Recommendation to the EU Hearing on Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information

Thank
you
for
this
invitation
to
contribute
to
the
formation
of
policy
on
this
topic.

Let me begin by quoting two scientists.

The first is the
Spanish
Nobel
Prize
winner

Santiago
Ramón
y
Cajal

He
wrote:

“A
scholar’s
positive
contribution
is
measured
by
the
sum
of
the

original
data
that
he
contributes.
Hypotheses
come
and
go
but

data
remain.”

He
said
that
in
1897
in
his
work:
Advice
to
a
Young
Investigator.

The
21st
Century
data
scientist
Mark
Parsons,
advises
us:

“You
are
not
finished
until
you
have
done
the
research,
published

the
results,
and
published
the
data,
receiving
formal
credit
for

everything.”

This
highlights
two
key
concepts
for
preservation
of
scientific
data:

Making
data
public

and

gaining
recognition

<<As
Aside:
On
the
matter
of
publishing
data,
my
lawyers
tell
me

to
use
the
phrase
‘to
make
data
available’

in
order
not
to
imply

a
new
role
for
the
present
day
publishers.>>

Two
key
challenges
are
therefore

• how
to
make
data
available
into
the
future,
and
for
the
future

<<
data
need
not
be
digital;
all
that
is
digital
are
not
always
data
–
but

they
might
become
so.
>>

and

• how
to
provide
the
reward
of
recognition,
to
add
motivation
by

carrot,
not
just
the
stick
of
compliance.

1

I
would
like
to
make
three
recommendations:

1.
First,
in
seeking
to
preserve
the
record
of
science
for
the
future,
we

should
include
research
literature
as
an
important
part
of
the

record
of
science.
Both
have
evidential
value
for
research,
and
the

relationship
between
the
two
is
also
important.

**
In
order
to
keep
to
time,
I
would
like
to
submit
separate
written
note

on
the
relationship
between
research
literature
and
research
data,
in

which
I
contrast
three
types
of
data
[reversing
the
labels
I
have
used

elsewhere
to
give
prominence
to
the
data
originating
close
to
the

instrument
by
which
the
data
were
generated]:

A. the
source
&
reference
databases
that
are
curated
in
data

centres
and
large-‐scale
research
‘data
factories’
–
from

which
datasets
are
often
extracted
and
analysed
by

researchers

B. the
datasets
upon
which
the
conclusions
published
in

literature
are
based

C. the
supplementary
data
files
that
increasingly
accompany

enhanced
e-‐publication
in
research
literature.

Responsibilities
for
these
different
types
of
data
differ.

2.
My
second
recommendation
is
that
‘future-proofing’
requires
we

make
data
available

-

as
though
for
researchers
beyond
our

immediate
peer
group
and

for
the
machine-as-user

-‐
thereby
to
ensure
that
future
researchers
can
use
their
software
on

these
data
for
what
can
only
be
called

‘unimaginable
purposes’.

This
means
opening
up
the
knowledge
now
locked
in
document
formats

like
pdf
so
that
the
scientific
literature
becomes
scientific
data.

3.
Third,
when
the
Commission
re-‐visits
the
grand
societal
challenges
to

which
research
can
and
should
address,
it
should
regard
‘assured
and

continuing
access
to
digital
content’
itself
as
a
grand
societal

challenge
-‐
one
to
which
Europe’s
scientific
and
scholarly
community

can
and
are
making
globally
significant
and
lead
contribution.

It
follows
that
we
should
not
have
a
narrow
view
of
science
and

scientific
data.

2

What
then
of
preservation
of
research
literature?

In
days
of
print
no
one
expected
the
publishers
to
have
the
last
copy;
it

was
for
the
libraries
to
exercise
stewardship
on
behalf
of
future

researchers.

But
with
digital
anytime/anyplace
access,
libraries
do
not
easily
have

that
opportunity
–
and
it
is
not
necessary
that
every
library
has
to
have

every
copy
on
its
digital
shelf.

There
are
better
ways
of
behaving.

Fortunately
several
organisations
are
stepping
forward
to
be
active
as

archiving
agencies
–
LOCKSS,
CLOCKSS,
Portico
and
national
libraries

such
as
the
BL
and
the
Dutch
KB
are
all
working
with
publishers
to
take

stewardship
of
e-‐journal
and
other
digital
content.

I’m
pleased
to
report
that
the
ISSN
International
Centre
in
Paris
and

EDINA
have
been
working
with
those
leading
agencies
in
a
JISC-‐funded

project
to
create
an
online
facility,
peprs.org
to
act
as
a
monitor
to

establish
who
is
looking
after
what
e-journal,
how,
and
with
what

terms
of
access.

peprs.org
is
available
now
as
an
online
source
about
the
‘keepers’
–
in

Beta
form
-‐

and
we
are
seeking
help
on
establishing
how
it
should
be

governed.

