Wednesday, 25 March 2015

ESRC has published its new Research data Policy

ESRC has published its new Research data Policy: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/about-esrc/information/data-policy.aspx

Research data policy

ESRC Research data policy

Data are the main assets of economic and social research. We recognise publicly-funded research data as valuable, long-term resources that, where practical, must be made available for secondary scientific research.

Our Research Data Policy, last updated in March 2015, is underpinned by nine core principles which align with theRCUK Common Principles on Data Sharing.

Purpose of the policy

We expect grant holders to generate scientifically robust data ready for further re-use. This policy aims to support grant holders who collect, produce and re-use data, by defining the roles and responsibilities of researchers, ESRC and its data service providers.

The document covers the general principles and policy statements on data access and sharing, including expectations on data quality and management which we expect ESRC grant holders to adhere to.

Key contents of the policy

While we strongly advocate further re-use of data, we also recognise that some research data are more sensitive than others, and believe that it is the responsibility of the grant holder to consider all issues related to confidentiality, ethics, security and copyright before initiating the research.

Further guidance on key issues related to research data, such as copyright and confidentiality, security and ethical considerations are given in the policy.

It is the grant holder’s responsibility to incorporate data management as an integral part of the research project.

The data must be made available for re-use or archiving with the ESRC data service providers within three months of the end of the grant.

Applicants should refer to our Research Data Policy as well as our Research Funding Guide and Framework for Research Ethics.

Data management plan

We believe that a structured approach to data management results in better quality data that is ready to deposit for further sharing. Planning how you will manage your research data should begin early on in the research process and ESRC applicants who plan to generate data from their research must submit a data management plan as part of their Je-S application. We encourage all research grants generating data to introduce a robust data management plan, if one is not already in place.

Further guidance on data management is provided by the UK Data Service.

ESRC-funded PhD Students

Whilst not compulsory, ESRC-funded students are strongly encouraged to offer copies of data created or repurposed during their PhD for deposit at the UK Data Service as it is considered good research practice. Further information can be found in the ESRC Postgraduate Funding Guide.

Further information

Comments or enquiries about our Research Data Policy sh

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

Position Paper "Research Data at Your Fingertips"

The Working Group on Research Data in the Priority Initiative “Digital Information” of the Alliance of German Science Organisations has published its position paper "Research Data at Your Fingertips":

http://www.allianzinitiative.de/fileadmin/user_upload/redakteur/2015_Positionspapier_AG_Forschungsdaten_en.pdf

Wednesday, 18 March 2015

DLib article from Deakin: Trustworthiness: Self-assessment of an Institutional Repository against ISO 16363-2012

Today, almost every document we create and the output from almost every research-related project, is a digital object. Not everything has to be kept forever, but materials with scholarly or historical value should be retained for future generations. Preserving digital objects is more challenging than preserving items on paper. Hardware becomes obsolete, new software replaces old, storage media degrades. In recent years, there has been significant progress made to develop tools and standards to preserve digital media, particularly in the context of institutional repositories. The most widely accepted standard thus far is the Trustworthy Repositories Audit and Certification: Criteria and Checklist (TRAC), which evolved into ISO 16363-2012. Deakin University Library undertook a self-assessment against the ISO 16363 criteria. This experience culminated in the current report, which provides an appraisal of ISO 16363, the assessment process, and advice for others considering embarking on a similar venture.

http://dlib.anu.edu.au/dlib/march15/houghton/03houghton.html

Thursday, 12 March 2015

Issues in Open Research Data

Open access book edited by Samuel Moore.

Intended for a broad audience of academics, publishers and librarians, Issues in Research Data explores the implications of the Panton Principles through a number of perspectives on open research data in the sciences and beyond. The book features chapters by open data experts in a range of academic disciplines, covering practical information on licensing, ethics, and advice for data curators, alongside more theoretical issues surrounding the adoption of open data. As the book is open access, each chapter can stand alone from the main volume so that communities can host, distribute, build upon and remix the content that is relevant to them. Readers can access the online version via the QR code or DOI link at the front of the book.

Available for reading and download from Ubiquity Press at:

http://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/books/detail/12/issues-in-open-research-data/

Wednesday, 11 March 2015

Speech to the Locate 15 Conference: The Power of Open Data

Speech by Malcolm Turnbull, MP, to the Locate conference in Brisbane on 11 March 2015 at http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/speech-to-the-locate-15-conference-the-power-of-open-data

Tuesday, 10 March 2015

How Open Is University Data?

Many states now support open data, or data that’s made freely available without restriction in a nonproprietary, machine-readable format, to increase government transparency, improve public accountability and participation, and unlock opportunities for civic innovation. To date, 10 states have adopted open data policies, via executive order or legislation, and 24 states have built open data portals. But while many agencies have joined the open data movement, state colleges and universities have largely ignored this opportunity. To remedy this, policymakers should consider how to extend open data policies to state colleges and universities.

There are many potential benefits of open data for higher education. First, it can help prospective students and their parents better understand the value of different degree programs. One way to control rising higher ed costs is to create more informed consumers. The feds are already pushing for such changes. President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan called for schools to make more information publicly available about the costs of obtaining a college degree, and the White House launched the College Scorecard, an online tool to compare data about the average tuition cost, size of loan payments and loan default rate for different schools.

