Data Management Plans: Implications for Automated Analyses

Authors : Ngoc-Minh Pham, Heather Moulaison-Sandy, Bradley Wade Bishop, Hannah Gunderman

Data management plans (DMPs) are an essential part of planning data-driven research projects and ensuring long-term access and use of research data and digital objects; however, as text-based documents, DMPs must be analyzed manually for conformance to funder requirements.

This study presents a comparison of DMPs evaluations for 21 funded projects using 1) an automated means of analysis to identify elements that align with best practices in support of open research initiatives and 2) a manually-applied scorecard measuring these same elements.

The automated analysis revealed that terms related to availability (90% of DMPs), metadata (86% of DMPs), and sharing (81% of DMPs) were reliably supplied. Manual analysis revealed 86% (n = 18) of funded DMPs were adequate, with strong discussions of data management personnel (average score: 2 out of 2), data sharing (average score 1.83 out of 2), and limitations to data sharing (average score: 1.65 out of 2).

This study reveals that the automated approach to DMP assessment yields less granular yet similar results to manual assessments of the DMPs that are more efficiently produced. Additional observations and recommendations are also presented to make data management planning exercises and automated analysis even more useful going forward.

URL : Data Management Plans: Implications for Automated Analyses


Do I Have To Be An “Other” To Be Myself? Exploring Gender Diversity In Taxonomy, Data Collection, And Through The Research Data Lifecycle

Authors : Ari Gofman, Sam A. Leif, Hannah Gunderman, Nina Exner


Existing studies estimate that between 0.3% and 2% of adults in the U.S. (between 900,000 and 2.6 million in 2020) identify as a nonbinary gender or otherwise gender nonconforming. In response to the RDAP 2021 theme of radical change, this article examines the need to change how datasets represent nonbinary persons and how research involving gender data should approach the curation of this data at each stage of the research lifecycle.


In this article, we examine some of the known challenges of gender inclusion in datasets and summarize some solutions underway. Using a critical lens, we examine the difference between current practice and inclusive practice in gender representation, describing inclusive practices at each stage of the research lifecycle from writing a data management plan to sharing data.


Data structures that limit gender to “male” and “female” or ontological structures that use mapping to collapse gender demographics to binary values exclude nonbinary and gender diverse populations. Some data collection instruments attempt inclusivity by adding the gender category of “other,” but using the “other” gender category labels nonbinary persons as intrinsically alien.

Inclusive change must go farther, to move from alienation to inclusive categories. We describe several techniques for inclusively representing gender in data, from the data management planning stage, to collecting data, cleaning data, and sharing data.

To facilitate better sharing of gender data, repositories must also allow mapping that includes nonbinary genders explicitly and allow for ontological mapping for long-term representation of diverse gender identities.


A good practice during research design is to consider two levels of critique in the data collection plan. First, consider the research question at hand and remove unnecessary gendering from the data.

Secondly, if the research question needs gender, make sure to include nonbinary genders explicitly. Allies must take on this problem without leaving it to those who are most affected by it. Further, more voices calling for inclusionary practices surrounding data rises to a crescendo that cannot be ignored.

URL: Do I Have To Be An “Other” To Be Myself? Exploring Gender Diversity In Taxonomy, Data Collection, And Through The Research Data Lifecycle


FAIRness Literacy: The Achilles’ Heel of Applying FAIR Principles

Authors : Romain David, Laurence Mabile, Alison Specht, Sarah Stryeck, Mogens Thomsen, Mohamed Yahia, Clement Jonquet, Laurent Dollé, Daniel Jacob, Daniele Bailo, Elena Bravo, Sophie Gachet, Hannah Gunderman, Jean-Eudes Hollebecq, Vassilios Ioannidis, Yvan Le Bras, Emilie Lerigoleur, Anne Cambon-Thomsen, The Research Data Alliance – SHAring Reward and Credit (SHARC) Interest Group

The SHARC Interest Group of the Research Data Alliance was established to improve research crediting and rewarding mechanisms for scientists who wish to organise their data (and material resources) for community sharing.

This requires that data are findable and accessible on the Web, and comply with shared standards making them interoperable and reusable in alignment with the FAIR principles. It takes considerable time, energy, expertise and motivation.

It is imperative to facilitate the processes to encourage scientists to share their data. To that aim, supporting FAIR principles compliance processes and increasing the human understanding of FAIRness criteria – i.e., promoting FAIRness literacy – and not only the machine-readability of the criteria, are critical steps in the data sharing process.

Appropriate human-understandable criteria must be the first identified in the FAIRness assessment processes and roadmap. This paper reports on the lessons learned from the RDA SHARC Interest Group on identifying the processes required to prepare FAIR implementation in various communities not specifically data skilled, and on the procedures and training that must be deployed and adapted to each practice and level of understanding.

These are essential milestones in developing adapted support and credit back mechanisms not yet in place.

URL : FAIRness Literacy: The Achilles’ Heel of Applying FAIR Principles