ARK Alliance – Home of the Archival Resource Key (ARK)

“Archival Resource Keys (ARKs) serve as persistent identifiers, or stable, trusted references for information objects. Among other things, they aim to be web addresses (URLs) that don’t return 404 Page Not Found errors. The ARK Alliance is an open global community supporting the ARK infrastructure on behalf of research and scholarship.

End users, especially researchers, rely on ARKs for long term access to the global scientific and cultural record. Since 2001 some 8.2 billion ARKs have been created by over 780 organizations — libraries, data centers, archives, museums, publishers, government agencies, and vendors.

ARKs are open, mainstream, non-paywalled, decentralized persistent identifiers that you can start creating in under 48 hours. They identify anything digital, physical, or abstract….”

Open Scholarship Support Guide.pdf(Shared)- Adobe Document Cloud

“Steps to Support Open Scholarship

Open scholarship entails a culture shift in how research is conducted in universities. It requires action on the part of university administration, working in concert with faculty, sponsors and disciplinary communities.  Universities should consider steps in three areas:

•  Policies:  Language and guidance should be reviewed for alignment with open scholarship, in particular: (1) academic hiring, review, tenure and promotion (valuing diverse types of research products; metrics that  incentivize the open dissemination of articles, data, and other research outputs; and valuing collaborative research); (2) intellectual property (ownership, licensing and distribution of data, software, materials and publications); (3) research data protection (for data to be stored and shared through repositories); (4) attribution (recognizing full range of contributions);  and (5) privacy (insuring that privacy obligations are met). 

•  Services and Training:  Researchers need support to assure that data and other research objects are managed according to FAIR Principles: findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable.  While the specific solution must be tailored to the discipline and research, common standards, including Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), must be followed.

•  Infrastructure:  Archival storage is required for data, materials, specimens and publications to permit reuse.  Searchable portals are needed to register research products where they can be located and accessed. Universities can recognize efficiencies by utilizing external resources (including existing disciplinary repositories) and by developing shared resources that span the institution when external resources do not exist.

Presidents and provosts are encouraged to work with their academic senates to create an open scholarship initiative that promotes institution-wide actions supporting open scholarship practices, while remaining sufficiently flexible to accommodate disciplinary differences and norms….”

Day One Project: Re-envisioning Reporting of Scientific Methods

“The information contained in the methods section of the overwhelming majority of research publications is insufficient to definitively evaluate research practices, let alone reproduce the work. Publication—and subsequent reuse—of detailed scientific methodologies can save researchers time and money, and can accelerate the pace of research overall. However, there is no existing mechanism for collective action to improve reporting of scientific methods. The Biden-Harris Administration should direct research-funding agencies to support development of new standards for reporting scientific methods. These standards would (1) address ongoing challenges in scientific reproducibility, and (2) benefit our nation’s scientific enterprise by improving research quality, reliability, and efficiency. …

Common standards are already proving invaluable for the recognition and reuse of open data. The same principles could be applied to open methods….

Compliance could be achieved through a combination of “push” incentives from publishers and “pull” incentives from funders. As is already happening for open-data standards, federal agencies can require researchers to adhere to open-methods standards in order to receive federal funding, and scientific journals can require researchers to adhere to open-methods standards in order to be eligible for publication….”  

Data in Motion: New Approaches to Advancing Scientific, Engineering and Medical Progress: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief | The National Academies Press

Abstract:  The movement toward open science, data sharing, and increased transparency is being propelled by the need to rapidly address critical scientific challenges, such as the global COVID-19 public health crisis. This movement has supported growth in fields, such as artificial intelligence (AI), which has demonstrated potential to accelerate science, engineering, and medicine in new and exciting ways. To further advance innovation around these new approaches, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Board on Research Data and Information convened a public virtual workshop on October 14-15, 2020, to address how researchers in different domains are utilizing data that undergo repeated processing, often in real-time, to accelerate scientific discovery. Although these topics were not originally part of the workshop, the impact of COVID-19 prompted the planning committee to add sessions on early career researchers’ perspectives, as well as rapid review and publishing activities as a result of the pandemic. Participants also explored the advances needed to enable future progress in areas such as AI, cyberinfrastructure, standards, and policies. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussion of the workshop.

