“Create machine actionable DMPs.
Configure to best fit your discipline.
Link to EOSC components out of the box.
Share easily in your repository….”
“Create machine actionable DMPs.
Configure to best fit your discipline.
Link to EOSC components out of the box.
Share easily in your repository….”
“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….”
From Google’s English:
“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….”
“Data Management Plans
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.”
Abstract: Data management plans (DMPs) have increasingly been encouraged as a key component of institutional and funding body policy. Although DMPs necessarily place administrative burden on researchers, proponents claim that DMPs have myriad benefits, including enhanced research data quality, increased rates of data sharing, and institutional planning and compliance benefits.
In this article, we explore the international history of DMPs and describe institutional and funding body DMP policy. We find that economic and societal benefits from presumed increased rates of data sharing was the original driver of mandating DMPs by funding bodies. Today, 86% of UK Research Councils and 63% of US funding bodies require submission of a DMP with funding applications. Given that no major Australian funding bodies require DMP submission, it is of note that 37% of Australian universities have taken the initiative to internally mandate DMPs. Institutions both within Australia and internationally frequently promote the professional benefits of DMP use, and endorse DMPs as ‘best practice’. We analyse one such typical DMP implementation at a major Australian institution, finding that DMPs have low levels of apparent translational value. Indeed, an extensive literature review suggests there is very limited published systematic evidence that DMP use has any tangible benefit for researchers, institutions or funding bodies.
We are therefore led to question why DMPs have become the go-to tool for research data professionals and advocates of good data practice. By delineating multiple use-cases and highlighting the need for DMPs to be fit for intended purpose, we question the view that a good DMP is necessarily that which encompasses the entire data lifecycle of a project. Finally, we summarise recent developments in the DMP landscape, and note a positive shift towards evidence-based research management through more researcher-centric, educative, and integrated DMP services.
“The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is issuing this final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing (DMS Policy) to promote the management and sharing of scientific data generated from NIH-funded or conducted research. This Policy establishes the requirements of submission of Data Management and Sharing Plans (hereinafter Plans) and compliance with NIH Institute, Center, or Office (ICO)-approved Plans. It also emphasizes the importance of good data management practices and establishes the expectation for maximizing the appropriate sharing of scientific data generated from NIH-funded or conducted research, with justified limitations or exceptions. This Policy applies to research funded or conducted by NIH that results in the generation of scientific data….”
“Today a group of research library and higher education leadership associations released Implementing Effective Data Practices: Stakeholder Recommendations for Collaborative Research Support. In this new report, experts from library, research, and scientific communities provide key recommendations for effective data practices to support a more open research ecosystem. In December 2019, an invitational conference was convened by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the California Digital Library (CDL), the Association of American Universities (AAU), and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU). The conference was sponsored by the US National Science Foundation (NSF).
The conference focused on designing guidelines for (1) using persistent identifiers (PIDs) for data sets, and (2) creating machine-readable data management plans (DMPs), two data practices that were recommended by NSF. Professor Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, of Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University, designed and facilitated the convening with the project team….”