Reproduced with permission of the copy.docx

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
14 LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY FEBRUARY
2018 www.officer.com
You
wouldn’t
want to
meet it in a
dark alley.

Toughbook® 33. The fully rugged
2-in-1 detachable laptop.
Discover more at
toughbookterritory.com/publicsafety
©2017 Panasonic Corporation of North America. All rights
reserved.
S P E C I A L R E P O R T
Fight Crime With Big Data
and Predictive Analytics
Predictive analytic technologies can help identify
where crime might occur and how to respond.
By Adrienne Zimmer
E
very law enforcement agency col-
lects an immense amount of data.
Without turning the data into
actionable intelligence, however,
one could argue it remains, for
lack of a better word, useless. For the
last decade or so, a lot of conversation
has centered around technology that
can take large amounts of data and turn
it into something more. Enter predic-
tive policing.
The National Institute of Justice
writes that, “Predictive policing, in
essence, is taking data from disparate
sources, analyzing them and then using

the results to anticipate, prevent and
respond more effectively to future crime.”
Using data to anticipate trends isn’t new.
In fact, many law enforcement agen-
cies, most notably in larger urban areas,
have been using predictive analytics and
accompanying software for close to a
decade—and the usage is slowly growing.
“I think more and more agencies are
looking at predictive analytics,” says Scott
Landau, senior business development
manager, public sector at Panasonic.
“There is a really big influence of wanting
to do smart policing and intelligence-led
policing and the move towards predictive
analytics supports that.”
Analyzing data allows agencies to
confirm what they already know and
discover new information. In many cases
it has become a critical tool in the abil-
ity to anticipate crime and has created
efficiencies. “Predictive policing never
tells you exactly what’s going to happen,
but it tells you there is a high likelihood
of an incident based on prior events,” says
Landau. “So what agencies are doing is
using predictive analytics and positioning
their resources, keeping the community
safer by having police in an area where
they are needed in a time when they are
needed.” In the age of technology and
information-sharing, fusion centers and
real-time crime centers have emerged

nationwide serving multi-agency policing
needs. These centers, in a simple sense,
can gather information from many data-
bases and analyze trends based on that
data. In fact, your department may be
one utilizing one such center right now.
But what about smaller agencies that
don’t have the resources to handle all of
the big data? Technology is emerging to
help even the smallest department man-
age data in a usable way.
Big data at the patrol level
Landau reports that today’s agencies are
looking for their technology to do more.
“Now that there is technology to cap-
ture fingerprints and facial recognition,
officers are asking, ‘How do we take that
to the edge?’ he says. “They can take an
image from a fixed camera and do facial
recognition in a real-time crime center
but they are asking for the ability to do
some of that information right at the
scene, at the field level.”
Smaller agencies need help turning
data into actionable intelligence. Landau
believes that as information-sharing
and partnerships continue to increase
in the future, solutions will emerge to
get big data at the patrol level. “Imagine
being in your patrol car, responding to a
domestic,” he says. “Now imagine hav-
ing the ability to use the technology on
the laptop or tablet, already available
in your car, to look across a half-dozen

databases to build a profile of the situ-
ation before you even get there.” In this
example, Landau notes that an officer
may be able to find a DMV photo, learn
if there are any registered firearms,
know if there is a restraining order or
look at mental health. In the time that
the officer is responding, they gathered
a profile in one place. Using data at the
patrol level may help officers better
anticipate a situation.
Technology is constantly changing
and improving, and predictive analytics
is just one way law enforcement can do
their jobs better with less resources.
LET_14-15_Panasonic0218_F.indd 14 1/24/18 7:09 AM
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited
without permission.

