The Research Information Network (RIN) was set up in 2005 to lead and co-ordinate the provision of research information in the UK. It is a lean organization with just 4 staff members, and is funded by a consortium of UK sponsors that include the UK Higher Education bodies, National Libraries, and Research Councils. I am a member RIN's Life Sciences Consultative group, one of four consultative groups set up to build bridges between different sectors of the research and information community, and I have been an enthusiastic supporter of RIN's mission since it was established. What make RIN unique is that it is arguably the only UK organization that is giving researchers a direct voice in debate concerning research information provision. RIN is also championing a much broader definition of research information and data than those organizations that have traditionally been associated with this task.

As part of RIN's funding agreement, RIN's work was to be reviewed after the first two years or activity. That review is ongoing and as part of the preparations for producing a final report, I was asked to comment on a ‘provisional findings’ paper that outlines the initial results of the review. I will refrain from publishing my comments on these provisional findings until the consultation period is over. However, I can make a few points about RIN now without prejudicing this review.

Firstly, RIN has not had the penetration within the academic research community that it might have liked. There are many reasons for this but predominantly this is because the UK researcher constituency is huge (about 100,000) and because most researchers have little or no incentive to be interested in broader issues of research information provision. Consequently the sector is dominated by a small number of "professional" informaticians who are arguably those associated with a more traditional definition of research information. Any review of RIN is likely to be dominated by these information professionals, rather than researchers.

Secondly, parts of RIN’s activities have been focused on producing the evidence base for UK researcher needs. The overriding conclusion from this work is that many of the traditional sectors responsible for the provision of research information are often out of touch with researcher needs and expectations. This relates to my own experiences, and I have had cause to cite RIN’s finding when influencing decisions made by our library group at the NHM. Library science communities often suffer from a lack of engagement by researchers, while researchers tend to accept without question the information systems made available to them because they lack an incentive to become more engaged. Where RIN adds value to this dynamic is by bringing all these constituent groups together.

What worries me is that given the problems mentioned above, I am uncertain how partial a review of RIN can be, given the nature of the constituency that will most likely make up the bulk of the respondents.

I will publish my submitted comments in relation to provisional findings of the RIN review when the consultation closes at the end of May.