and prefer the term evidence-informed practice (EIP) (McLaughlan and Teater 2017). EIP is considered by some to be a more inclusive, non-hierarchical notion (Webber 2015), implying that practice knowledge and interventions might be enriched by prior research but not limited to it (Epstein 2009).
There was some consensus, however, that EBP is a process that involves many different factors with the long-term goal of positive outcomes for service users. Generally, there is a lot of discussion around the barriers to EBP. These tend to be focused around the evidence itself, practitioners and organisations, and we’ve summarised some of these issues below.
What is evidence?
“Much research is ‘of the wrong kind’ – that is, it focuses on problems not on evaluating solutions.” (Webber 2015)
In the studies we read, there was agreement that the strict, narrow, scientific view of evidence traditionally associated with EBP was not wholly appropriate for social services (Gray et al. 2009). Rather than a strict hierarchy, there is a tendency to place equal value on organisational, practitioner, policy community, academic and user and carer research (Pawson et al. 2003). See our post on social services evidence for examples of resources relevant to the Scottish context.
A broad approach to gathering evidence is often necessary; as social work covers a diverse field of activity, the research base is correspondingly fragmented (Booth et al. 2003). The complex issues surrounding interventions in social work do not do not easily lend themselves to experimental designs (Berger 2010; Gray et al. 2009). Many social workers embarking on research might find limited academic evidence relevant to the diverse populations they support and their unique agency context (Bledsoe-Mansori et al. 2013). Other issues related to evidence include:
- Lack of fit between the type of research undertaken and requirements of practitioners (Gray et al. 2015)
- Slow process of academic publishing means evidence can quickly become irrelevant in practice context (Wike et al. 2014)
- Evidence around effectiveness, such as what type of intervention works best with a certain group of clients, is most useful for practitioners, but the majority of evidence tends to be descriptive or explanatory (Berger 2010).
What role do practitioners play?
“[I]t is inevitable that professional judgement will always take priority over evidence in informing decision-making.” (Gray et al. 2009)
A survey on 152 social workers found that approximately a third found it difficult to practice evidence-based social work, and 17% did not feel it was feasible to use EBP when providing interventions for clients (Teater and Chonody 2017). The literature also shows that social workers tend to draw on their practice wisdom and experiential knowledge rather than privileging empirical research (Gray et al. 2015).
The responsibilities of EBP frequently fall on the shoulders of practitioners, who might be given little support to implement these changes in the way they work (Yates et al. 2015). Social workers were found to differ in terms of whether or not they see themselves as needing to be involved in locating, appraising and applying research in order for EBP to be best implemented; a survey of 364 social workers found that 41% felt practitioners had a responsibility to appraise and apply research themselves, while 42% believed EBP involved the use of guidelines and protocols developed by others (Gray et al. 2015).
The barriers to EBP experienced by practitioners will undoubtedly be familiar:
One of the main themes emerging from the literature is that social workers tend to consult with peers, supervisors or mentors to alert them to relevant research (Booth et al. 2003) and for support in making practice decisions (Teater and Chonody 2017). Peer influence is also thought to play a part in their exposure to and willingness to adopt new practices (Wike et al. 2014). There is potential for more research around how this way of working might be leveraged to integrate EBP.
How can organisations support EBP?
“Evidence-based practice is the endpoint of a massive research, policy and practice infrastructure pushing the practitioner in a particular direction.” (Gray et al. 2009)
Research in this area consistently finds that organisational culture and availability of resources have a significant influence on the uptake of EBP (Bledsoe-Mansori et al. 2013; Cheung et al. 2015; Gray et al. 2009; Gray et al. 2015). These resources include dedicated staff time, funding support and an infrastructure providing access to evidence (Gray et al. 2015).
Some of the recommendations for supporting EBP in an organisation include:
- Giving practitioners access to research and time to engage in EBP (Teater and Chonody 2017)
- Working towards organisational cultures marked by norms of achievement and motivation, development of staff abilities, positive interpersonal relationships, and mutual support (Wike et al. 2014)
- Incorporating the direct experience social workers and clients have regarding the impact and effectiveness of interventions into evidence-generation (Gray et al. 2009)
- Developing agency–university partnerships to motivate social work practitioners to increase adoption of EBP (Bledsoe-Mansori et al. 2013)
- Framing research utilisation within an organisation as mission-relevant and as connected to growth, learning and innovation (Yates et al. 2015)
- Providing ongoing training and/or mentorship and support from peers or experts in the field (Teater and Chonody 2017)
Want to know more?
Get in touch with the ESSS team for support finding and using evidence in your practice or within your organisation.