permission.
permission.
PERSPECTIVE
Ten Simple Rules for Creating a Good Data
Management Plan
William K. Michener*
College of University Libraries & Learning Sciences, University
of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
United States of America
* [email protected]
Introduction
Research papers and data products are key outcomes of the
science enterprise. Governmental,
nongovernmental, and private foundation sponsors of research
are increasingly recognizing

the value of research data. As a result, most funders now require
that sufficiently detailed data
management plans be submitted as part of a research proposal.
A data management plan
(DMP) is a document that describes how you will treat your
data during a project and what
happens with the data after the project ends. Such plans
typically cover all or portions of the
data life cycle—from data discovery, collection, and
organization (e.g., spreadsheets, data-
bases), through quality assurance/quality control,
documentation (e.g., data types, laboratory
methods) and use of the data, to data preservation and sharing
with others (e.g., data policies
and dissemination approaches). Fig 1 illustrates the relationship
between hypothetical research
and data life cycles and highlights the links to the rules
presented in this paper. The DMP
undergoes peer review and is used in part to evaluate a project’s
merit. Plans also document the
data management activities associated with funded projects and
may be revisited during per-
formance reviews.
Earlier articles in the Ten Simple Rules series of PLOS
Computational Biology provided
guidance on getting grants [1], writing research papers [2],
presenting research findings [3],
and caring for scientific data [4]. Here, I present ten simple
rules that can help guide the pro-
cess of creating an effective plan for managing research data—
the basis for the project’s find-
ings, research papers, and data products. I focus on the
principles and practices that will result
in a DMP that can be easily understood by others and put to use
by your research team. More-

over, following the ten simple rules will help ensure that your
data are safe and sharable and
that your project maximizes the funder’s return on investment.
Rule 1: Determine the Research Sponsor Requirements
Research communities typically develop their own standard
methods and approaches for man-
aging and disseminating data. Likewise, research sponsors often
have very specific DMP expec-
tations. For instance, the Wellcome Trust, the Gordon and Betty
Moore Foundation (GBMF),
the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the
US National Science Foundation
(NSF) all fund computational biology research but differ
markedly in their DMP requirements.
The GBMF, for instance, requires that potential grantees
develop a comprehensive DMP in
conjunction with their program officer that answers dozens of
specific questions. In contrast,
NIH requirements are much less detailed and primarily ask that
potential grantees explain how
data will be shared or provide reasons as to why the data cannot
be shared. Furthermore, a
PLOS Computational Biology |
DOI:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004525 October 22, 2015 1 / 9
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Michener WK (2015) Ten Simple Rules for
Creating a Good Data Management Plan. PLoS
Comput Biol 11(10): e1004525. doi:10.1371/journal.
pcbi.1004525
Editor: Philip E. Bourne, National Institutes of Health,
UNITED STATES

Published: October 22, 2015
Copyright: © 2015 William K. Michener. This is an
open access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are
credited.
Funding: This work was supported by NSF IIA-
1301346, IIA-1329470, and ACI-1430508 (http://nsf.
gov). The funders had no role in study design, data
collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The author has declared that
no competing interests exist.
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.
1004525&domain=pdf
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://nsf.gov
http://nsf.gov
single research sponsor (such as the NSF) may have different
requirements that are established
for individual divisions and programs within the organization.
Note that plan requirements
may not be labeled as such; for example, the National Institutes
of Health guidelines focus
largely on data sharing and are found in a document entitled
“NIH Data Sharing Policy and
Implementation Guidance”
(http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_

guidance.htm).
Significant time and effort can be saved by first understanding
the requirements set forth by
the organization to which you are submitting a proposal.
Research sponsors normally provide
DMP requirements in either the public request for proposals
(RFP) or in an online grant pro-
posal guide. The DMPTool (https://dmptool.org/) and
DMPonline (https://dmponline.dcc.ac.
Fig 1. Relationship of the research life cycle (A) to the data life
cycle (B); note: highlighted circles
refer to the rules that are most closely linked to the steps of the
data life cycle. As part of the research
life cycle (A), many researchers (1) test ideas and hypotheses
by (2) acquiring data that are (3) incorporated
into various analyses and visualizations, leading to
interpretations that are then (4) published in the literature
and disseminated via other mechanisms (e.g., conference
presentations, blogs, tweets), and that often lead
back to (1) new ideas and hypotheses. During the data life cycle
(B), researchers typically (1) develop a plan
for how data will be managed during and after the project; (2)
discover and acquire existing data and (3)
collect and organize new data; (4) assure the quality of the data;
(5) describe the data (i.e., ascribe
metadata); (6) use the data in analyses, models, visualizations,
etc.; and (7) preserve and (8) share the data
with others (e.g., researchers, students, decision makers),
possibly leading to new ideas and hypotheses.
doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004525.g001

