Pre-conference workshop, iConference 2013, Fort Worth, TX

1. FUNDER POLICIES UPDATE:
UK & beyond
Martin Donnelly
Digital Curation Centre
University of Edinburgh
iConference 2013, pre-conference workshop
Fort Worth, TX, 12 February 2013

2. RUNNING ORDER (30 mins)
1. Introduction and background
2. UK (and publishers)
3. Europe
4. Australia
5. Acknowledgements

3. 1. Introduction/Background
- Digital Curation Centre, est. 2004
- Three partners: Universities of Edinburgh,
Glasgow and Bath
- Primary funder is JISC
Helping to build capacity, capability and skills
in data management and curation across the
UK’s higher education research community
-DCC Phase 3 Business Plan
www.dcc.ac.uk

4. DCC and DMP: a short history…
- Liz Lyon, “Dealing With Data” (2008)
IMPETUS
- UK funder expectations (2009)
- Development of Checklist, DMP Online
ACTION
and other resources (2009-10)
- NSF policy requirement (2010) IMPETUS
- Development of DMPTool (2011)
ACTION
- Developments and discussions further AND
IMPETUS
afield (2012, 2013…)

5. DMP resources
– “Dealing with Data” (Lyon, 2008)
– Analysis of Funder Policies (Jones, 2009)
– Checklist for a Data Management Plan
(Donnelly and Jones, 2009-2013)
– DMP Online tool (2009-2013)
– “How to Develop a Data Management
and Sharing Plan” (Jones, 2011)
– “Data Management Plans and Planning”
(Donnelly, 2012) in Pryor (ed.) Managing
Research Data, London: Facet
– DMP Online briefing paper (Donnelly and
Richardson, forthcoming 2012)
Links to all DCC resources via http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/data-management-plans

6. 2. UK funders
1. Policy context / drivers
2. Current status
3. MRC / ESRC case study
Content courtesy Veerle Van den Eynden, UK Data
Archive…

7. DATA SHARING DRIVERS UK
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
• Research funder policies
• Publisher policies
• Demand from users
• Transparency and openness agenda
• Maximise investment returns
Research data available for:
• New research
• Scrutiny / duplication / validation
• Research visibility / impact
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

8. RESEARCH FUNDER DATA POLICIES
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
1. Publicly funded research data are a public good, produced in
the public interest, that should be made openly available with as
few restrictions as possible in a timely and responsible manner
that does not harm intellectual property.
2. in accordance with relevant standards and community best
practice
3. metadata to make research data discoverable
4. legal, ethical, commercial constraints on release of research
data
5. recognition for collecting & analysing data; limited privileged
use
6. acknowledge sources of data, intellectual contributions, terms
& conditions
7. use public funds to support the management and sharing of
publicly-funded research data
From Research Councils UK Common Principles on Data Policy (May 2011)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

9. RESEARCH FUNDER POLICIES
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
Research Councils UK Policy on Access to Research
Outputs (July 2012)
• peer reviewed research papers to be published in journals that
are compliant with Research Council policy on Open Access
• include statement on how the underlying research materials such
as data, samples or models can be accessed
• for publications submitted for publication from 1 April 2013
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

10. 7 RCUK RESEARCH COUNCILS
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
• Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)
• Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
(BBSRC)
• Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC
• Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
• Medical Research Council (MRC)
• Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
• Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

11. RESEARCH COUNCIL DATA POLICIES
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
Research Councils:
• Data sharing policy mandating/encouraging data sharing
• Data management / sharing planning required
• Award holders responsible for managing & sharing data,
except EPSRC
• Some councils fund their own data sharing support
services and infrastructure
e.g. UK Data Service (ESRC)
NERC data centres (NERC)
MRC Data Support Service (MRC)
Atlas Petabyte Storage (STFC)
Archaeology Data Service (AHRC)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

12. EPSRC POLICY FRAMEWORK ON RESEARCH DATA
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
Research organisations receiving EPSRC funding have a
responsibility to:
• publish metadata online, with DOI (digital object identifier)
• maintain data securely for 10 years from last access
• papers to include statements on access to supporting data
• expectations also follow RCUK principles
Roadmap for compliance by May 2012; institutional
infrastructure in place by May 2015
Influenced by Freedom of Information Act
EPSRC Policy Framework on Research Data
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

13. OTHER FUNDER DATA POLICIES
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
Data sharing policy & data management planning
• Cancer Research UK
• Department for International Development (DFID)
• Wellcome Trust
Data sharing policy, no DMP
• British Academy
• Nuffield Foundation
• Department of Health
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

