Lessons from Journal Research Data Policy Registry Pilot
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like862 views
The Journal Research Data Policy Registry (JRDPR) aims to enhance the management and accessibility of research data policies in higher education, promoting the UK as a digitally advanced nation. The project involves stakeholder engagement, prototype development, and evaluation with a focus on creating a shared service for researchers, librarians, and publishers. Key challenges include standardizing definitions, addressing diverse data policy interpretations, and accommodating varying funder requirements.
Lessons from Journal Research Data Policy Registry Pilot
- 1. Linda Naughton Journal Research Data Policy Registry (JRDPR)07/10/15
- 2. Mission To enable people in higher education, further education and skills to perform at the forefront of international practice by exploiting fully the possibilities of modern digital empowerment, content and connectivity Our vision and mission 2 Vision To make the UK the most digitally advanced education and research nation in the world #connectmore
- 3. What Jisc does »Delivers shared digital infrastructure and services for universities and colleges »Brokers sector-wide deals with IT vendors and commercial publishers »Provides expert and trusted advice and practical assistance
- 4. Co-design partners 142 ideas considered 24 defined and pitched 6 challenges prioritised >100 senior stakeholders prioritised ideas > 1000 colleagues consulted
- 5. Co-design challenges Research at risk (R@R) Prospect to alumnus (P2A) Learning analytics Digital learning & capabilitiesImplementing FELTAG Business intelligence Hosting platform Hosting platform
- 6. Research Data Management is business as usual
- 7. Research Data infrastructure 7 Data Clouod Librarians, research managers & IT have interlocking services, to support researcher needs and institutional policies Researchers have a cohesive suite of research data management, publication and discovery services Research data management and planning services Research data storage and archival services Research data discovery services UKDA, BADCICSU / WDSEBI / GenBank Research data management applications Journal & funder policy registries Research data registry / Cross repository discovery service DMPonline DMP Registry SWORD + Disciplinary data repositories (National and International) Institutional data catalogues Disciplinary research data Discovery services Metadata exchange between journals, archives, repositories Data identifiers, metadata schema, metrics Supportfor Research data lifecycle Storage Infrastructure components that underpin all functions & services Researcher identifiers Organisation identifiers RegistriesData Identifiers Research data management applications Network / Janet - Security/UK access management federation Key Jisc supported: Other supported: Advice, guidance & training is also needed
- 8. 8 To develop best practice on journal policies between publishers and other stakeholders. To make it easy for researchers to know how to follow policies and for journals to create RD policies Journal Research Data Policies Registry •Start: April 2015 •End: September 2016 •Website: http://bit.ly/1Ks8jhb •End Goals: a shared service with easy access to journal research data policies and common related standards M No. Objective Deadline 1 To build a community of engaged stakeholders who will accomplish a number of key tasks for the project as well as raise the profile of the project with both the UK sector and the international research community. First round April-June 2015 Second round September 2016 2 To build consensus on the elements and understanding of journal research data policies through a range of activities such as an RDA group, the Project Expert Advisory Group and practitioner engagement through testing. Project Expert Advisory group June 2015 RDA Group September 2015 – March 2017 3 To develop and build a prototype Journal Research Data Policy Registry service which meets the needs of the use cases developed and prioritised in consultation with the stakeholder group. September 2015 (Rapid prototype) Iterative development to April 2016 then wider user-testing. 4 To evaluate the prototype against the use cases as a proof of concept exercise. September 2016 5 To evaluate the potential for a Journal RD Policy Registry service and the further implementation and uptake of the best practice developed September 2016 https://flic.kr/p/rob872 (cc-by) jakerust/gotcredit@flickr
- 9. Use case development »Potential users of the service are considered to be: › Researchers › Librarians/RDM support staff › Research Managers › Funders/policy makers › Publishers/journal editors/learned societies › Research data repositories/data centres 15/10/2015 JRDPR Expert Advisory Group - Use Case Development 9
