“The draft of the Presidential Policy on University of California Research Data is now open for a second round of systemwide review. The purposes of the policy are to 1) clarify ownership of and responsibility for research data generated during the course of University Research, 2) encourage active data management practices, and 3) provide guidance with respect to procedures when a researcher leaves the University.
Ownership of research data by the UC Regents is a long-standing precept originally articulated in Regulation 4 (Academic Personnel Manual 020), where it states “Notebooks and other original records of the research are the property of the University.” Not since Regulation 4’s issuance in 1958, however, has any other systemwide UC policy provided further information on this stance. To provide more guidance to the UC community, the Research Policy and Analysis (RPAC) unit within Academic Affairs at the Office of the President began work in 2017 on a draft research data policy document, originally consulting with a small advisory group of representatives from UC San Diego, UCLA, UC Berkeley, the Office of General Counsel, and California Digital Library. …”
“In January 2023, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) will begin requiring most of the 300,000 researchers and 2,500 institutions it funds annually to include a data-management plan in their grant applications — and to eventually make their data publicly available.
Researchers who spoke to Nature largely applaud the open-science principles underlying the policy — and the global example it sets. But some have concerns about the logistical challenges that researchers and their institutions will face in complying with it. Namely, they worry that the policy might exacerbate existing inequities in the science-funding landscape and could be a burden for early-career scientists, who do the lion’s share of data collection and are already stretched thin….
Such a seismic shift in practice has left some researchers worried about the amount of work that the mandate will require when it becomes effective….
Others worry that data-management activities will further sap funds from under-resourced labs. Although the policy outlines certain fees that researchers can add to their proposed budgets to offset the costs of compliance with the mandate, it doesn’t specify what criteria the NIH will use to grant these requests….
Despite its potential pitfalls, Ross thinks that the policy will have a ripple effect that will persuade smaller funding agencies and industry to adopt similar changes. “This policy establishes what people expect from clinical research,” he says. “It’s essentially saying the culture of research needs to change.” ”
“In response to a 2013 federal mandate the NASA Plan for Increasing Access to the Results of Scientific Research was developed to guide the management of and access to research data and peer-reviewed publications. Accordingly, the NASA Guidebook for Proposers describes the requirement that all proposals submitted under a NASA funding opportunity are required to submit a Data Management Plan. This website contains information and links that NASA’s Planetary Data System (PDS) believes will be helpful in preparing your proposal and your Data Management Plan, or simply as you develop a plan for archiving your data even if not as part of a funded proposal. If you have additional questions contact either the PDS or the relevant NASA Program Officer.
The intent of this website is to provide potential data providers with an overview of the appropriateness of the PDS as an archive for their data, the procedure for requesting letters of support for grant proposals, and the steps that a data provider would take in the generation of a PDS-compliant archive….”
“Imagine a dream scenario for Open Data advocates: A working field station that supports scientists with research data management practices that allow for their data to be used beyond the initial purpose of the project! Tetiaroa is such a place and the FAIR Island Project supports researchers as we translate the broader FAIR principles into optimal data policies and technical infrastructure by leveraging RDA outputs including standards that support networked, machine-actionable Data Management Plans (DMPs), and Persistent Identifiers (PIDs). Leveraging the global research data management community’s work, FAIR Island provides a real-world example where data and knowledge collected on Tetiaroa will be curated and made openly available as quickly as possible….”
“This response to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s “Request for Information To Improve Federal Scientific Integrity Policies” is submitted on behalf of the Open Research Funders Group….
The Open Research Funders Group is supportive of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s commitment to explore good practices Federal agencies can adopt to improve scientific integrity, promote transparency, prioritize evidence-based decision making, and promote equity. We believe that the promotion of and adherence to open science principles is a catalytic enabling strategy in support of these goals. Specifically, we recommend that the OSTP prioritize making as much of the research lifecycle openly available to access and reuse. This includes, but is not limited to, preregistrations, protocols, preprints, articles, data, code, and software. The rationale is simple. Research cannot be considered reliable unless it can be tested, replicated, and built upon. Making critical components of the research lifecycle unavailable hampers OSTP’s pursuit of scientific integrity at best, and renders it impossible at worst. Limiting access to research outputs has the further effect of rendering science opaque, which negatively impacts public trust in the research endeavor writ large….”
“The Open Research Funders Group (ORFG) is pleased to submit a formal response to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s “Request for Information To Improve Federal Scientific Integrity Policies”. The comments, which may be found in their entirety here, encourage the federal government to prioritize making as much of the research lifecycle openly available to access and reuse. This includes, but is not limited to, preregistrations, protocols, preprints, articles, data, code, and software. The rationale is simple. Research cannot be considered reliable unless it can be tested, replicated, and built upon. Making critical components of the research lifecycle unavailable hampers OSTP’s pursuit of scientific integrity at best, and renders it impossible at worst. Limiting access to research outputs has the further effect of rendering science opaque, which negatively impacts public trust in the research endeavor writ large….”