Berger, R (2010) EBP: practitioners in search of evidence, Journal of Social Work, 10(2), pp.175–191 (paywalled)
Bledsoe-Mansori, SE et al. (2013) Implementing evidence-based practice: practitioner assessment of an agency-based training program, Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(2), pp.73–90 (paywalled)
Booth, SH et al. (2003) The need for information and research skills training to support evidence-based social care: a literature review and survey, Learning in Health and Social Care, 2(4), pp.191–201 (paywalled)
Cheung, M et al. (2015) Research–practice integration in real practice settings: issues and suggestions, Research on Social Work Practice, 25(4), pp.523–530 (paywalled)
Epstein, I (2009) Promoting harmony where there is commonly conflict: evidence-informed practice as an integrative strategy, Social Work in Health Care, 48(3), pp.216–231 (paywalled)
Gray, M et al. (2009) Evidence-based social work: a critical stance. Oxon: Routledge
Gray, M et al. (2015) What supports and impedes evidence-based practice implementation? A survey of Australian social workers, British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), pp.667–684 (paywalled)
McLaughlan, H and Teater, B (2017) Evidence-informed practice for social work. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw Hill
Pawson, R et al. (2003) Types and quality of knowledge in social care, Knowledge Review 3. Social Care Institute for Excellence (open access)
Teater, B and Chonody, JM (2017) Identifying as an evidence-based social worker: the influence of attitudes, access, confidence, and education, Social Work Education, 5479(January), pp.1–16 (paywalled)
Thyer, BA and Myers, LL (2011) The quest for evidence-based practice: a view from the United States, Journal of Social Work, 11(1), pp.8–25 (paywalled)
Webber, M (2015) Applying research evidence in social work practice. London: Palgrave
Wike, TL et al. (2014) Evidence-based practice in social work: challenges and opportunities for clinicians and organizations, Clinical Social Work Journal, 42(2), pp.161–170 (paywalled)
Yates, M et al. (2015) From a provider’s perspective: integrating evidence-based practice into the culture of a social service organization. Child welfare, 94(2), pp.87–106 (open access)
There’s an increasing interest and drive in social services in Scotland to use evidence and research to improve social care and support. Lots of academic research that would be useful for practitioners and other social service deliverers to access is behind paywalls, only available to those with subscriptions. Although people working in social services across Scotland have access to some academic research through an OpenAthens login* with The NHS Knowledge Network, there is still a lot of relevant research that the NHS doesn’t and can’t afford to subscribe to. There’s also a lot of high quality academic research published in journals that don’t charge to read them (referred to as ‘open access’), and these aren’t always included in The Knowledge Network’s catalogue. On top of this, it can be confusing to work out where to go to find open access research online, particularly when publishers make it deliberately complicated to protect their profits.
All these challenges can make it really hard to identify and get hold of relevant research publications that could help with professional development, practice, policy and organisational approaches. At ESSS we’re in the process of building an online learning resource to help people working in the area of social services to learn more about finding, accessing and using research and evidence to support their practice. This will include content on what open access means and looks like, the tools you can use to make it easier to find open access content and free versions of paywalled materials.
In the meantime, we thought we’d share some of the free tools we use when we’re working on our Outlines to support social services practitioners:
Kopernio is an extension for your internet browser that quickly tells you if you have access to a version of a journal article that you are looking at. It detects when you are looking at an article’s page and if you have access, either through NHS subscriptions or through an Open Access version, it will provide a link to the document. One nice feature of Kopernio is that it automatically files away the pdfs you read in your own private Kopernio Locker, to help you organise your files.
This is generally the most convenient way to find Open Access work if you’re used to searching academic journals and databases. The extension will work in Google Chrome.
Unpaywall is another useful browser extension. It adds an icon to the right-hand side of any page where it detects an academic article. The icon indicates whether there is an Open Access version available and clicking it will take you to the appropriate document. One thing we like about Unpaywall is that when you get to the web page for a paywalled journal article and you’ve installed the extension, it lights up green and you can click it to get to an open version of the article.
Unpaywall draws on slightly different sources to Kopernio, but does not check if you have access through your Knowledge Network membership. It may be helpful to install both. The extension will work in Google Chrome and Firefox.
Open Access Button is also a browser extension. It registers when people hit a paywall to an academic article and can’t access it. If Open Access Button can’t get you access, you are automatically invited to request it from the author to make their work publicly available, and guide them on making the work available to you. If the author shares it with you, everyone else who needs it will be able to access it. You can install Open Access Button as a browser extension or you can use their website. You can get Unpaywall on all desktop browsers – as an extension for Chrome and Firefox (and soon one for Edge) and as a Bookmarklet for all others.
CORE is a service that pulls together a collection of over 125 millions of open access harvested research outputs. Many of the extensions mentioned above use this aggregated tool, but you can search from the website too.
