FORCE11 and COPE release recommendations on data publishing ethics for researchers, publishers, and editors.
You know an article exists, but cannot read its language. So you go to our tool, paste the Digital Object Identifier of the article and get a list with translated versions. You manage your articles in a reference manager and notice that an article on your reading list is now also available in your mother tongue. You are really enthusiastic about a new article that was just published…
In this episode, we are talking about “open code” or “open source” and the benefits of making your code available in a peer review process and having it checked. Our guest is Dr. Stephen Eglen from the department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. Together with Dr. Daniel Nüst, from …
“Open scholarship is growing in importance as a way of ensuring that there is global participation in research, improved quality and efficiency of education and science, and faster economic and social progress.
Over the next two years, the EIFL Open Access Programme will support open scholarship by focusing on four key areas: open access policies, open science training for early career researchers, sustainable open access journals and repositories, and Open Educational Resources….”
The RECODE project is an EU funded project designed to compile a set of generic guidelines for EU funders to use when forming research data sharing policies. The premise is that publicly funded data should be openly accessible to the public, because they have paid for it. The workshop signalled the end of the first work-package of the project. This studied stakeholder values and ecosystems, that is individual’s and scientific groups’ concepts of open access to data and an examination of current good practice in the area. Other topics such as the ethical considerations and the technological solutions of sharing data are to be tackled in other work-packages. This workshop was of particular interest to the CRC and Sherpa Services because we have recently conducted research into journal research data (the JoRD project; http://jordproject.wordpress.com) and because of the implications for funder’s policies in SHERPA/JULIET.
It was with some relief that we found that our findings about stakeholder perspectives were broadly the same as the RECODE findings; it shows that we were right! I gathered some extra insights from presentations by representatives from participants of the RECODE case studies. For example, there is not a clear difference of opinion on opening out research data between scientific disciplines, but there are many opinions within each discipline. It reminded me of the adage “when you put two academics together you get three different opinions”. It seems to me that it would be easier to sort the factions across disciplinary lines into “pro data sharing”, “contra data sharing” and “no-one would want our data because it is boring”. Another major problem of sharing data that became apparent is that the person who can interpret the data best is the person who collected it because data needs a context. In other words, the knowledge that the data reveals is stuck inside someone’s head, and it is very hard to make that openly accessible. This is the knowledge management problem of intellectual capital. One of the RECODE team expressed it as, a lot of knowledge is lost when you lose another post-doc.
Other issues were raised about technological infrastructure, data licensing, data citation, lack of standardisation of practice within the same fields, the simply practicality of opening huge data sets (the word peta-bytes was bandied about) and whether some sort of reward to an academic could be triggered for openly sharing their data. Overall, the workshop raised some interesting points, and I do not envy the RECODE project team in trying to reach a generic set of open research data guidelines for funders. This is a project that we will follow with great interest.
You can find more about the RECODE project on their website http://recodeproject.eu/
Journal Research Data Policy Bank (JoRD) will shed light on the policies devised by academic publishers to promote linkage between journal articles and underlying research data.
This initiative, is funded by JISC as part of its Digital Infrastructure Programme; it runs from July to December 2012. This work is being carried out by the Centre for Research Communication, University of Nottingham, working with Research Information Network and Professor Paul Sturges.
The aim of the JoRD Policy Bank project is to conduct a feasibility study into the scope and shape of a sustainable service to collate and summarise journal data policies. The project will deliver requirements and specifications for a service that will provide researchers, managers of research data and other stakeholders with an easy source of reference to understand and comply with the research data policies of journals and publishers.
Through maintaining a firm focus upon research literature and stakeholder consultations, the project aims to:
- identify and consult with a wide range of stakeholders, publishers and others, and develop a detailed set of stakeholder requirements and service specifications;
- investigate the current state of data sharing policies within journals and shed light on how journals are addressing this crucial question;
- scope and deliver recommendations on the shape of a central service that will (i) summarise journal research data policies; and (ii) provide a ready reference source of easily accessible, standardised, accurate and clear guidance and information relating to the journal policy landscape for research data;
- provide models to establish the business framework that will allow the committed relationships necessary to deliver such a service on a long term basis;
- provide service sustainability models determining how the long term operation of such a service can be sustained.
JoRD Blog and Project Website (http://jordproject.wordpress.com/)
Azhar, Jane and Melanie