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_g
uidance.htm
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_g
uidance.htm
https://dmptool.org/
https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/
uk/) websites are also extremely valuable resources that provide
updated funding agency plan
requirements (for the US and United Kingdom, respectively) in
the form of templates that are
usually accompanied with annotated advice for filling in the
template. The DMPTool website
also includes numerous example plans that have been published
by DMPTool users. Such
examples provide an indication of the depth and breadth of
detail that are normally included
in a plan and often lead to new ideas that can be incorporated in
your plan.
Regardless of whether you have previously submitted proposals
to a particular funding pro-
gram, it is always important to check the latest RFP, as well as
the research sponsor’s website,
to verify whether requirements have recently changed and how.
Furthermore, don’t hesitate to
contact the responsible program officer(s) that are listed in a
specific solicitation to discuss
sponsor requirements or to address specific questions that arise
as you are creating a DMP for
your proposed project. Keep in mind that the principle objective
should be to create a plan that
will be useful for your project. Thus, good data management
plans can and often do contain

more information than is minimally required by the research
sponsor. Note, though, that some
sponsors constrain the length of DMPs (e.g., two-page limit); in
such cases, a synopsis of your
more comprehensive plan can be provided, and it may be
permissible to include an appendix,
supplementary file, or link.
Rule 2: Identify the Data to Be Collected
Every component of the DMP depends upon knowing how much
and what types of data will
be collected. Data volume is clearly important, as it normally
costs more in terms of infrastruc-
ture and personnel time to manage 10 terabytes of data than 10
megabytes. But, other charac-
teristics of the data also affect costs as well as metadata, data
quality assurance and
preservation strategies, and even data policies. A good plan will
include information that is suf-
ficient to understand the nature of the data that is collected,
including:
• Types. A good first step is to list the various types of data that
you expect to collect or create.
This may include text, spreadsheets, software and algorithms,
models, images and movies,
audio files, and patient records. Note that many research
sponsors define data broadly to
include physical collections, software and code, and curriculum
materials.
• Sources. Data may come from direct human observation,
laboratory and field instruments,
experiments, simulations, and compilations of data from other
studies. Reviewers and spon-
sors may be particularly interested in understanding if data are

proprietary, are being com-
piled from other studies, pertain to human subjects, or are
otherwise subject to restrictions in
their use or redistribution.
• Volume. Both the total volume of data and the total number of
files that are expected to be
collected can affect all other data management activities.
• Data and file formats. Technology changes and formats that
are acceptable today may soon
be obsolete. Good choices include those formats that are
nonproprietary, based upon open
standards, and widely adopted and preferred by the scientific
community (e.g., Comma Sepa-
rated Values [CSV] over Excel [.xls, xlsx]). Data are more
likely to be accessible for the long
term if they are uncompressed, unencrypted, and stored using
standard character encodings
such as UTF-16.
The precise types, sources, volume, and formats of data may not
be known beforehand,
depending on the nature and uniqueness of the research. In such
case, the solution is to itera-
tively update the plan (see Rule 9).
https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/
Rule 3: Define How the Data Will Be Organized
Once there is an understanding of the volume and types of data
to be collected, a next obvious

