OpenAIREplus Data Workshop 20120403

1. Doc. Identifier:
OPENAIRE WP2
Date: 2012.4.3.
GA-283595 PUBLIC 1 / 2
RESEARCH DATA WORKSHOP, UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN, 3.4.12
An internal workshop was held at the University of Göttingen, specifically aimed at researchers
in the life sciences. Four presentations about data management initiatives were given, followed
by questions and discussion. The idea was to limit attendance to a discipline‐specific audience,
thereby encouraging more credibility and focus on managing this particular domain of data.
Observations and ideas for improved approaches are listed.
Invitation sent out
“A number of initiatives are underway at the University dealing with managing, reusing and
providing access to research data, particularly in the bioscience and ecology domain. This
workshop will start with an overview of different local and international activities and will
present future visions to interested researchers and stakeholders. The aim of the workshop is to
discuss the potential for research data management and to explore required support services.
The workshop intends to be fully collaborative, allowing plenty of time for your input and views
on this developing infrastructure”.
Programme
15:00 Introduction
15:05 "Disciplinary data repositories and the idea of data publication", Todd Vision, Biology
Dept. University of North Carolina
15:35 "Towards a service for research data management", Jens Ludwig, SUB
16:00 "Perspectives for Bioscience data management in Goettingen", Jens Nieschulze, Research
Service
16:25 "OpenAIRE – Linking research data to publications", Najla Rettberg, SUB
16:45 Discussion and sum up
17:15 Close
Overview
Todd Vision spoke about Dryad and how scientists participate together to set standards and
push forward data publication, peer to peer sharing and the culture of association data to
publications in the publication process.
Jens Ludwig highlighted the changing nature of research in general (research methods and
questions), focusing on the problems faced by universitites and how to best approach them. The
need for specialized data centres was highlighted.
Jens Nieschulze outlined how many different domains and types of data needed different
infrastructures, standards, protocols. For example, multimedia could also be cast as primary
data.
Najla Rettberg outlined OpenAIRE, touching on self‐archiving, and contecting publications to
data, funding and other material. Outline of enhanced publications given as well as potential
research scenarios.

2. Doc. Identifier:
OPENAIRE WP2
Date: 2012.4.3.
GA-283595 PUBLIC 2 / 2
Audience Questions
1. What is the impact factor of data citations?
2. Can authors pick different licenses or are they bound by CC0?
3. Are there different licensing schemes for different datasets?
4. How much burden is on the researcher for data management support?
5. Can one search for variables in certain data (eg. GIS). How large is this overlap?
6. Would we like to share data? Response: later in life cycle. Not so early after publication, fear
of being scooped. Long‐term sharing is a good idea.
7. Is open access a good idea? Response: we don’t have ‘power’ to change the culture from the
inside.
Summary and observations
Attendance was better than expected: c.15 life‐sciences researchers of varied experience. Some
were phd students, some senior researchers.
It was a good idea to limit this to a discipline‐specific audience, however the range of experience
perhaps hindered discussion, ie some participants hadn’t yet many published papers.
However in general discussion was limited and it wasn’t as interactive as expected.
Points of reference should have been established first, such as open access, and even basic data
issues (e.g. what is a DOI) made clear. This is perhaps debatable given restricted time. Perhaps
attendees should be aware of the basics beforehand (e.g. information‐pack, glossary) so as to
facilitate talking about more advanced ideas, such as enhanced publications.
Suggestions for future workshops
Given that data management might be somehow a new topic for many researchers, ‘lecturing’ to
them on current activities is perhaps not the best approach. More of an emphasis on data
publication would be good. ‘Brain storming’ at the start to ease conversation about a relatively
complex field. In the cases of small discipline‐specific groups, this would be feasible.
Possible topics to be brain stormed:
1. Do you publish in open access?
2. What are the advantages of sharing data, peer to peer?
3. How would you facilitate data sharing/publication?
4. Are you familiar with any data management plans?
5. Do you use FigShare etc
6. How do you feel about sharing your data? What are the challenges?
7. Does the idea of enhanced publications interest you? Is ‘contextualising’ research something
you could work with?