Google Scholar enables you to search articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites. Although some people are reluctant to use Scholar because it’s seen as less credible than academic databases, it can be a really useful tool. It’s doesn’t always find all the material that academic databases (such as ASSIA, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science) do, but it also finds material that isn’t in these databases but which can be high quality and relevant. We find it can be a good starting point for searching alongside academic databases.
Something we really like about Scholar is how it connects you to content that’s paywalled but available through The Knowledge Network. If you set it up to link to your NHSScotland OpenAthens login (through the Settings > library links > enter Knowledge Network Library Search – NHSScotland Journals), it can show you which articles you can access through the The Knowledge Network subscriptions. If you’ve installed an extension like Kopernio above, it will work alongside this as well to point you to free versions of articles where it has found these.
A particularly useful feature of Google Scholar is it shows you who the article you’re looking at has been ‘cited by’ – you can follow these links to find other relevant information.
Edited to add:
You can search for open access versions of papers if you have the DOI of the document, by using https://doai.io. To do this, simply replace dx.doi.org with doai.io in any DOI link. For example, change http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2015.09.023 to http://doai.io/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2015.09.023.
Another way to do this is to add the DOI information to the end of http://oadoi.org/. For example, copy and paste 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2015.09.023 to the end of http://oadoi.org/ to make http://oadoi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2015.09.023.
* The Knowledge Network offer accounts to everyone who helps provide health and social care in Scotland in conjunction with the NHS and Scottish Local Authorities, including many in the third and independent sectors. You can register here.
Many thanks to Alex Clarke, Research Engagement Librarian at the University of Bristol for some of the content provided here. It was originally posted on the University of Bristol Library website.
We hope this is a useful starting point for getting hold of research, and if you’d like more support please do contact the ESSS team at Iriss – we’re here to help with little niggly questions or big ones, technical or topic-based.
When we’re asked to produce an evidence summary or review, we use a wide range of evidence sources to make sure we’re finding research, reports of activities, evaluations and discussions around the topic from a variety of voices and perspectives. Over the past few months we’ve been testing out different sources of useful evidence, considering which websites may be of relevance when we’re doing focused searches, and looking for alternative ways of accessing research that is not publicly available and to which we don’t have access through subscriptions. We thought it would be useful to share these resources, so that people working in the social services across Scotland (and beyond) could try out these evidence sources for themselves. Some search tools and databases are more appealing to use them others, and some have more relevant information than others for particular topics. We’re learning more about them every day, but what we really want to know, is – what do you think about social services evidence sources?
We’d love to know what you think, so we’ve created a Google document of social services evidence sources with a bit of description about what some of them are and how they collect and organise research and other evidence. Comments are open on the document and this blog post, so please feel free to add your thoughts for example about usability of different sources, what challenges you might encounter when you use them, why you would or would not use them. Getting an insight into the challenges and perceptions of people working in social services and wanting to use evidence will help us tailor our workshops and one to one support, as well as to help us, if necessary, to challenge information providers to make their systems more open and accessible. And of course, if you think there are sources that should be included, please make suggestions.
If taking a look at these evidence sources gets you wanting to know more, please feel free to get in touch with us at Iriss ESSS to talk about one to one support or organising a workshop. You’re welcome to come to us in Glasgow, or we can come to you.
It’s been all go at the Iriss base – first off we’re delighted to welcome Annelies Allcock to the ESSS team. Annelies has a background in librarianship, including social services, and experience in supporting people to find and use research, and has already been busy producing an Outline on the impact of community-based activities on young people’s wellbeing.
Since our last update we’ve also produced a few more evidence summaries:
4. Child sexual abuse images online and risk of contact child sexual abuse: looking at the relationship between adults who access child sexual abuse images online and those who commit contact offences
5. Social work student placements and employability: exploring the evidence around social work placements and the differences and similarities between statutory and voluntary placements
6. Distributed leadership in early years and childcare: considering distributed approaches to leadership in the context of childcare and early years settings
7. Voluntary social care recruitment: identifying some good practice recruitment strategies from voluntary social care and other relevant sectors and industries
8. SDS brokerage in rural Scotland: exploring the challenges facing local authorities when seeking to implement brokerage models of self directed support in rural Scottish communities
9. Palliative and end of life care for people with alcohol related brain damage: looking at good practice in providing end of life and palliative care for people with ARBD
10. Children experiencing interparental coercive control: identifying the indirect impact on children from living with the effect of adult to adult coercive control and recommendations for social workers
11. Community-based activities and young people’s wellbeing: exploring how community-based interventions can support young people’s social and emotional wellbeing
We’ve also launched a survey to find out how relevant and useful the Outlines are to a wider readership, to look at how we can develop the service and the way we present evidence and consider areas for future work. If you’re one of the thousands of readers of our Outlines, we’d love to hear from you in our brief survey. What works for you? What else would you like to see? Can you access the evidence we summarise? Let us know!