Post on 15-Jul-2015
32
The Evolving World of Research Data Management
Options and Opportunties
@MarkHahnel @figshare
“But taxpayers who are paying for that research will want to see something back. Directly – through open access to results and data. And indirectly – through making science work better for all of us. That’s why we will require open access to all publications stemming from EU-funded research. That’s why we will progressively open access to the research data, too. And why we’re asking national funding bodies to do the same.” Neelie Kroes. Vice President for the Eurpoean Commission
4
“The Obama Administration is committed to the proposition that citizens deserve easy access to the results of scientific research their tax dollars have paid for. That’s why, in a policy memorandum released today, OSTP Director John Holdren has directed Federal agencies with more than $100M in R&D expenditures to develop plans to make the published results of federally funded research freely available to the public within one year of publication and requiring researchers to better account for and manage the digital data resulting from federally funded scientific research.” February 22nd 2013
“Investigators are expected to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the primary data, samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of work under NSF grants” http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/aag_6.jsp#VID4
“NIH expects the timely release and sharing of data to be no later than the acceptance for publication of the main findings from the final dataset” http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharingdata_sharing_guidance.htm#time
“NEH is committed to timely and rapid data distribution” http://www.neh.gov/files/grants/data_management_plans_2012.pdf
6
"Products of research are not just publications.” NSF senior policy specialist Beth Strausser.
Biographical Sketch(es), has been revised to rename the “Publications” section to “Products” and amend terminology and instructions accordingly. 13 January 2013: "National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Criteria: Review and Revisions” Chapter II.C.2.f(i)(c),
11
1. Recommended open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
2. Recommended open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
3. Mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
4. Mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
5. Enforced, mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
6. Enforced, mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
The Open Academic Tidal Wave
1. Recommended open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
2. Recommended open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
3. Mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
4. Mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
5. Enforced, mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
6. Enforced, mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
The Open Academic Tidal Wave
14
2
A cloud based research data management system for academics and administrators:
What is figshare?
Manage their research outputs privately and securely, with controlled collaborative spaces
Public repository of all research outputs from an
institution, with impact and usage metrics
17
Storing it properly
Making it discoverable
Managing Open Data
Promo9ng Sharing
Edi9ng an item on figshare
Confiden9al item on figshare
Linked item on figshare
There are 109 metrics! ‘Greater effort than expected: over 500 person hours’ ‘A full audit would cost us 10,000 to 25,000 euro’s, a midterm review 5,000 to 10,000 euro’s. Every year such an effort would not be feasible and too costly’ ‘The formulation of the metrics is a bit idealistic (“down to the bit level”)… since no archive is perfect, what will be the ‘less than perfect’ level (or levels for the different metrics), which is acceptable and deserves certification?’ Feedback from test audits http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/04/APARSEN-REP-D33_1B-01-1_0.pdf
16363
2 1
3 4 Reporting Dashboard
Impact and Usage Reporting.
Administrative Workflow Portal A portal where administrators can manage curation of files to be made public, storage space allocation and user rights.
Public Digital Research Repository A customisable public portal with all digital files made public at an institutional, departmental and group level.
Research Data Management Private, controlled storage and collaborative spaces for every academic at the institution.
4 Key Modules
37
Institutional API
The figshare API allows you to push data to figshare, or pull data out. This allows you to build applications on top of your academic’s research.
32 26
33 27
• Incentivising compliance • Facilitating international collaboration • Integration into user workflows
• Quantifying impact • Administrative curation layer • Embargo support
• Open data principles • Citable – with DOIs • Increases impact of research
• Trusted Repository • Persistent links • Heavyweight infrastructure
43
Persistent identifiers are essential
44
Persistent identifiers are essential
45
APIs are essen9al
46
Open Access is essen9al
47
Advocacy is essen9al
48
49
Institutions Generating the world’s knowledge
50
Thanks for your time.
@markhahnel @figshare figshare.com api.figshare.com institutions.figshare.com mark@figshare.com
51
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003094#s5 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0059671#s4 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0059503#s5 http://f1000research.com/articles/2-5/v1 http://f1000research.com/articles/1-47/v1
Publisher examples
Figshare Mendelay Archivum Research Gate Dryad Eprints
Fedora+Front End Zenodo
Lab Archive
✓ ✓ no ✓ have the community
✓ Needs developers. Files all stored as individual objects
Can but don’t have a community of eyes on the system. Example of Missouri
✓ ✓
✓
no no no no Can track use at level of article.
No - needs manual intervention
no no
✓ ✓ no ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ No – focused on papers. None of the permanence
✓ no ✓
but not an institutional offer
✓ Own servers so yes
✓ because its on the institutions servers
No – as only a 5 (2?) year funding plan
no Storing it properly
Making it discoverable
Managing Open Data
Promoting Sharing
• advocacy – driving uptake of tools
• training for researchers, • incentives? • facilitating international
collaboration
• knowing the numbers. How many papers, how many citations, also for data
• Allocation of space around the institution – e.g. 30GB / user. User management
• Having a rights system for access approval. CCO, CCBY, CCNC etc
• Configurable workflow?
• Open data principles • Having data stored somewhere
where – technically – it’s discoverable – ie not on hard drives
• Ensuring metadata attached within 12 months
• Raw storage capacity • Security and back up • Persitent links • Storage for 10 years from last use
(which must therefore be known) • Archiving for posterity
Active Data
Figshare’s posi9oning: the only player to support ins9tu9ons all the way to the top of the hierarchy: ‘Ac9ve Data’