14. DATA PLAN REQUIREMENTS
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
Funder Required at application Data topics in DMP
AHRC Technical plan Standards, preservation, continued access
& use
BBSRC Data management and Type, format, standards, sharing methods,
sharing plan restrictions, timeframe
CRUK Data sharing plan Volume, format, standards, metadata,
documentation, sharing method,
timescale, preservation, restrictions
DFID Access and data Repositories, limits, timescale,
management plan responsibilities, resources, access
strategy
EPSRC Policy framework
ESRC Data management plan Volume, type, quality, archiving plans,
difficulties sharing, consent sharing, IPR,
responsibilities
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

15. DATA PLAN REQUIREMENTS
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
Funder Required at application Data topics in DMP
MRC Data management plan Collection methods, documentation,
standards, preservation, curation,
security, confidentiality, sharing &
access, timescale, responsibilities
NERC Outline data DM procedures, created data
management plan
STFC Data management plan Type, preservation, metadata, value,
sharing, timescale, resources needed
Wellcome Data management and What data? When share? Where share?
Trust sharing plan How access? Limits, how preserve?
What resources?
Digital Curation Centre, Funders’ data plan requirements:www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/data
management-plans/funders-requirements
Knight, G; (2012) Funder Requirements for Data Management and Sharing. London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London. researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/208596/
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

16. JOURNAL / PUBLISHER DATA POLICIES
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
• Data underpinning publication accessible
• upon request from author
• supplement with publication
• public repository
• mandated repository (e.g. PANGAEA – Elsevier)
• Many top-rated science journals (Science, Nature, J
Evol. Biol...) have strong policies relating to data
repositories which give dataset accession numbers
e.g. GenBank, EMBL, DRYAD, TreeBASE
JORD: survey of journal policies jordproject.wordpress.com/
2012/09/13/journal-research-data-policies-survey/
jordproject.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/overview-of-policy-types-from-the-
science-journals-in-the-sample/
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

17. CASE STUDY 1 - ESRC
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
• DMP requirement introduced April 2011
• Requirements & guidance developed: UK Data Archive & ESRC
• DMP topics:
• assessment of existing data that could be used for the research
• information on new data that will be created
• quality assurance of data
• back-up and security of data
• expected difficulties in data sharing, e.g. ethical or legal issues
• copyright and Intellectual Property Right of data
• data management responsibilities
• preparation of data for sharing and archiving
• DMP Review 2012, UK Data Archive, Research Data
Management Support Team
• evaluate quality of random sample of 24 DMPs
• score each topic: 1=insufficient; 2=sufficient; 3=excellent
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

18. ESRC REVIEW OF DMPs
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
Findings
• Average quality score: 17 (9-23)
• 7 DMPs (29 %) < 16
• 4 DMPs (17 %) < 12
• On average good to excellent information on assessing existing
data (average score of 2.4 )
• Poorest information:
• copyright and IPR of research data (avg score 1.8)
• preparing data for sharing / archiving (avg score 1.9)
• Score = 1 (insufficient information provided) most common for
copyright (7 plans), data management responsibilities (5 plans)
and data preparation (5 plans)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

19. CASE STUDY 2 – MRC
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
• DMP requirements introduced June 2012
• Requirements & guidance developed MRC-DSS & JISC-funded
project ‘Data Management Planning for MRC projects’
• DMP Review Dec 2012: panel of MRC theme / programme /
policy managers & external data scientists / DM experts
• evaluate 22 DMPs
• info provided in DMP fit for purpose ?
• DMP template / guidance interpreted correctly ?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

20. MRC REVIEW OF DMPs
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………..
Findings: template & guidance being amernded
• Data security, not only relevant for data with personal identifiers,
also to safeguard valuable data in general
• Need to describe institutional resources to support data
management and sharing
• DMPs require input from key institutional support staff
• DMP also for institution to plan effective data support for research
• DMP should identify which resources a project needs
• Data suitability for sharing – justification needed to ensure all
implications of data sharing are considered / understood
• Clear timescales for data sharing needed
• DMP’s using template easier to evaluate
• Free text / brief DMPs fairly generic
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………..…
UK DATA ARCHIVE

21. 3. Europe
1. EC policies for scientific
information
2. EC and data infrastructures
Content courtesy Carlos Morais-Pires, European
Commission…

22. Neelie Kroes
Digital Agenda
Digital (information) single market
Open Science means optimal sharing of research results
and tools such as publications, research data, software,
educational resources and infrastructures across
institutional, disciplinary and national boundaries.