step is to define how the data will be organized and managed.
For many projects, a small num-
ber of data tables will be generated that can be effectively
managed with commercial or open
source spreadsheet programs like Excel and OpenOffice Calc.
Larger data volumes and usage
constraints may require the use of relational database
management systems (RDBMS) for
linked data tables like ORACLE or mySQL, or a Geographic
Information System (GIS) for
geospatial data layers like ArcGIS, GRASS, or QGIS.
The details about how the data will be organized and managed
could fill many pages of text
and, in fact, should be recorded as the project evolves.
However, in drafting a DMP, it is most
helpful to initially focus on the types and, possibly, names of
the products that will be used.
The software tools that are employed in a project should be
amenable to the anticipated tasks.
A spreadsheet program, for example, would be insufficient for a
project in which terabytes of
data are expected to be generated, and a sophisticated RDMBS
may be overkill for a project in
which only a few small data tables will be created. Furthermore,
projects dependent upon a GIS
or RDBMS may entail considerable software costs and design
and programming effort that
should be planned and budgeted for upfront (see Rules 9 and
10). Depending on sponsor
requirements and space constraints, it may also be useful to
specify conventions for file nam-
ing, persistent unique identifiers (e.g., Digital Object Identifiers
[DOIs]), and versioning con-
trol (for both software and data products).

Rule 4: Explain How the Data Will Be Documented
Rows and columns of numbers and characters have little to no
meaning unless they are docu-
mented in some fashion. Metadata—the details about what,
where, when, why, and how the
data were collected, processed, and interpreted—provide the
information that enables data and
files to be discovered, used, and properly cited. Metadata
include descriptions of how data and
files are named, physically structured, and stored as well as
details about the experiments, ana-
lytical methods, and research context. It is generally the case
that the utility and longevity of
data relate directly to how complete and comprehensive the
metadata are. The amount of effort
devoted to creating comprehensive metadata may vary
substantially based on the complexity,
types, and volume of data.
A sound documentation strategy can be based on three steps.
First, identify the types of
information that should be captured to enable a researcher like
you to discover, access, inter-
pret, use, and cite your data. Second, determine whether there is
a community-based metadata
schema or standard (i.e., preferred sets of metadata elements)
that can be adopted. As exam-
ples, variations of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative Abstract
Model are used for many types
of data and other resources, ISO (International Organization for
Standardization) 19115 is
used for geospatial data, ISA-Tab file format is used for
experimental metadata, and Ecological
Metadata Language (EML) is used for many types of
environmental data. In many cases, a spe-
cific metadata content standard will be recommended by a target

data repository, archive, or
domain professional organization. Third, identify software tools
that can be employed to create
and manage metadata content (e.g., Metavist, Morpho). In lieu
of existing tools, text files (e.g.,
readme.txt) that include the relevant metadata can be included
as headers to the data files.
A best practice is to assign a responsible person to maintain an
electronic lab notebook, in
which all project details are maintained. The notebook should
ideally be routinely reviewed
and revised by another team member, as well as duplicated (see
Rules 6 and 9). The metadata
recorded in the notebook provide the basis for the metadata that
will be associated with data
products that are to be stored, reused, and shared.
Rule 5: Describe How Data Quality Will Be Assured
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) refer to the
processes that are employed to
measure, assess, and improve the quality of products (e.g., data,
software, etc.). It may be neces-
sary to follow specific QA/QC guidelines depending on the
nature of a study and research
sponsorship; such requirements, if they exist, are normally
stated in the RFP. Regardless, it is
good practice to describe the QA/QC measures that you plan to
employ in your project. Such
measures may encompass training activities, instrument
calibration and verification tests, dou-

ble-blind data entry, and statistical and visualization approaches
to error detection. Simple
graphical data exploration approaches (e.g., scatterplots,
mapping) can be invaluable for detect-
ing anomalies and errors.
Rule 6: Present a Sound Data Storage and Preservation Strategy
A common mistake of inexperienced (and even many
experienced) researchers is to assume
that their personal computer and website will live forever. They
fail to routinely duplicate their
data during the course of the project and do not see the benefit
of archiving data in a secure
location for the long term. Inevitably, though, papers get lost,
hard disks crash, URLs break,
and tapes and other media degrade, with the result that the data
become unavailable for use by
both the originators and others. Thus, data storage and
preservation are central to any good
data management plan. Give careful consideration to three
questions:
1. How long will the data be accessible?
2. How will data be stored and protected over the duration of
the project?
3. How will data be preserved and made available for future
use?
The answer to the first question depends on several factors.
First, determine whether the
research sponsor or your home institution have any specific
requirements. Usually, all data do
not need to be retained, and those that do need not be retained
forever. Second, consider the