- 10. Question Set »Journal, ISSN, publisher, country, and data policy name. »Is there a policy, data policy type, data deposit requirements, consequences of non-compliance, how will data be shared, is there guidance, will the data be peer reviewed, when should the data be submitted, exceptions, data access statements (where), licences/copyright transfer agreements for data? 4/02/15 Jisc: Supporting Cloud and Data Centres 10
- 11. Research Data Question Set 11 » The lack of standard definitions of terms. For example, what do we mean by the data and supplementary data? There are NISO guidelines for supplementary data but they have not been widely adopted by journals. » The level of granularity required to capture policy at the data set level is too complex for the data model. » Different interpretations of data sharing according to discipline. Do we mean all the data or do we mean specific data types (discipline specific) or the data behind the article. How is that defined by the policy? » What does peer-review of data include? Rigour of methodology; validity of the results; reproducibility of results; or something else? The question ‘is the data peer-reviewed’ cannot capture these differences. » Some of the content relates to submission guidelines rather than policy. We would expect a policy to be more stable than submission guidelines so this creates an issue of keeping the registry up to date. The lack of version control is also an issue with regards to the webpages where the information is held. Issues Log – some examples
- 12. Research Data Question Set 12 » Many different licensing options are further complicated by hybrid journals. Introducing data policy type to the question set means that a journal can have a 1:multiple policy relationship but the OA policy element to hybrid journals often refers more to the article than the data. » Exceptions for data – sensitive data, commercial data, 3rd party data makes the lowest common denominator ‘available on request’. » How does the registry account for different requirements from funders? For example DataAccess Statements are required by UK funders but this is not scalable when taking into account all of the possible funder requirements. » Issue of scale to provide adequate coverage – REF (UK) 12,500 journals. » The wider research data context has an impact on journal policies i.e. publishers, funders, repositories, domain-specific practice and institutions. This raises the question of where to apply the focus towards improving practice? Issues Log – some examples
- 13. How many journals have a research data policy 13 52.4 23.2 23.2 All Journals 64.8 14.4 18.4 Science Journals 40 32 28 Social Science Journals Full Policy Partial Policy No Policy
- 14. How many journals are mandating data deposit? 14 30.2 40.6 29.2 All Journals 45.8 30.8 23.4 Science Journals 10.5 53 36.5 Social Science Journals Mandated OptionalRecommended
- 16. From question set to policy template » Definition of terms » Standardisation of terms » Implementation process e.g. NISO ‘supplementary material’, CASRAI, RIOXX, ORCID » Purpose and scope of the policy – funder/publisher/journal/data centre/institution? » Data level and domain level? » Wider context – other tools (DMPOnline, Bio-sharing.org), systems (Researchfish), initiatives (Pasteur4OA, COPDESS) 16
Editor's Notes
- #2: Background to Jisc, what we do and where this project sits within the wider context Talk about the project – the objectives, what we have done so far and what we have learnt. Next steps –
- #3: Following a review - Last 2 years – incorporated as charity, not for profit Focus on enabling technologies for FE, HE and skills Being close to the sector and demonstrating value
- #4: The sectors’ own organisation for digital; under its own oversight. Dedicated entirely to the sectors’ individual and collective needs Not a vendor: Jisc deals with and/or works with vendors and publishers on the collective behalf. Not for profit: every £ used for the sectors’ benefit Since incorporation in December 2012 Jisc has delivered a return on investment on its recurrent funding of 3.7 times, amounting to £584 million Jisc champions the importance and potential of digital technologies for UK education and research; and does three main things:- It provides shared digital infrastructure and services for universities and colleges. Flagship Janet network, our digital foundation for teaching and research. It makes sector-wide deals with IT vendors and commercial publishers that all universities and colleges can draw on. It provides expert and trusted advice and practical assistance. Jisc’s forward priorities are determined in close interaction with the sectors.
- #7: Mission: Realising a robust and sustainable research data management infrastructure and services to enrich UK research With a focus on: open agenda, collaboration and internationalisation, digital standards and policies
- #17: Next steps for JRDPR – looking at where best Jisc can intervene in this space.