 

Accelerating Standards for 3D Data to Improve Long-Term Usability – Association of Research Libraries

“3D data means different things to different people. Most are probably familiar with highly processed outputs, like the previous examples, which often lack documentation describing how the data has been created and processed. In fact, depending on the creation method, the creator may not even have access to the processing information due to the use of proprietary tools. However, even when 3D data is well documented through the best efforts of a creator, data steward, or repository, the data’s description is generally bespoke, and the terms used are ambiguous. This gives 3D data a steep slope to climb to achieve findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR-ness).

The use of 3D technologies has grown exponentially in the last 10 years. As a result, research libraries have invested significant infrastructure, services, and people into supporting research, teaching principles, and modeling applications of 3D technologies and data. Research libraries have begun creating and capturing 3D data using a variety of methods and formats, establishing 3D immersion labs, opening 3D printing shops within their library spaces, and adding 3D data to their repositories. As use of these tools and services has become more widespread, appropriate stewardship of the digital data is critical for ongoing accessibility, but not yet widely established or agreed upon. Enter the Community Standards for 3D Data Preservation (CS3DP) initiative.

Organized by colleagues at Washington University in St. Louis, the University of Michigan, and Iowa State University, CS3DP aims to be an open, radically inclusive, and collaborative community invested in creating standards. Composed of working groups from national and international participants, the CS3DP community has increased awareness and accelerated the creation and adoption of best practices, metadata standards, and policies for the stewardship of 3D data….”

OA Switchboard Reporting Made Easy

“We took a step back to speak with some of our partners about the rationale behind the need for a standardised, structured and validated data format, delivering real-time, situational authoritative data from the source. We’re grateful they agreed to share their views and experiences. These partners are Stacey Burke (American Physiological Society), Colleen Campbell (Max Planck Digital Library, ESAC, OA2020), Todd Carpenter (NISO), Helen Dobson (Jisc), Matthew Goddard (Iowa State University), Marten Stavenga (John Benjamins Publishing Company) and Ivo Verbeek (Elitex).

 

We asked our interviewees to answer five questions:

What is the underlying need for ‘reporting’?

What is the minimum set of metadata required to achieve that goal?

What sources (systems) capture and manage these (meta)data? Is it possible to extract the data?

What makes a ‘standard’? What’s the benefit of a ‘standard’? How to get there?

How does the OA Switchboard make reporting ‘easy’? How does it work, end-to-end and real-time? …”

Crossref expects rapid growth in use of unique grant identifiers – Research Professional News

“A representative of Crossref has said that the not-for-profit scholarly communications organisation is expecting a rapid expansion in the number of research grants that are allocated unique identifiers to allow anyone to easily search for resulting papers or data.

Speaking at the annual conference of the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators on 15 April, Rachael Lammey, head of special programmes at Crossref, said the organisation had already labelled just under 17,000 grants with unique codes known as digital object identifiers….”

A Brave New PID: DMP-IDs

“Despite the challenges over the last year, we are pleased to share some exciting news about launching the brave new PID, DMP IDs. Two years ago we set out a plan in collaboration with the University of California Curation Center and the DMPTool to bring DMP IDs to life. The work was part of the NSF Eager grant DMP Roadmap: Making Data Management Plans Actionable and allowed us to explore the potential of machine-actionable DMPs as a means to transform the DMP into a critical component of networked research data management.

The plan was to develop a persistent identifier (PID) for Data Management Plans (DMPs). We already have PIDs for many entities, such as articles, datasets etc. (DOIs), people (such as ORCID iDs) and places (such as ROR IDs). We knew that it would be important for DataCite to support the community in establishing a unique persistent identifier for DMPs. Until now, we had no PID for the document that “describes data that will be acquired or produced during research; how the data will be managed, described, and stored, what standards you will use, and how data will be handled and protected during and after the completion of the project”. There was no such thing as a DMP-ID; and today that changes….”