intrinsic value of the data. Observations of phenomena that
cannot be repeated (e.g., astronom-
ical and environmental events) may need to be stored
indefinitely. Data from easily repeatable
experiments may only need to be stored for a short period.
Simulations may only need to have
the source code, initial conditions, and verification data stored.
In addition to explaining how
data will be selected for short-term storage and long-term
preservation, remember to also high-
light your plans for the accompanying metadata and related
code and algorithms that will
allow others to interpret and use the data (see Rule 4).
Develop a sound plan for storing and protecting data over the
life of the project. A good
approach is to store at least three copies in at least two
geographically distributed locations
(e.g., original location such as a desktop computer, an external
hard drive, and one or more
remote sites) and to adopt a regular schedule for duplicating the
data (i.e., backup). Remote
locations may include an offsite collaborator’s laboratory, an
institutional repository (e.g., your
departmental, university, or organization’s repository if located
in a different building), or a
commercial service, such as those offered by Amazon, Dropbox,
Google, and Microsoft. The
backup schedule should also include testing to ensure that
stored data files can be retrieved.
Your best bet for being able to access the data 20 years beyond
the life of the project will
likely require a more robust solution (i.e., question 3 above).
Seek advice from colleagues and
librarians to identify an appropriate data repository for your

research domain. Many disci-
plines maintain specific repositories such as GenBank for
nucleotide sequence data and the
Protein Data Bank for protein sequences. Likewise, many
universities and organizations also
host institutional repositories, and there are numerous general
science data repositories such as
Dryad (http://datadryad.org/), figshare (http://figshare.com/),
and Zenodo (http://zenodo.org/
). Alternatively, one can easily search for discipline-specific
and general-use repositories via
online catalogs such as http://www.re3data.org/ (i.e., REgistry
of REsearch data REpositories)
and http://www.biosharing.org (i.e., BioSharing). It is often
considered good practice to deposit
code in a host repository like GitHub that specializes in source
code management as well as
some types of data like large files and tabular data (see
https://github.com/). Make note of any
repository-specific policies (e.g., data privacy and security,
requirements to submit associated
code) and costs for data submission, curation, and backup that
should be included in the DMP
and the proposal budget.
Rule 7: Define the Project’s Data Policies
Despite what may be a natural proclivity to avoid policy and
legal matters, researchers cannot
afford to do so when it comes to data. Research sponsors,
institutions that host research, and

scientists all have a role in and obligation for promoting
responsible and ethical behavior. Con-
sequently, many research sponsors require that DMPs include
explicit policy statements about
how data will be managed and shared. Such policies include:
• licensing or sharing arrangements that pertain to the use of
preexisting materials;
• plans for retaining, licensing, sharing, and embargoing (i.e.,
limiting use by others for a
period of time) data, code, and other materials; and
• legal and ethical restrictions on access and use of human
subject and other sensitive data.
Unfortunately, policies and laws often appear or are, in fact,
confusing or contradictory.
Furthermore, policies that apply within a single organization or
in a given country may not
apply elsewhere. When in doubt, consult your institution’s
office of sponsored research, the rel-
evant Institutional Review Board, or the program officer(s)
assigned to the program to which
you are applying for support.
Despite these caveats, it is usually possible to develop a sound
policy by following a few sim-
ple steps. First, if preexisting materials, such as data and code,
are being used, identify and
include a description of the relevant licensing and sharing
arrangements in your DMP. Explain
how third party software or libraries are used in the creation and
release of new software. Note
that proprietary and intellectual property rights (IPR) laws and
export control regulations may

