Developing Best Practices for Supplemental Materials

1. Developing Best Practices for Supplemental Materials Linda Beebe June 2, 2011 SSP June 2, 2011

2. Collision of 2 Worlds SSP June 2, 2011

3. Explosion of─ Research Data Accrued Knowledge Increased Requirements Funding Bodies Reporting Standards SSP June 2, 2011

4. Supplemental Materials—it sounded like such a good idea. • The author could expand on their research. • Science would be better with data needed to verify or replicate study at little additional cost. • We could enhance reporting of science with multi-media. • We looked to technology to solve problems—but kept our print-centric views. • And we did it on our own—no standards or best practices. SSP June 2, 2011

5. Outcomes for the author? • May get to showcase • new work that would • not otherwise be seen. • May also risk • displaying weak work • that otherwise might • not be seen. SSP June 2, 2011

6. Outcomes for the user? • Lack of descriptive metadata • Discoverability issues • Lack of context • Concern about persistence • No clarity on citations • Some mystery in the main article about what is supplemental ─ a maze, maybe not value-add taken as a whole. SSP June 2, 2011

7. Outcomes for the publisher? • Direct costs • Diverted energies—already crisis in peer review • Tough decisions─ • What is value-add? • Peer review dilemma, quality vs workload? • Plan for migration? SSP June 2, 2011

8. NISO-NFAIS Working Group SSP June 2, 2011

9. Business Working GroupCo-Chairs: Linda Beebe & Marie McVeigh • Define Supplemental Materials, structurally and functionally. • Define related terms, such as data, citation, and article. • Recommend methods of referencing and linking to and from supplemental material and for providing context. • Recommendations around metadata, persistent identifiers, and citations . • Recommend processes for peer review, production, and curation. • Consider permissions and accessibility issues. • Recommend responsibilities for authors, editors, peer reviewers, publishers. SSP June 2, 2011

10. Technical Working GroupCo-Chairs: Dave Martinsen & Sasha Schwarzman • Recommend metadata, persistent identifiers, and granularity of markup needed to support practices recommended by the Business Working Group (BWG). • Recommend supports for referencing and linking to and from Supplemental Materials and for handling cited references within Supplemental Materials. • Recommend processes for archiving, preservation, and forward migration of various types of Supplemental Materials. • Recommend processes for packaging, exchange, and delivery of Supplemental Materials, taking into account variations in the location and hosting of those materials. • Recommend technical support for accessibility practices recommended by the BWG. SSP June 2, 2011

11. On Different Wave Lengths • Disciplines vary in use of supplemental material. • Differ in style systems and culture. • Readers vary in need for information—some current awareness, some deep digging. • Different approaches to underlying data. • Very different approaches to delivery systems. • Technology enabled, but still using print. SSP June 2, 2011

12. Data One Type of Supplemental • Example of evolving ecosystem. Print world—no datasets part of article. • For some, almost synonymous with supplemental. • Journal articles—indeed whole journals—devoted to data emerging. For these data are integral content. • Management of data in general not within scope of recommended practices. • Address inclusion of data when published as supplemental (with a little aside on sharing). SSP June 2, 2011

13. Illustrates Discipline Variances • Some publishers—such as AAAS and ACS—require posting of data in a publicly accessible repository for replication. • Some publishers—such as AGU—identify acceptable repositories. • Some publishers—such as APA—currently say only that authors should provide data to researchers for verification. More calls for transparency SSP June 2, 2011

14. Data Sharing—the ideal & reality Most ethics codes call for some level of sharing. What they say: What they do: Only 25% said their data are openly available. Only 20% actually do. By 2011, only a fraction have done so. • PARSE study—84% of scientists think it useful to link data to articles. • In Psychology, 80% say they share their data. • 2008—Harvard faculty voted to require faculty to deposit data in Harvard repository. SSP June 2, 2011

15. Reasons for not sharing─ • It takes time, may require extensive explanations of coding or just plain clean-up. • I’m not finished—I can get more articles. • Who will curate/protect it? • Will I be credited? • They have several fears— • Loss of confidentialty • Potential harm to subjects • Potential faulty re-analyis • May be proven wrong • Loss of control SSP June 2, 2011

16. What we are saying. . . SSP June 2, 2011

17. Multi-Media Another Example • Five years ago, audio or video not possible in the article. • Today still generally supplemental. • BUT some now incorporating in PDFs. • Executables as part of the article? • Expect much more interactive content. SSP June 2, 2011

18. Supplemental Today, Not Tomorrow “. . . over time the concept of supplemental material will gradually give way to a more modern concept of a hierarchical or layered presentation in which a reader can define what level of detail best fits their interests.” −Emilie Markus, Editor-in-Chief, Cell Article of tomorrow may be linked chunks, not a narrative. SSP June 2, 2011

19. Challenges for Publishers Expectations • Quality uberalles— • Peer review all. • Edit to same level as article. • Maintain all links. • Assure migration. Limiting Factors • People resources • Financial resources • Technical resources SSP June 2, 2011

20. We need some order now. SSP June 2, 2011

21. Defined 3 Types of Content SSP June 2, 2011

22. Recommended Practices SSP June 2, 2011

23. What we are saying. . . • Selecting • Review same level • Useful, relevant, not • file drawer • Editing • Publisher/Editor • determine. • Provide notice if not. • Assuring Findability • Consistency • Online TOC Reference • Indexing Coverage • Don’t hide! • Citing • Within article, cite & • link as for a table. • Not in reference list • for integral. SSP June 2, 2011

24. More Recommendations SSP June 2, 2011

25. What we are saying. . . • Preservation • Integral same level as • article • Clarity on what can do. • Encourage authors to • deposit elsewhere also. • Links & Context • Bi-directional if possible • Links must work! • Context is essential. • What is this? Why here? • Accessibility • Should be same level as • article. • Strive for ideal, recognize • difficulty. • Rights Management • Treat rights same way • do for the article. • No authority for Other • Related Content. SSP June 2, 2011

26. 2 Working Groups, 2 Roles SSP June 2, 2011

27. TWG Working Group Task Forces • Metadata—have strawman DTD • Linking and persistent identifiers • Packaging and exchange • Preservation and archiving • Accessibility SSP June 2, 2011

28. Next Steps SSP June 2, 2011

29. Final Set of Practices SSP June 2, 2011

30. We welcome ideas! • NISO—www.niso.org • To see working groups: www.niso.org/workrooms/supplemental • Also join the Business Stakeholders’ Group at that page. • NFAIS—www.nfais.org SSP June 2, 2011

31. Thank you! Linda Beebe Senior Director, PsycINFO American Psychological Association lbeebe@apa.org SSP June 2, 2011