Identifying and removing barriers for sharing scientific data

1
Identifying and removing barriers for sharing
scientific data

• Laurents Sesink
• Laurents.sesink_at_dans.knaw.nl
• www.dans.knaw.nl

2
DANS

• an institute of the Royal Netherlands Academy of
  Arts and Sciences (KNAW), and is also supported
  by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific
  Research (NWO).
• since its establishment in 2005, DANS has been
  taking care of storage and continuous
  accessibility of research data in the social
  sciences and humanities.

3
Sections

• Software Development Group (SDG)
• Infrastructure Group (IG)
• Data Group (DG)

4
Data Group (DG)

• Electronic Archiving System (EASY)
• Innovative projects (Persistent Identifier, Data
  Seal of Approval, Enhanced Publications)
• Data Acquisition

5
Data Acquisition

• Last 10 years there is a change in attitude
  towards the principle of sharing Research Data
• Dutch government OECD Principles and Guidelines
  for Access to Research Data from Public Funding
• All scientific organizations Berlin Declaration
  on Open Access

6
A demand from researchers to re(use) data

• Digital data
• Easy to duplicate and distribute
• New tools, techniques and methodologies can be
  used
• Integration with other research data

7
Part of the scholarly communication process

• To verify research
• To discover research data for future potential
  (re)use

8

• Governmental organizations, funders of research,
  universities, publishers, scientific data
  archives and researchers are implementing in
  different ways the policy of access to research
  data
• In practice it appears that the depositing of
  research data is not imbedded in the scholarly
  workflow and mental system of researchers,
  institutions, funders and policy makers.

9
Therefore it is important

• To identify which stakeholders benefit by making
  research data available.
• What kind of policies have they already
  developed?
• Which instruments play an important role in these
  policies?
• Which restraints do they encounter in practice?

10
Stakeholders

• Data producers
• Data consumers
• Research data centers
• Research funders and commissioners of research
• Publishers
• Organisations responsible for quality and
  assessment of research
• Organisations responsible for technical
  infrastructures

11
Stakeholders meeting

• End 2008 DANS and SURFfoundation organized a
  meeting with different stakeholders
• SURFfoundation unites research universities,
  universities of applied sciences, and research
  institutions. All of these collaborate on
  innovative projects to improve the quality of
  higher education and research.

12
Attendees

• Researchers University of Twente, University of
  Amsterdam, University of Utrecht
• Library University of Leiden
• Datacenters Statistics Netherlands (CBS), DANS,
  3TU datacentre
• Government Education, culture and science in the
  Netherlands

13
Attendees

• Infrastructure SURFfoundation
• Research assessment Academy of Arts and
  Sciences, Rathenau Institute
• Research funder The Netherlands Organisation for
  Scientific Research (NWO)
• Publisher Amsterdam University Press

14
What kind of policies have they already developed

• Government
• Contract for third parties (ARVODI)
• Funding of preservation strategy (MIXED)
• Funding organization
• Infrastructure for depositing datasets (DANS)
• Contracts
• Research organizations (Universities)
• Open Access policy for publications

15
What kind of policies have they already developed

• Publishers
• Links to data from articles in journals
• Data Availability Policy
• The data centers
• Acces, re(use) policy
• Guidelines, consultancy

16
What kind of policies have they already developed

• Infrastructure organizations
• Funding of initiatives to further develop the
  technical infrastructure (Enhanced Publications,
  blogs, wikis, social tagging)
• Researchers
• Reference to the data set
• Data producer as co-author in a publication

17
Identify barriers

• Researchers
• Lack of Scientific credits for sharing data
• No place for Long Term Preservation in project
  proposals
• Fear to share data
• Lack of experience to make data reusable
• Lack of time to deposit data
• Data centers
• Policies to share data are not enough. Lack of
  practical regulations and clear responsibilities
• No cost model

18
Identify barriers

• Publishers
• Fragmented infrastructure for referencing to
  research data
• Lack of policy and communication about Persistent
  Identifiers
• Data centers dont cover all scientific
  disciplines
• Lack of interest from researchers to publish in
  DAP journals
• High investment in infrastructure to add research
  data to publications
• Long Term Preservation of Enhanced Publications

19
Recommandations

• Research funders
• Make regulations to bring policy into practice.
  Define whos role and responsibility it is to
  deposit data.
• Include in project proposals funding for LTP
• Research organizations (Universities)
• Workflow for Open Access to Research data
• Attention for data modelling, LTP issues in
  curriculum for students
• Scientific credits not only for Publications but
  also for research data

20
Recommandations

• Data centers
• Make the benefits for depositing data clear for
  researchers
• There is a need for consultancy at the start of
  projects
• Make contracts with research funders more clear
• Regulations, procedures
• Standardization of citation of data
• Infrastructure organizations
• Bridge the cap between publications and research
  data

21
Developments

• NWO Workflow for funded projectproposals
• Government One stop portal for third parties.
  Research Information. Publications. Data
• SURFFoundation Tender for Enhanced publications
• User requirements for the infrastructure
• Universities Regulations and workflow for
  depositing data
• Data Steward Ship Group
• Consultation for Researchers

22
Future Roadmap

• Funding of LTP
• Scientific credits

23

• Thank you!