1 / 27

Azhar Hussain, Marianne Bamkin, Jane H Smith and Paul Sturges*

JOURNALS AND THEIR POLICIES ON DATA SHARING: LESSONS FROM THE JoRD PROJECT LIBER 2013, MUNICH JULY 2013. Azhar Hussain, Marianne Bamkin, Jane H Smith and Paul Sturges* Centre for Research Communications, University of Nottingham and University of Loughborough*. Background.

karif
Download Presentation

Azhar Hussain, Marianne Bamkin, Jane H Smith and Paul Sturges*

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. JOURNALS AND THEIR POLICIES ON DATA SHARING: LESSONS FROM THE JoRD PROJECTLIBER 2013, MUNICHJULY 2013 Azhar Hussain, Marianne Bamkin, Jane H Smith and Paul Sturges* Centre for Research Communications, University of Nottingham and University of Loughborough*

  2. Background • US National Academy of Sciences, 2003 • OECD, 2007 • ANDS Seminar, 2011 • UK’s Royal Society, 2012 • G8 Science Ministers, June 2013

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Key stages

  7. Journal Data Policy Survey

  8. Journal Policies • Thomson Reuters Citation Index • Highest and Lowest Impact Factor Journals • Science and Social Sciences • 371 titles • 36 Subject Areas Covered Results: • 162 titles with policies • 15% titles had multiple policies giving us 230 policies • 75% Policies Weak

  9. SURVEY

  10. Findings • Inconsistency • Lack of Standardization • Data Types • When and Where • Open Access

  11. Stakeholders

  12. Stakeholder Consultation • Consulted with: Scholarly publishers, Research funders, Research administrators, Repository staff, Library staff and Researchers • Conducted: • 23 in depth interviews (Publishers, Research Support, Library Representatives) • Researcher Focus group and a Publisher Workshop • Online survey of Researchers

  13. Stakeholder Comments (Data Sharing) • Researchers • Happy to share • Not sure how to share • 74% thought Journals should have data sharing policies • Librarians/ Support Staff • Advisory Role • Publishers • Appreciate Benefits of Data Sharing • Concerns on where to store large data sets

  14. Stakeholders Comments (JoRD Service) • Researchers • Central resource for current journal information • Comparison aids choice of publication • Librarians/ Support Staff • Valuable central resource - Advice and guidance • Support and develop data management policies • Integration into other services • Publishers • Compliance Check and Competitor Intelligence

  15. Commons Features Requested • Clear, automated and simple instructions • Clear service documentation on aims, services policies and procedures • Conditions of deposit: re-use and access; restrictions • Guidelines for recommended file, data or metadata; policy wording • Locations where data can be archived and retrieved (URLs)

  16. Business Models

  17. 3 LEVELS OF SERVICE PROPOSED AND MARKET TESTED • 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

  18. Findings • Data Sharing • Developing interest from all stakeholders • Slower uptake • Policies • Lack of Journal Data Policies • Some publishers working on area • Stakeholders • General Support for JoRD • Optimum Business Case not identified

  19. Recommendations

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

  21. Future? • JISC • Funders are asking for data sharing/ management plans • Universities are setting up data management plans and systems • Publishers are aware of data sharing and working on this area • Increase in Data Journals

  22. Future? (2) • There is a need for a JoRD Service • Practical tool across all stakeholder groups • Assist standardization of policies • Encourage good academic practice • JoRD could assist Data Management by: • Providing easy access to journal data policies • Provide Clarity on when, where and what to deposit • Guidance on file and metadata formats • Help librarians and support staff to enable researchers

  23. Recommendations to Publishers • Journal Data Policies appear to be on increase, but still lack clarity (McCain; Piwowar & Chapman) • Try to be consistent and clear across your data policies • We are working on a model policy

  24. Recommendations to Support Staff • Get involved in your institutions research data management • Encourage researchers to share data • You can offer facilities for deposit and technical guidance

  25. Recommendations for Researchers • Share your Data • Check what your Funders Require • Does your institution have an infrastructure to assist you?

  26. 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.

  27. Questions? Get Involved in Research Data! Jane H Smith jane.h.smith@nottingham.ac.uk http://jordproject.wordpress.com/

More Related