« The scholarly communication landscape is rapidly changing and nowhere is this more evident than in the field of data management. Mandates by major funding agencies, further expanded by executive order and pending legislation in 2013, require many research grant applicants to provide data management plans for preserving and making their research data openly available. However, do faculty researchers have the requisite skill sets and are their institutions providing the necessary infrastructure to comply with these mandates? To answer these questions, three groups were surveyed in 2012: research and teaching faculty, sponsored programs office staff, and institutional repository librarians. Survey results indicate that while faculty desire to share their data, they often lack the skills to do this effectively. Similarly, while repository managers and sponsored programs offices often provide the necessary infrastructure and knowledge, these resources are not being promoted effectively to faculty. The study offers important insights about services academic libraries can provide to support faculty in their data management efforts: providing tools for sharing research data; assisting with describing, finding, or accessing research data; providing information on copyright and ownership issues associated with data sets; and assisting with writing data management plans. »
Tag Archives: Data Management Infrastructure
The NSF/NIH Effect: Surveying the Effect of Data Management Requirements on Faculty, Sponsored Programs, and Institutional Repositories
Study on the protection of research data and recommendations for access and usage :
« This study is basically divided into four parts. Its objective is to examine the legal requirements for different kinds of usage of research data in an open access infrastructure, such as OpenAIREplus, which links them to publications.
Within the first part, the requirements for legal protection of research data are analysed. In the process, the existing legal framework regarding potentially relevant intellectual property (IP) rights is analysed from different perspectives: first from the general European perspective and subsequently from that of selected EU Member States (France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK).
It should be noted that the European legal framework is partly harmonised in the field of copyright and largely harmonised in the field of the sui generis database protection right by EU directives. Thus, the national regulations are quite similar in many respects. National differences are described following the section on national implementation in Chapter 2.5.
Despite European harmonisation, the perhaps surprising outcome of the analysis is that there are some areas of dis-harmonisation between the different Member States. One very significant example of dis-harmonisation is the “exception for scientific research” to the sui generis database right. It is not mandatory for this exception to be introduced into national legislation and it seems that every Member State has its own interpretation of the underlying directive. As it is drafted at the moment, the exception is to all intents and purposes useless.
Another area that causes difficulties is the question of who becomes the rightholder of the sui generis right in a database that is created by a public body or in the course of publicly funded research. Indeed it is far from clear. Some might say the research institution or the funding agency or both become the rightholder. But of the legal regimes under consideration in this study, the only jurisdiction with clear regulation on this matter is the Netherlands and it generally denies a public authority the right to exercise the exclusive database right.
Additionally, it is still unclear whether linking, or at least deep linking, should be seen as a relevant act of communication to the public. There are contradictory judgments at the level of the Member States. However, at least this question will soon be clarified in the scope of an actual reference to the European Court of Justice(ECJ).
The second part of the study is dedicated to the scope of protection of the potentially relevant IP rights. First there is an analysis of whether different types of usage, such as linking, access or mining, infringe the different kinds of IP rights. Secondly, a “legal prototype of an e-infrastructure”, based on selected usage scenarios that may occur during the use of e-infrastructures such as OpenAIREplus, is evaluated in more detail. The main outcome of this second part is that by far the most important IP right in the context of e-infrastructures such as OpenAIREplus is the sui generis database right, and that it is very likely not possible to use all the described einfrastructure features without the consent of the respective rightholder(s).
The third part is an examination of some relevant licensing issues. Within this part of the study, different licence models are analysed in order to identify the licence that is best suited to the aim of Open Access, especially in the context of the infrastructure of OpenAIREplus. The result is that the upcoming CC License version 4.0 will probably be the one best suited to this kind of infrastructure. Within the last part, some recommendations are given on improving the rights situation in relation to research data. To respond to the fact that the scientific research exception as presently formulated is rather useless, it is suggested that a new and broader mandatory research exception be introduced on a European level. To achieve legal interoperability of different databases and e-infrastructures, it is recommended that all of them should license their data under the upcoming CC License version 4.0. »
Trust in Digital Repositories :
« ISO 16363:2012, Space Data and Information Transfer Systems – Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (ISO TRAC), outlines actions a repository can take to be considered trustworthy, but research examining whether the repository’s designated community of users associates such actions with trustworthiness has been limited. Drawing from this ISO document and the management and information systems literatures, this paper discusses findings from interviews with 66 archaeologists and quantitative social scientists. We found similarities and differences across the disciplines and among the social scientists. Both disciplinary communities associated trust with a repository’s transparency. However, archaeologists mentioned guarantees of preservation and sustainability more frequently than the social scientists, who talked about institutional reputation. Repository processes were also linked to trust, with archaeologists more frequently citing metadata issues and social scientists discussing data selection and cleaning processes. Among the social scientists, novices mentioned the influence of colleagues on their trust in repositories almost twice as much as the experts. We discuss the implications our findings have for identifying trustworthy repositories and how they extend the models presented in the management and information systems literatures. »
URL : http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/8.1.143
Data Management and Preservation Planning for Big Science :
« ‘Big Science’ – that is, science which involves large collaborations with dedicated facilities, and involving large data volumes and multinational investments – is often seen as different when it comes to data management and preservation planning. Big Science handles its data differently from other disciplines and has data management problems that are qualitatively different from other disciplines. In part, these differences arise from the quantities of data involved, but possibly more importantly from the cultural, organisational and technical distinctiveness of these academic cultures. Consequently, the data management systems are typically and rationally bespoke, but this means that the planning for data management and preservation (DMP) must also be bespoke.
These differences are such that ‘just read and implement the OAIS specification’ is reasonable Data Management and Preservation (DMP) advice, but this bald prescription can and should be usefully supported by a methodological ‘toolkit’, including overviews, case-studies and costing models to provide guidance on developing best practice in DMP policy and infrastructure for these projects, as well as considering OAIS validation, audit and cost modelling.
In this paper, we build on previous work with the LIGO collaboration to consider the role of DMP planning within these big science scenarios, and discuss how to apply current best practice. We discuss the result of the MaRDI-Gross project (Managing Research Data Infrastructures – Big Science), which has been developing a toolkit to provide guidelines on the application of best practice in DMP planning within big science projects. This is targeted primarily at projects’ engineering managers, but intending also to help funders collaborate on DMP plans which satisfy the requirements imposed on them. »
URL : http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/8.1.29
Forging New Service Paths: Institutional Approaches to Providing Research Data Management Services :
« Objective: This paper describes three different institutional experiences in developing research data management programs and services, challenges/opportunities and lessons learned.
Overview: This paper is based on the Librarian Panel Discussion during the 4th Annual University of Massachusetts and New England Region e-Science Symposium. Librarians representing large public and private research universities presented an overview of service models developed at their respective organizations to bring support for data management and eScience to their communities. The approaches described include two library-based, integrated service models and one collaboratively-staffed, center-based service model.
Results: Three institutions describe their experiences in creating the organizational capacity for research data management support services. Although each institutional approach is unique, common challenges include garnering administrative support, managing the integration of services with new or existing staff structures, and continuing to meet researchers needs as they evolve.
Conclusions: There is no one way to provide research data management services, but any staff position, committee, or formalized center reflects an overarching organizational commitment to data management support. »
URL : http://escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/vol1/iss3/2/