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’