limit the extent to which code and software can be shared.
Second, explain how and when the data and other research
products will be made available.
Be sure to explain any embargo periods or delays such as
publication or patent reasons. A com-
mon practice is to make data broadly available at the time of
publication, or in the case of grad-
uate students, at the time the graduate degree is awarded.
Whenever possible, apply standard
rights waivers or licenses, such as those established by Open
Data Commons (ODC) and Crea-
tive Commons (CC), that guide subsequent use of data and other
intellectual products (see
http://creativecommons.org/ and
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/summary/). The
CC0 license and the ODC Public Domain Dedication and
License, for example, promote unre-
stricted sharing and data use. Nonstandard licenses and waivers
can be a significant barrier to
reuse.
Third, explain how human subject and other sensitive data will
be treated (e.g., see http://
privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/ for information pertaining to
human health research regula-
tions set forth in the US Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act). Many research
sponsors require that investigators engaged in human subject
research approaches seek or
receive prior approval from the appropriate Institutional Review
Board before a grant proposal

http://datadryad.org/
http://figshare.com/
http://zenodo.org/
http://www.re3data.org/
http://www.biosharing.org/
https://github.com/
http://creativecommons.org/
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/summary/
http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/
http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/
is submitted and, certainly, receive approval before the actual
research is undertaken. Approv-
als may require that informed consent be granted, that data are
anonymized, or that use is
restricted in some fashion.
Rule 8: Describe How the Data Will Be Disseminated
The best-laid preservation plans and data sharing policies do not
necessarily mean that a proj-
ect’s data will see the light of day. Reviewers and research
sponsors will be reassured that this
will not be the case if you have spelled out how and when the
data products will be dissemi-
nated to others, especially people outside your research group.
There are passive and active
ways to disseminate data. Passive approaches include posting
data on a project or personal
website or mailing or emailing data upon request, although the
latter can be problematic when
dealing with large data and bandwidth constraints. More active,
robust, and preferred
approaches include: (1) publishing the data in an open
repository or archive (see Rule 6); (2)
submitting the data (or subsets thereof) as appendices or

supplements to journal articles, such
as is commonly done with the PLOS family of journals; and (3)
publishing the data, metadata,
and relevant code as a “data paper” [5]. Data papers can be
published in various journals,
including Scientific Data (from Nature Publishing Group), the
GeoScience Data Journal (a
Wiley publication on behalf of the Royal Meteorological
Society), and GigaScience (a joint
BioMed Central and Springer publication that supports big data
from many biology and life
science disciplines).
A good dissemination plan includes a few concise statements.
State when, how, and what
data products will be made available. Generally, making data
available to the greatest extent
and with the fewest possible restrictions at the time of
publication or project completion is
encouraged. The more proactive approaches described above are
greatly preferred over mailing
or emailing data and will likely save significant time and money
in the long run, as the data
curation and sharing will be supported by the appropriate
journals and repositories or archives.
Furthermore, many journals and repositories provide guidelines
and mechanisms for how oth-
ers can appropriately cite your data, including digital object
identifiers, and recommended cita-
tion formats; this helps ensure that you receive credit for the
data products you create. Keep in
mind that the data will be more usable and interpretable by you
and others if the data are dis-
seminated using standard, nonproprietary approaches and if the
data are accompanied by
metadata and associated code that is used for data processing.

Rule 9: Assign Roles and Responsibilities
A comprehensive DMP clearly articulates the roles and
responsibilities of every named individ-
ual and organization associated with the project. Roles may
include data collection, data entry,
QA/QC, metadata creation and management, backup, data
preparation and submission to an
archive, and systems administration. Consider time allocations
and levels of expertise needed
by staff. For small to medium size projects, a single student or
postdoctoral associate who is
collecting and processing the data may easily assume most or
all of the data management tasks.
In contrast, large, multi-investigator projects may benefit from
having a dedicated staff person
(s) assigned to data management.
Treat your DMP as a living document and revisit it frequently
(e.g., quarterly basis). Assign
a project team member to revise the plan, reflecting any new
changes in protocols and policies.
It is good practice to track any changes in a revision history that
lists the dates that any changes
were made to the plan along with the details about those
changes, including who made them.
Reviewers and sponsors may be especially interested in
knowing how adherence to the data
management plan will be assessed and demonstrated, as well as
how, and by whom, data will