“The beneficiaries must ensure open access to peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to their results. In particular, they must ensure that:
– at the latest at the time of publication, a machine-readable electronic copy of the published version or the final peer-reviewed manuscript accepted for publication, is deposited in a trusted repository for scientific publications
– immediate open access is provided to the deposited publication via the repository, under the latest available version of the Creative Commons Attribution International Public Licence (CC BY) or a licence with equivalent rights; for monographs and other long-text formats, the licence may exclude commercial uses and derivative works (e.g. CC BY-NC, CC BY-ND) and
– information is given via the repository about any research output or any other tools and instruments needed to validate the conclusions of the scientific publication.
Beneficiaries (or authors) must retain sufficient intellectual property rights to comply with the open access requirements….”
“The national training action “Open science: towards shared knowledge” will be held on October 19 and 20, 2021 in Meudon . Proposed by the DDOR, it is organized jointly with the Inist, the CCSD, the Renatis and Médici networks, and the CNRS data workshop.
This ANF is mainly aimed at information professionals who have a crucial role to play in supporting scientific communities in the open science movement. It is one of the stages in the implementation of the CNRS roadmap and research data plan”
“On behalf of the leaders of 125 major research libraries, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) is pleased to see that the US House of Representatives included the following policies in the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the Future Act (H.R. 2225), which center researchers and create public value by promoting the availability of publicly funded research:
Criteria for trusted open repositories to be used by federally funded researchers sharing data, software, and code. According to the House bill, the criteria would be developed with input from the scientific community. Research libraries look forward to partnering with NSF and the scientific community to develop these criteria.
Data management plans to facilitate public access to NSF-funded research products, including data, software, and code….
We strongly support public access to publications resulting from NSF-funded research with zero embargo, and we are heartened to see language in the Senate-passed US Innovation and Competition Act (S. 1260) requiring the publication of federally funded research data within 12 months, “preferably sooner.” Making research outputs publicly available to the widest possible audience in the timeliest manner possible, and machine-accessible for computation, is critical for developing scientific insights and solutions for public health, climate, technological advancement, and more….”
ARL is heartened to see Congress acknowledge the necessity of machine-readable data management plans (DMPs) and open repositories in supporting the academic research enterprise. At a National Science Foundation–funded conference on effective data practices in December 2019, ARL, along with the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and the California Digital Library, convened stakeholders including university research officers, scientists, and librarians. Conference participants agreed that data management planning is important for sharing and use of research data and outputs. Participants suggested that the ability to update plans (“just in time”) across the project life cycle and as part of progress reporting would accelerate the value and adoption of DMPs among researchers, beyond what is required for compliance.
ARL encourages the development of a collaborative set of data repository criteria. Coordination among federal agencies will be necessary, as will stakeholder input from researchers, repository managers, librarians, and others. ARL looks forward to continuing these conversations and building upon work already underway within groups such as the Confederation of Open Access Repositories, the Research Data Alliance, and the World Data System….”
“Advancing public access to research data is important to improving transparency and reproducibility of scientific results, increasing scientific rigor and public trust in science, and — most importantly — accelerating the pace of discovery and innovation through the open sharing of research results. Additionally, it is vital that institutions develop and implement policies now to ensure consistency of data management plans across their campuses to guarantee full compliance with federal research agency data sharing requirements. Beyond the establishment of policies, universities must invest in the infrastructure and support necessary to achieve the desired aspirations and aims of the policies. The open sharing of the results of scientific research is a value our two associations have long fought to protect and preserve. It is also a value we must continue to uphold at all levels within our universities. This will mean overcoming the various institutional and cultural impediments which have, at times, hampered the open sharing of research data….”
“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….”
“The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) (the agencies) are pleased to announce the launch of the Tri-Agency Research Data Management Policy. The agencies would like to thank the stakeholders and partners who contributed to the policy’s development….
The policy includes requirements related to institutional research data management (RDM) strategies, data management plans (DMPs), and data deposit. It is aligned with the data deposit requirement in the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications (2015), CIHR’s Health Research and Health-Related Data Framework (2017), the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans—TCPS 2 (2018), and the agencies’ Setting new directions to support Indigenous research and research training in Canada 2019-2022 (2019)….”
“Question What are the rates of declared and actual sharing of clinical trial data after the medical journals’ implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors data sharing statement requirement?
Findings In this cross-sectional study of 487 clinical trials published in JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, 334 articles (68.6%) declared data sharing. Only 2 (0.6%) individual-participant data sets were actually deidentified and publicly available on a journal website, and among the 89 articles declaring that individual-participant data would be stored in secure repositories, data from only 17 articles were found in the respective repositories as of April 10, 2020.
Meaning These findings suggest that there is a wide gap between declared and actual sharing of clinical trial data.”