Clarivate's Pulse of the Library report found that librarians are considering applications of AI that support the library mission, particularly in enhancing content discovery and increasing efficiency for their teams. However, there are notable concerns, including a lack of AI expertise and tight budgets. The report combines feedback from a survey of more than 1,500 librarians from across the world with qualitative interviews, covering academic, national and public libraries. In addition to the downloadable report, the accompanying microsite's dynamic and interactive data visualizations enable rapid comparative analyses according to regions and library types. The data is available for free here.
Key findings of the report include:
- Most libraries have an AI plan in place, or one in progress: Over 60% of respondents are evaluating or planning for AI integration.
- AI adoption is the top tech priority: AI-powered tools for library users and patrons top the list of technology priorities for the next 12 months, according to 43% of respondents.
- AI is advancing library missions: Key goals for those evaluating or implementing AI include supporting student learning (52%), research excellence (47%) and content discoverability (45%), aligning closely with the mission of libraries.
- Librarians see promise and pitfalls in AI adoption: 42% believe AI can automate routine tasks, freeing librarians for strategic and creative activities. Levels of optimism vary regionally.
- AI skills gaps and shrinking budgets are top concerns. Lack of expertise and budget constraints are seen as greater challenges than privacy and security issues:
o Shrinking budgets: Almost half (47%) cite shrinking budgets as their greatest challenge.
o Skills gap: 52% of respondents see upskilling as AI's biggest impact on employment, yet nearly a third (32%) state that no training is available.
- AI advancement will be led by IT: By combining the expertise of heads of IT with strategic investment and direction from senior leadership, libraries can move from consideration to implementation of AI in the coming years.
- Regional priorities differ: Librarians' views on other key topics such as sustainability, diversity, open access and open science show notable regional diversity.
Survey methodology and demographics
The survey was hosted online from April to June 2024. Clarivate promoted it to academic, national and public libraries through email, website pop-ups and social media, and it was also shared with key stakeholders. Analysis was conducted in partnership with an external agency, TBI Communications, with further qualitative interviews led by our team. In total, 1,527 survey responses were analyzed, along with several follow-up interviews. The majority of survey respondents (76%) represented academic libraries, with 78% representing university libraries. A range of roles, from Library Deans and Directors to Heads of IT/technology services, participated, although librarians represented the majority of respondents, including 67% of the academic library responses. Regionally, just under half of all responses came from the United States (47%).
The full press release is here.
Evaluating the societal impact of research
Clarivate, on 25 September 2024, released a report on the development of a comprehensive framework for evaluating the societal impact of research. Published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), it addresses the growing demand for demonstrating the benefits of research and development (R&D) investments across various sectors of society.
The report outlines a responsible and robust foundation for evaluation that goes beyond traditional scholarly output and includes a wide range of data sources. The new framework will be incorporated into the forthcoming Web of Science Research Intelligence platform.
The framework developed by Clarivate addresses core challenges in evaluating societal impact:
Recognizing the varied and complex needs of society: To address the diversity of societal needs, the framework categorizes societal needs into eight facets: Political & Policy, Legal & Governance, Economic, Human Capital, Medical, Social & Cultural, Technological and Environmental.
Balancing qualitative and quantitative approaches: The framework will extend beyond traditional quantitative indicators to enable richer and more nuanced qualitative assessments.
Navigating the long timeframes between research discovery to societal application: To mitigate the challenge of lengthy delays between research being conducted and any resultant societal benefits, the evaluation framework contains both lagging and leading indicators. Lagging indicators offer retrospective insights by analyzing past outputs and activities, while leading indicators are forward-looking and analyze recent signals that suggest the potential to generate future societal benefits.
The full press release is here.