Research
literature
is
of
international
concern.
It
requires
international

action.
Our
experience
is
that
relying
upon
legal
deposit
legislation
is
not

enough.

For
example,
as
one
of
12
steward
libraries,
the
University
of
Edinburgh

is
one
of
three
secure
Archive
Nodes
in
Europe
(*)
on
behalf
of
CLOCKSS

which
has
reached
direct
and
international
agreement
with
publishers.

The
EU
and
the
Commission
have
an
important
part
to
play
in
ensuring

that
Europe
has
a
lead
role.

*
the
other
two
are
Humboldt
University
(Berlin,
Germany)
and
Università
Cattolica

del
Sacro
Cuore

(Milan,
Italy)

3

In
closing
I
would
like
to
say
a
few
words
about
the
ways
in
which
the

University
of
Edinburgh
has
been
involved
and
the
contribution
we
have

been
attempting
to
make,
over
the
long
and
for
the
long.

The
University
is
a
research-‐led
seat
of
learning,
set
in
Scotland’s

Capital,
renown
for
the
flourishing
of
the
Scottish
Enlightenment,
and

now
contributing
internationally
to
the
UK
and
European
research
base.

Its
commitment
to
stewardship
for
research
content
was
signaled

from
the
start,
as
the
Library
came
first,
three
years
ahead
of
the

start
of
what
became
the
first
civic
university
in
1583.

What
now
of
its
digital
stewardship?

In
1983,
Edinburgh
decided
to
set
up
the
first
University
Data
Library
in

the
UK,
having
studied
the
growth
of
national
social
science
data

archives
in
Europe
and
institutional
data
libraries
in
North
America.

I
was
at
the
University
at
the
time
as
a
research
statistician,

designing
and
supervising
sample
surveys
in
a
research
centre

that
had
begun
to
make
its
data
available
for
others
to
use,

engaging
with
practitioners.

I
was
recruited
to
take
charge
of
this
new
Data
Library.

What
I

learnt
was
much
about
data
archiving
but
a
great
deal
more
about

how
to
assist
researchers
and
students
discover
and
obtain

access
to
data
produced
by
others.

I
learnt
how
to
be
demand-focussed.

That
has
helped
when
realising
the
plans
of
policy
agencies
like

JISC
working
to
serve
research
needs
across
the
UK

–
done
via
a
range
of
content
and
infrastructure
services
deployed

by
EDINA
as
national
academic
data
centre,
and
the
Digital

Curation
Centre
taking
the
lead
internationally
in
combining
the

two
approaches
of
value-‐added
data
curation
and
long
term
digital

preservation.

[David
and
I
worked
together
during
that
set-‐up
phase
for
the
DCC.]

Edinburgh
is
the
venue
for
the
INSPIRE
Conference
next
month
to
which

my
colleagues
are
contributing
5
papers,
including
one
on
‘continuing

access’
for
these
spatially-‐reference
data
produces
by
public
sector

bodies
across
Europe.

4

David
spoke
of
mandates.
I
am
delighted
to
be
able
to
announce
that

earlier
this
month,
the
University
now
has
claim
to
be
among
the
first
to

approve
an
institutional
policy
to
guide
researchers
and
support
staff
in

their
management
of
digital
research
data.

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-‐departments/information-‐services/about/news/research-‐policy-‐news

Three
of
the
policy
measures
are
as
follows:

·

Research
data
of
future
historical
interest,
and
all
research
data

that
represent
records
of
the
University,
including
data
that

substantiate
research
findings,
will
be
offered
and
assessed
for

deposit
and
retention
in
an
appropriate
national
or
international

data
service
or
domain
repository,
or
a
University
repository.

·

Any
data
which
is
retained
elsewhere,
for
example
in
an

international
data
service
or
domain
repository
should
be
registered

with
the
University.

·

Exclusive
rights
to
reuse
or
publish
research
data
should
not
be

handed
over
to
commercial
publishers
or
agents
without
retaining
the

rights
to
make
the
data
openly
available
for
re-use,
unless
this
is
a

condition
of
funding.

This
policy
recognizes
that
archival
responsibility
and
digital

preservation
are
not
just
something
to
think
about
at
the
end
of
a

project,
but
at
the
outset.

It
sets
standards
and
defines
the
different
responsibilities
for
the

institution
and
the
researcher
-‐
for
the
all
important
PIs.

It
is
being

followed
through
with
implementation
via
the
training
and
services

that
many
researchers
will
need
including
provision
of
a
central

resilient
data
storage
service.

***********

To
re-state
those
three
recommendations:

• include
research
literature
as
part
of
the
record
of
science

• make
data
available
for
the
machine-as-user

• propose
‘assured
and
continuing
access
to
digital
content’
as

the
next
grand
societal
challenge

5

Recommendation to the EU Hearing on Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Recommendation to the EU Hearing on Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information (20)

More from EDINA, University of Edinburgh (20)

Recommendation to the EU Hearing on Access to and Preservation of Scientific Information