be managed and made available after the project concludes.
With respect to the latter, it is
often sufficient to include a pointer to the policies and
procedures that are followed by the
repository where you plan to deposit your data. Be sure to note
any contributions by nonpro-
ject staff, such as any repository, systems administration,
backup, training, or high-perfor-
mance computing support provided by your institution.
Rule 10: Prepare a Realistic Budget
Creating, managing, publishing, and sharing high-quality data is
as much a part of the 21st
century research enterprise as is publishing the results. Data
management is not new—rather,
it is something that all researchers already do. Nonetheless, a
common mistake in developing a
DMP is forgetting to budget for the activities. Data management
takes time and costs money in
terms of software, hardware, and personnel. Review your plan
and make sure that there are
lines in the budget to support the people that manage the data
(see Rule 9) as well as pay for
the requisite hardware, software, and services. Check with the
preferred data repository (see
Rule 6) so that requisite fees and services are budgeted
appropriately. As space allows, facilitate
reviewers by pointing to specific lines or sections in the budget
and budget justification pages.
Experienced reviewers will be on the lookout for unfunded
components, but they will also rec-
ognize that greater or lesser investments in data management
depend upon the nature of the
research and the types of data.

Conclusion
A data management plan should provide you and others with an
easy-to-follow road map that
will guide and explain how data are treated throughout the life
of the project and after the proj-
ect is completed. The ten simple rules presented here are
designed to aid you in writing a good
plan that is logical and comprehensive, that will pass muster
with reviewers and research spon-
sors, and that you can put into practice should your project be
funded. A DMP provides a vehi-
cle for conveying information to and setting expectations for
your project team during both
the proposal and project planning stages, as well as during
project team meetings later, when
the project is underway. That said, no plan is perfect. Plans do
become better through use. The
best plans are “living documents” that are periodically reviewed
and revised as necessary
according to needs and any changes in protocols (e.g., metadata,
QA/QC, storage), policy, tech-
nology, and staff, as well as reused, in that the most successful
parts of the plan are incorpo-
rated into subsequent projects. A public, machine-readable, and
openly licensed DMP is much
more likely to be incorporated into future projects and to have
higher impact; such increased
transparency in the research funding process (e.g., publication
of proposals and DMPs) can
assist researchers and sponsors in discovering data and potential
collaborators, educating
about data management, and monitoring policy compliance [6].
Acknowledgments
This article is the outcome of a series of training workshops
provided for new faculty, postdoc-

toral associates, and graduate students.
References
1. Bourne PE, Chalupa LM (2006) Ten simple rules for getting
grants. PLoS Comput Biol 2(2): e12.
PMID: 16501664
2. Zhang W. (2014) Ten simple rules for writing research
papers. PLOS Comput Biol 10(1):e1003453.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003453 PMID: 24499936
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16501664
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003453
3. Bourne PE. (2007) Ten simple rules for making good oral
presentations. PLOS Comput Biol 3(4): e77.
PMID: 17500596
4. Goodman A, Pepe A, Blocker AW, Borgman CL, Cranmer K,
et al. (2014) Ten Simple Rules for the
Care and Feeding of Scientific Data. PLoS Comput Biol 10(4):
e1003542. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.
1003542 PMID: 24763340
5. Chavan V, Penev L (2011) The data paper: a mechanism to
incentivize data publishing in biodiversity
science. BMC Bioinf 12 (Suppl 15):S2.
6. Mietchen D (2014) The transformative nature of transparency
in research funding. PLoS Biol 12(12):

e1002027. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027 PMID: 25549343
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002027
Copyright of PLoS Computational Biology is the property of
Public Library of Science and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Reproduced with permission of the copy.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Reproduced with permission of the copy.docx (20)

More from audeleypearl (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Reproduced with permission of the copy.docx