Read the rest...http://www.datainnovation.org/2015/03/how-open-is-university-data/

US Dept of Health & Human Services releases plans for public access to federally funded research

On February 27, 2015, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released implementation plans for five HHS agencies based on a common policy approach in response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) 2013 memorandum regarding public access to federally funded research. The OSTP memorandum directed federal agencies with R&D budgets of $100 million or more to develop plans to make the published results of federally funded research freely available to the public within one year of publication.

<snip>

With regards to digital data, HHS and each agency see digital data policies as “evolving” and recognize that much of the HHS agencies’ funded digital data resides externally to these agencies. To date, HHS has no shared repository for deposit of HHS agencies’ digital data. An internal HHS Enterprise Data Inventory will serve as the catalog for all HHS data assets and will, over time, be linked to HealthData.gov, a platform through which the public will be able to locate and access federally funded research data. A valuable element of the HHS release regarding digital data is the development of a data-management template by the CDC that will standardize the types and format of information to be submitted by researchers in their data-management plans.
Importantly, HHS calls for the “support for training and workforce development related to scientific data management, analysis, storage, preservation, and stewardship of data.”

More at: http://www.arl.org/news/community-updates/3545-hhs-releases-plans-for-public-access-to-federally-funded-research#.VP4kQqMbrct

Monday, 9 March 2015

Research data management services in academic research libraries and perceptions of librarians

The emergence of data intensive science and the establishment of data management mandates have motivated academic libraries to develop research data services (RDS) for their faculty and students. Here the results of two studies are reported: librarians' RDS practices in U.S. and Canadian academic research libraries, and the RDS-related library policies in those or similar libraries. Results show that RDS are currently not frequently employed in libraries, but many services are in the planning stages. Technical RDS are less common than informational RDS, RDS are performed more often for faculty than for students, and more library directors believe they offer opportunities for staff to develop RDS-related skills than the percentage of librarians who perceive such opportunities to be available. Librarians need opportunities to learn more about these services either on campus or through attendance at workshops and professional conferences.

Full article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.11.003

North American libraries do not frequently offer RDS, but many are being planned.

Technical (hands-on) RDS are less common than informational (consulting) RDS.

Many librarians in academic research libraries feel the need for more RDS training.

Occupational Sub-Cultures, Jurisdictional Struggle and Third Space: Theorising Professional Service Responses to Research Data Management

Abstract: Effective Research Data Management (RDM) is becoming an increasing concern in UK universities as a result of mandates from research funders. The study explored the usefulness of theories of occupational sub-culture, jurisdictional struggle and Third Space to understand how librarians, IT staff and research administrators view developing services to support RDM. Data were collected through 20 semi-structured interviews with staff in the Library, IT services and Research Office of a research intensive university in Northern England.

The notion of occupational sub-culture directs attention to the different ways professional services view RDM. Broadly speaking, IT Services focussed on short term data storage; Research Office on compliance and research quality; librarians on preservation and advocacy. In terms of Abbott's theories, the Library was the only department claiming a new jurisdiction in RDM. This could be seen as an extension of its existing jurisdiction in Open Access and Information Literacy. The other departments claimed to be short of resources to take on such a complex project. Some interviewees feared RDM might be risky and demand lots of resources. Third Space theory is a powerful way to think about roles that might emerge in a new intra-professional space as RDM services become a reality.

View full article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.02.008

What drives academic data sharing?

Abstract: Despite widespread support from policy makers, funding agencies, and scientific journals, academic researchers rarely make their research data available to others. At the same time, data sharing in research is attributed a vast potential for scientific progress. It allows the reproducibility of study results and the reuse of old data for new research questions. Based on a systematic review of 98 scholarly papers and an empirical survey among 603 secondary data users, we develop a conceptual framework that explains the process of data sharing from the primary researcher’s point of view. We show that this process can be divided into six descriptive categories: Data donor, research organization, research community, norms, data infrastructure, and data recipients. Drawing from our findings, we discuss theoretical implications regarding knowledge creation and dissemination as well as research policy measures to foster academic collaboration. We conclude that research data cannot be regarded as knowledge commons, but research policies that better incentivise data sharing are needed to improve the quality of research results and foster scientific progress.

Full article in PLOS One: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118053

Monday, 2 March 2015

PLOS article: Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data.

PLoS One. 2015 Feb 23;10(2):e0117619. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117619. eCollection 2015.

Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data.

Kratz JE1, Strasser C1.

Abstract

Data "publication" seeks to appropriate the prestige of authorship in the peer-reviewed literature to reward researchers who create useful and well-documented datasets. The scholarly communication community has embraced data publication as an incentive to document and share data. But, numerous new and ongoing experiments in implementation have not yet resolved what a data publication should be, when data should be peer-reviewed, or how data peer review should work. While researchers have been surveyed extensively regarding data management and sharing, their perceptions and expectations of data publication are largely unknown. To bring this important yet neglected perspective into the conversation, we surveyed ∼ 250 researchers across the sciences and social sciences- asking what expectations "data publication" raises and what features would be useful to evaluate the trustworthiness, evaluate the impact, and enhance the prestige of a data publication. We found that researcher expectations of data publication center on availability, generally through an open database or repository. Few respondents expected published data to be peer-reviewed, but peer-reviewed data enjoyed much greater trust and prestige. The importance of adequate metadata was acknowledged, in that almost all respondents expected data peer review to include evaluation of the data's documentation. Formal citation in the reference list was affirmed by most respondents as the proper way to credit dataset creators. Citation count was viewed as the most useful measure of impact, but download count was seen as nearly as valuable. These results offer practical guidance for data publishers seeking to meet researcher expectations and enhance the value of published data.

More at: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117619#abstract0