Gearing Up for 2023 Part II: Implementing the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy – NIH Extramural Nexus

“NIH has a long history of developing consent language and, as such, our team worked across the agency – and with you! – to develop a new resource that shares best practices for developing informed consents to facilitate data/biospecimen storage and sharing for future use.  It also provides modifiable sample language that investigators and IRBs can use to assist in the clear communication of potential risks and benefits associated with data/biospecimen storage and sharing.  In developing this resource, we engaged with key federal partners, as well as scientific societies and associations.  Importantly, we also considered the 102 comments from stakeholders in response to a RFI that we issued in 2021.

As for our second resource, we are requesting public comment on protecting the privacy of research participants when data is shared. I think I need to be upfront and acknowledge that we have issued many of these types of requests over the last several months and NIH understands the effort that folks take to thoughtfully respond.  With that said, we think the research community will greatly benefit from this resource and we want to hear your thoughts on whether it hits the mark or needs adjustment….”

Using the State of Open Data survey to put the NIH Policy on Data Management and Sharing into practice

“Join us for a webinar on how the State of Open Data survey — the annual survey on researchers’ attitudes toward open data and data sharing — can help your institution put the NIH Policy on Data Management and Sharing into practice. …”

Draft policy on University of California research data open for second round of review – Office of Scholarly Communication

“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. …”

Data Policies and Principles

“Recognizing the crucial role of open and effective data and information exchange to the Belmont Challenge, the Belmont Forum adopted open Data Policy and Principles based on the recommendations from the Community Strategy and Implementation Plan (CSIP) at its 2015 annual meeting of Principals in Oslo, Norway. The policy signals a commitment by funders of global environmental change research to increase access to scientific data, a step widely recognized as essential to making informed decisions in the face of rapid changes affecting the Earth’s environment….

Data should be:

 

Discoverable through catalogues and search engines
Accessible as open data by default, and made available with minimum time delay
Understandable in a way that allows researchers—including those outside the discipline of origin—to use them
Manageable and protected from loss for future use in sustainable, trustworthy repositories…

Research data must be:

Discoverable through catalogues and search engines, with data access and use conditions, including licenses, clearly indicated. Data should have appropriate persistent, unique and resolvable identifiers.
Accessible by default, and made available with minimum time delay, except where international and national policies or legislation preclude the sharing of data as Open Data. Data sources should always be cited.
Understandable and interoperable in a way that allows researchers, including those outside the discipline of origin, to use them. Preference should be given to non-proprietary international and community standards via data e-infrastructures that facilitate access, use and interpretation of data. Data must also be reusable and thus require proper contextual information and metadata, including provenance, quality and uncertainty indicators. Provision should be made for multiple languages.
Manageable and protected from loss for future use in sustainable, trustworthy repositories with data management policies and plans for all data at the project and institutional levels. Metrics should be exploited to facilitate the ability to measure return on investment, and can be used to implement incentive schemes for researchers, as well as provide measures of data quality.
Supported by a highly skilled workforce and a broad-based training and education curriculum as an integral part of research programs. …”

Monitoring EOSC readiness: FAIR data policies | FAIRsFAIR

“The ambition of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) is to provide a  ‘multi-disciplinary environment where researchers can publish, find and re-use data, tools and services, enabling them to better conduct their work’. The realisation of the EOSC vision depends upon the availability of FAIR data (i.e., those data that are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable). The Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) defines the general framework for future research, development and innovation activities in relation to the EOSC and identified the availability of standardised national Open Science and FAIR data strategies, including the description of these policies, as a key priority to enable the continuous monitoring of the landscape with regards to EOSC readiness. 

This workshop will share recent work undertaken by the EOSC Association to monitor additional activities and define key performance indicators relating to FAIR data policies; share the key aims of a survey on policy monitoring currently being carried out with Member States; and introduce solutions being developed by EOSC Future and FAIRsFAIR to support comparable policy monitoring moving forward. The workshop will allow ample time for questions and discussion. This event will be useful for a broad range of stakeholders who are interested in – or may need to contribute to – the ongoing monitoring of the policy landscape at different levels. ”

Public Domain Day 2022: Welcoming Works from 1926 to the Public Domain | Authors Alliance

“Once in the public domain, works can be made freely available. Organizations that have digitized text of these books, like Internet Archive, Google Books, and HathiTrust, can now open up unrestricted access to the full text of these works. HathiTrust alone will open up full access to more than 35,000 titles originally published in 1926. This increased access provides richer historical context for scholarly research and opportunities for students to supplement and deepen their understanding of assigned texts. And authors who care about the long-term availability of their works may also have reason to look forward to their works eventually entering the public domain: A 2013 study found that in most cases, public domain works are actually more available to readers than all but the most recently published works. 

What’s more, public domain works can be adapted into new works of authorship, or “derivative works,” including by adapting printed books into audio books or by adapting classic books into interactive forms like video games. And the public domain provides opportunities to freely translate works to help fill the gap in works available to readers in their native language.”

Whitepaper: Proposal to leverage Article 17 to build a public repository of Public Domain and openly licensed works. · Open Future

“The German implementation includes a number of provisions that are specifically designed to reduce the risk of so-called overblocking: The unjustified blocking or removal of uploads subsequent to rightholder requests to prevent the availability of their works in accordance with Article 17(4) of the directive. These provisions include the requirement not to block “presumably legitimate” uploads and the requirement to keep disputed uploads available until the dispute is resolved.

In addition the German implementation law contains a specific provision aimed at preventing the unjustified blocking of works that are in the Public Domain or that have been licensed under open licenses….

