1 / 24

Exploring Journal Data Policies for Data-Sharing: JoRD Project Findings

Discover insights from the JoRD Project on journal data policies and the role of journals in data-sharing. Learn about stakeholder consultations, survey results, and service requirements. Explore business models and recommendations for a data policy bank.

gerardoe
Download Presentation

Exploring Journal Data Policies for Data-Sharing: JoRD Project Findings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ELPUB, Karlskrona, June 2013 Publisher interest towards a role for journals in Data-Sharing: The Findings of the JoRD Project Marianne Bamkin, Jane H Smith, Paul Sturges*, Azhar Hussain, Bill Hubbard Centre for Research Communications, University of Nottingham * Loughborough University

  2. What is JoRD? • Journal Research Data Policy Bank • 6 month feasibility study (July-Dec 2012) • Commissioned by JISC – MRD Programme • Scope and shape of potential service to provide a ready source of information covering journal policy landscape of research data

  3. Aims • To identify the scope and format of a service to collate and summarise journal data policies • To investigate and recommend business models for maintaining a financially self-sustaining service

  4. Literature Review Three basic issues to be considered when writing data sharing policies: • The point in the research process at which is it appropriate to share data has to be decided • Journals may not have the correct mechanisms to enforce their own requirements • Biomedical science appears to be leading the way in data sharing practice, policies and initiatives

  5. Key stages

  6. Survey • Thomson Reuters Citation Index • Science and Social Sciences • Highest and Lowest Impact Factor Journals • 371 titles • 36 Subject Areas Covered

  7. Survey

  8. SURVEY

  9. Data Types

  10. Where

  11. When

  12. Stage two: Stakeholder Consultation All Stakeholders • Consensus about importance of making data freely available • Recognised importance of linkage between journal content and underlying data BUT • Less of a unified approach in practise

  13. Stakeholder Consultation Who would use a Journal Policy data bank service? Who would subscribe to a Journal Policy data bank service?

  14. Researchers At the correct point in the Research • Qualitative research • Textual data • Quantitative research • Numerical datasets • Images • Video • Visualisations • Photographs • Computer based data forms • Software • Ontologies • Mixed methods • Combinations of the above 68% 63% 40% 63% 64% 56% 20% 11% 17% 18% 22% 22% 14% 13%

  15. Researchers 74% Journals should have data policies 78% Would use a JoRD service Central resource for current journal information Comparison aids choice of publication To choose the most relevant journal

  16. Publishing houses • Data sharing • Quality issues • Permanent links to data • Data peer review and citation • Implications of data ownership • Storage and infrastructure • Data policy development • 6 Leading Publishers

  17. Publishing houses • Uses for JoRD Compliance check Competitor intelligence

  18. Academic Librarians and Data Service Managers • Data sharing • Advisory role • Dataset licensing • Metadata • Research data management • Uses for JoRD • Valuable central resource • Advice and guidance • Support and develop data management policies • Integration into other services

  19. Service requirements 55 different requirements Service Information • Clear, automated and simple instructions • Clear documentation on aims, policies and procedures of JoRD Content of Service • Conditions for data deposit: re-use and access; restrictions • Guidelines for file, data or metadata format • Locations where data can be archived and retrieved (URLs)

  20. Stage 3:Market testing the business models • Basic • Database of Journal Research Data Policies, with minimal web interface and an API • Enhanced • Basic + Additional data integration such as funder policies, institutional policies and list of recommended repositories • Advisory • Enhanced + Research and advisory services e.g. guides, best practice, policy frameworks and policy language suggestions No clear favourite No clear funding stream

  21. Recommendations Phase One • Seed funding • Pilot service • High quality, maintained database • API • Model policy • Market base • Business model Phase Two • Implement full service

  22. Summary • Data Sharing • Developing interest • Slower uptake • Policies • Lack of Journal Data Policies • Some publishers working on area • Stakeholders • General Support for JoRD • Optimum Business Case not identified • Recommendations of Pilot Scheme to build user base and develop business case

  23. Final Thoughts • JoRD could assist Publishers in writing data sharing policies: • Providing easy access to journal data policies of other publishers • Provide Clarity on when, where and what to deposit • Guidance on file and metadata formats • Model Policy • Get involved with Research Data!

  24. Thanks! Any questions? jane.h.smith@nottingham.ac.uk marianne.bamkin@nottingham.ac.uk References: • JULIET: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet., [Accessed 20 January 2013] • International Council for Science. ICSU Report of the CSPR Assessment Panel on Scientific Data and Information. 2004:1-43. • OECD. OECD Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding 2007:1-22. • Royal Society. Science as an Open Enterprise. 2013; Available at: http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/sape/2012-06-20-SAOE.pdf. [Accessed 01 February 2013] • Cicerone, Ralph. Ensuring Integrity in Science. Science, 2010. Available at: http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/leadership/president/cicerone-editorial-science.pdf. [Accessed 12 March 2013] • National Academy of Sciences. Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences. 2003; Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10613.html. [Accessed 12 March 2013] • Hrynaszkiewicz, Ian. The need and drive for open data in biomedical publishing. 2011; Serials 24, 31-37 • Piwowar, Heather. and Chapman, Wendy. A Review of Journal Policies for Sharing Research Data. Open Scholarship: Authority, Community and Sustainability in the Age of Web2.0 - Proceedings of the 12th international Conference on Electronic Publishing (ELPUB); June 25-27; Toronto: ELPUB; 2008. • Spencer, Hilary. Thoughts on the sharing of data and research materials and the role of journal policies. 2010. Available at http://www.stanford.edu/~vcs/Nov21/hilary_spencer_rdcscsJan2010.pdf . [Accessed 12 March 2013] • Kuipers, Tom and van der Hoeven, Jeffrey. PARSE: Insight into issues of permanent access to the records of science in Europe. Survey report. 2009; Brussels: European Commission.

More Related