Charleston Neapolitan: Open Access, Public Access: Policies, Implementation, Developments, and the Future of US Published Research.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Charleston Neapolitan: Open Access, Public Access: Policies, Implementation, Developments, and the Future of US Published Research.

  • 406 views
Uploaded on

Amy Friedlander (speaker), Howard Ratner (speaker), John Wilbanks (speaker), Judy Ruttenberg (speaker)

Amy Friedlander (speaker), Howard Ratner (speaker), John Wilbanks (speaker), Judy Ruttenberg (speaker)

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
406
On Slideshare
390
From Embeds
16
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 16

http://2013charlestonconference.sched.org 16

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Top:Credit: Nathan Smith, University of Minnesota/NOAO/AURA/NSFMiddle: Credit: Alexei Kritsuk, Michael Norman, Paolo Padoan, and Rick Wagner, UC San Diego; Source: San Diego Supercomputer Center, UC San DiegoBottom:Credit: Gemini Observatory/AURA

Transcript

  • 1. Public Access: The View from NSF Charleston Conference November 8, 2013 Amy Friedlander National Science Foundation Not for redistribution
  • 2. OSTP Memo, 2/22/2013 • Within six months (by 8/22), agencies will develop plans to increase public access to scientific publications and scientific data in digital formats, consistent with their missions and existing law, and within existing budgets • Underlying principles: • • • • Maintains the importance of peer review and the role of publishers Calls for collaboration among agencies and stakeholder groups Does not specify a funding strategy, allowing for experimentation Does not specify a technical approach but does encourage leveraging existing archives November 8, 2013 National Science Foundation -- Not for Redistribution 2
  • 3. Where are we? • NSF submitted its draft plan on time. • Plans will be made public after they are accepted by OSTP and OMB. • No timeframe has been specified. • There has been a lot of activity among key stakeholder groups, notably: – Publishers – Universities – Academic libraries November 8, 2013 National Science Foundation -- Not for Redistribution 3
  • 4. Developing the Public Access Plan(s) • • • • Collaborate Listen Leverage existing resources and capabilities Learn from prior experience November 8, 2013 National Science Foundation -- Not for Redistribution 4
  • 5. Collaborate • FY 2012-13: Preliminary activities • Interagency – OSTP Working Group on Public Access to Publications – OSTP Working Group on Public Access to Digital Scientific Data • NSF – Steering Committee on Public Access to Results of NSF-funded Research – Working Group on Public Access to Publications – Working Group on Public Access to Digital Scientific Data • National Science Board November 8, 2013 National Science Foundation -- Not for Redistribution 5
  • 6. Listen • National Academies Public Meetings on Publications and Digital Scientific Data, May 1417, 2013 – http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/ CurrentProjects/DBASSE_082378 • Individual meetings • Other agencies (NIH) • NSF program and administrative staff November 8, 2013 National Science Foundation -- Not for Redistribution 6
  • 7. Some of the issues? • Repository architectures: Information management, storage, and custody • Access – Embargo: Whether, how long, and who pays? – Access: To what? by whom? for what purpose? • Relationship between data and publications – and other products of research • Roles of different groups • Compliance and metrics • Change: Technological, organizational, and regulatory November 8, 2013 National Science Foundation -- Not for Redistribution 7
  • 8. Leverage • Standards and best practices – NISO/NFAIS; RDA; etc. • Systems – NIH, USDA, NASA, DOD, DOT, etc. (external) – Fastlane, Research.gov, web (enterprise) – Numerous data repositories • Private sector: CrossRef, FundRef, ORCID • Positioned for change November 8, 2013 National Science Foundation -- Not for Redistribution Credits: Courtesy Frances Griffin 8
  • 9. Prior Experience: NSF Context • NSF funds a wide range of disciplines. • Disciplines and communities have different traditions of publication and data management. • NSF investigators usually have more than one source of funding, and patterns in agency cofunding vary by directorate and office. • Preliminary research indicates that NSF-funded authors publish in a wide range of journals and venues. November 8, 2013 National Science Foundation -- Not for Redistribution 9
  • 10. Tools and Procedures • NSF has a history of encouraging data sharing. • January 2011: Data management plan requirement went into effect. • January 2013: Datasets can be reported in the individual biosketch in proposals as evidence of expertise. • Datasets (as well as publications) are reported in annual and final reports as outcomes of research. • Article processing charges can be identified as a direct expense in a budget proposal. November 8, 2013 National Science Foundation -- Not for Redistribution 10
  • 11. Approach: Open, Flexible, Incremental • Communicate with research communities, agencies, and others • Minimize burden on awardees and investigators • Minimize burden on NSF program and administrative staff • Align (where possible) with existing capabilities • Recognize diversity of research disciplines and communities • Obtain high-level coherence • Implement an integrated approach November 8, 2013 National Science Foundation -- Not for Redistribution 11
  • 12. This is an opportunity. • Broaden access to research results in science and technology • Use information to advance the Foundation’s mission to support research and innovation • Provide a platform for innovation in services and business models as well as in research November 8, 2013 National Science Foundation -- Not for Redistribution 12
  • 13. Thank you! Amy Friedlander afriedla@nsf.gov Clifford Gabriel cgabrie@nsf.gov Joanne Tornow jtornow@nsf.gov Credit: Nathan Smith, University of Minnesota/NOAO/AURA/NSF; Credit: Alexei Kritsuk, Michael Norman, Paolo Padoan, and Rick Wagner, UC San Diego; Source: San Diego Supercomputer Center, UC San Diego; Credit: Gemini Observatory/AURA November 8, 2013 National Science Foundation -- Not for Redistribution 13