23. scientific data infrastructure
distributed computing/software infrastructure
network infrastructure, GÉANT

25. intelligent access to scientific information
We don't know how scholarly communication
will adapt to new paradigms bringing closer
human and machine readable information...
e-Infrastructure can help realising the
AAIR vision and opportunities for
innovation in publishing
publication + data + software

26. Open Infrastructures for Open Science
Open Scientific Content
data, computational resources and
software resulting from public funded
research
Open Culture
career systems should support and
reward those who participate in the
culture of sharing
Open Infrastructures
reliable, high-performance and
economically efficient infrastructures

27. preservation, volumes, costs, etc
(*) Peter Buneman, Univ . Edinburgh,
Linz April 2006,

28. Open Infrastructures for Open Science
COM and REC on Scientific Information, July 2012
Open Access,
Long term preservation,
Capacity building with data infrastructures

29. recommendation:
[…] hereby recommends that member states

30. recommendation
Preservation and re-use of scientific information
4. Reinforce the preservation of scientific information…

31. recommendation
E-infrastructures
5. Further develop e-infrastructures underpinning the system for
disseminating scientific information…

32. recommendation
E-infrastructures
– reinforcing the infrastructure for access to and preservation of
scientific information at national level, and earmarking the necessary
funds;
– ensuring the quality and reliability of the infrastructure,
including through the use of certification mechanisms for
repositories;
– ensuring interoperability among e-infrastructures at national and
global level.

33. recommendation
E-infrastructures
6. Ensure synergies among national e-infrastructures at
European and global level by:
– contributing to the interoperability of e-infrastructures, in particular
addressing scientific data exchange, taking into account experiences with
existing projects, infrastructures and software developed at European and
global level;
– supporting transnational cooperative efforts that promote the use
and development of information and communication technologies
infrastructure for higher education and research.

34. slide from Dr Neil Jacobs (JISC) presentation to the EC
Better Access to Scientific Information
National policy not formulated
National policy formulated but not implemented
National policy formulated, implemented but no outcomes yet
National policy formulated, implemented, and outcomes delivered
OA Publications OA Data Preservation eInfrastructures

35. slide from Dr Neil Jacobs (JISC) presentation to the EC
Better Access to Scientific Information
Do you think the following require coordination / collaboration at the European level?
eInfrastructures
Preservation
• Knowledge exchange
• Effects of scale (economies,
negotiations)
Research data • Reduce duplication
• Broad interoperability
• Common evaluation standards
• Disciplinary imperatives
OA / publications
• Common infrastructure

36. 4. Australia
Content courtesy David Groenewegen, Australian
National Data Service…

37. Research funding in Australia
• Australian Research Council (ARC) and
National Health and Medical Research Council
(NHMRC) provide bulk of competitive
government funding
• Funding also comes from other government
bodies, private industry, international
collaboration, and overseas funding bodies
37

38. Sharing and other requirements
• NHMRC – publications must be deposited (July
2012)
• ARC – publications must be deposited (Jan
2013)
• Data:
– No requirements from either (BUT: both now
“encourage” it)
– No history of disciplinary data stores
– No requirements for data management planning
38

39. Research infrastructure funding
• Department of Industry, Innovation, Research,
Science and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE)
– National Computational Infrastructure (NCI).
– Research Storage Infrastructure (RDSI)
– Australian National Data Service (ANDS)
– National eResearch Collaboration Tools and
Resources (NeCTAR).
39

40. Consequences
• Storage nodes now in place in most states
• Large scale engagement on data management
issues and capability building at virtually all
universities
– 75% of unis have a data management policy in
place or in progress
• Development of a range of tools
40

41. Going forward – shorter term
• Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme
(CRIS)
• The scheme will provide $60 million to
support the operation of critical national,
collaborative research infrastructure facilities
up to 31 December 2014.
41

42. Going forward – longer term
• Australian Research Committee (ARCom) -
– to provide integrated and strategic advice on future
research investments, including in the areas of human
capital, infrastructure and collaborative activities
• National Research Investment Plan
– sets out a comprehensive national research
investment planning process.
– enable a coordinated, whole-of-government approach
to research investment that is structured to meet
national needs and provide value for money.
– released on 28 November 2012.
42

43. Thank you
martin.donnelly@ed.ac.uk
@mkdDCC
www.dcc.ac.uk
Thanks to colleagues for use of their slides:
Veerle Van den Eynden (ESRS), Carlos Morais-Pires (EC), David Groenewegen (ANDS)