To comply with this provision, OCSSPs operating in Germany will need to maintain an internal repository of works for which they have (1) received a blocking request and where (2) such blocking request has turned out to be abusive because the works are either in the Public Domain or where the use of the work is authorised under the terms of an open license…. 

Over time such repositories can be expected to grow and will likely start to contain a substantial number of entries relating to a wide variety of openly licensed and public domain works. This will result in the repositories obtaining value beyond the relatively narrow use case of preventing overblocking of openly licensed and PD works by OCSSPs: They will become repositories of freely reusable works that can help to unlock the societal value of these works…”

Ouvrir la Science – “Data policy” linked to publications: recommendations to journals

The Research Data College has set up a working group on the link between publications and research data. The aim is to contribute to the implementation of the Second Commitment of National Plan For Open Science.

Open science, the replication crisis, and environmental public health: Accountability in Research: Vol 0, No ja

Abstract:  Concerns about a crisis of mass irreplicability across scientific fields (“the replication crisis”) have stimulated a movement for open science, encouraging or even requiring researchers to publish their raw data and analysis code. Recently, a rule at the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) would have imposed a strong open data requirement. The rule prompted significant public discussion about whether open science practices are appropriate for fields of environmental public health. The aims of this paper are to assess (1) whether the replication crisis extends to fields of environmental public health; and (2) in general whether open science requirements can address the replication crisis. There is little empirical evidence for or against mass irreplicability in environmental public health specifically. Without such evidence, strong claims about whether the replication crisis extends to environmental public health — or not — seem premature. By distinguishing three concepts — reproducibility, replicability, and robustness — it is clear that open data initiatives can promote reproducibility and robustness but do little to promote replicability. I conclude by reviewing some of the other benefits of open science, and offer some suggestions for funding streams to mitigate the costs of adoption of open science practices in environmental public health.

 

Forschungsdaten-Policy / Research Data Policy, Freie Universität Berlin

This policy covers both research-relevant analog data, documents and objects that are digitized in the course of research, and genuinely digital data, documents and objects (“born digital”) that are created during a research process and are the object or result of research. In addition, information that ensures the documentation, traceability and – depending on the field of research – reproducibility of the results (metadata) also counts as research data.
 

Gegenstand der vorliegenden Policy sind sowohl forschungsrelevante, im Forschungsverlauf zu digitalisieren-de analoge Daten, Dokumente und Objekte, sowie genuin digitale Daten, Dokumente und Objekte („born digi-tal“), die während eines Forschungsprozesses entstehen, Forschungsgegenstand oder -ergebnis sind. Darüber hinaus zählen hier auch solche Informationen als Forschungsdaten, die die Dokumentation, Nachvollziehbar-keit und – abhängig vom Forschungsgebiet – Reproduzierbarkeit der Ergebnisse gewährleisten (Metadaten).

Guide to Accelerate Public Access to Research Data

“On behalf of the Association of American Universities (AAU) and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), we are pleased to present this Guide to Accelerate Public Access to Research Data. The Guide is intended to serve as a resource to help university administrators develop robust support systems to accelerate sharing of research data. It provides advice to universities concerning actions they can take, as well as the infrastructure and support that may be required to improve access to research data on their respective campuses. It also offers examples of how institutions are approaching specific challenges to providing public access to research data and results. 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….”

Libraries and Librarians as Key Partners in Accelerating Public Access to Research Data – Association of Research Libraries

“The Association of American Universities (AAU) and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) have released their Guide to Accelerate Public Access to Research Data, the result of two years of work and national summits as part of the Accelerating Public Access to Research Data (APARD) program.

As a tool and framework for university administrators—specifically provosts, senior research officers, and IT leaders—the four-part guide is meant to “facilitate adoption of new institutional policies, procedures, and approaches that actively support and promote research data sharing, while at the same time ensuring rigor in the research process and the veracity of its intellectual outputs.” Included throughout the guide are recommendations, actions, and institutional examples and case studies for public access to research data….

Possible actions ARL member representatives can take with the release of the Guide to Accelerate Public Access to Research Data include:

Establish public access to research data as a library organization priority through incorporation into strategic plans, statements of principles, mission, and value statements.
Articulate the libraries’ role in accelerating public access to data with the mind frame of culture change. How is your library working from the bottom up (with faculty and graduate students), middle out (with department chairs and center directors) and top down (provosts, presidents, vice presidents for research, and others) to engage and influence public access to data?
Partner with campus stakeholders identified in the guide to begin mapping campus research data resources….”

COVID-19 and the research scholarship ecosystem: help! – Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Highlights

Data sharing is not common as part of biomedical publications
To increase data sharing biomedical journals, funders and academic institutions should introduce policies that will enhance data sharing and other open science practices
As part of research assessments incentives and rewards need to be introduced

Abstract

Objectives

Data sharing practices remain elusive in biomedicine. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the problems associated with the lack of data sharing. The objective of this article is to draw attention to the problem and possible ways to address it.

Study Design and Setting

This article examines some of the current open access and data sharing practices at biomedical journals and funders. In the context of COVID-19 the consequences of these practices is also examined.

Results

Despite the best of intentions on the part of funders and journals, COVID-19 biomedical research is not open. Academic institutions need to incentivize and reward data sharing practices as part of researcher assessment. Journals and funders need to implement strong polices to ensure that data sharing becomes a reality. Patients support sharing of their data.

Conclusion

Biomedical journals, funders and academic institutions should act to require stronger adherence to data sharing policies.