Open Access: Achievements and Challenges

  • 674 views
Uploaded on

Presentation held on the Opendata.ch-Conference 2012, Zurich

Presentation held on the Opendata.ch-Conference 2012, Zurich

More in: Education , 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
674
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

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

Transcript

  • 1. Main Library, Open AccessOpen Access:Achievements & ChallengesChristian Gutknecht, Main Library University of ZurichOpendata.ch 2012 Conference28.6.2012, Zurichwww.oai.uzh.ch (except University Logo)
  • 2. Main Library, Open Accesshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/08/open-access-research-inevitable-nature-editor 2
  • 3. Main Library, Open Accesshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/19/open-access-academic-publishing-finch-report 3
  • 4. Main Library, Open Accesshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices 4
  • 5. Main Library, Open AccessOpen Access via Repository Data Sharing by Scientists Table 1. Primary work secto ptions r. and Perce therefore Read , most important reason for data preservation. Nearly all (98%) of participants agreed that if research is publicly funded, the results Data Shari actices public property and Eleanor properly preserved 2 ng by Scien should become Table 3. tists tists: Pr [8].This Ayd reports , Lei Wu 1 Academic Frequency , Data acce 1 Percent ss. by Scien glass , Arsev Umur articleinog the results of a survey of scientists’ current lu Governmen t 1058 Sharing ssee, of Tenne Commercial 167 80.5 1 data sharing practices and their perceptions of the barriers and University America Libraries, Data y Dou enablers of data sharing. The survey was conducted by the 1 rd , Kim berl 2 Unive rsity of Tennessee ssee, United States of researchca,team of Oak Ridge, Tenne Science Foundation-funded Non-profit 34 12.7 An organ ization(Green Road) 2.6 -specific y, the National Other 35 Suzie Alla Ameri 1 3 States of gical Surve Long-tem system Frequency opir *, 2 Frame Tennessee, United DataONE project. DataNet supports short- and long-term data States Geolo Total 21 2.7 Ecological Percent Carol Ten , Mike Other data Research Knoxville, atics, United management and open access to data. DataONE is one of the Network 351 h Manoff Tennessee, ical Inform 1315 1.6 access 38.5% rsity of Maribet ation Scienc es, Unive 3 Cente r for Biolog initially funded NSF DataNet partners. DataONE is a large scale It is impo rtant doi:10.1371/ journal.pone A Distrib uted Active 292 America, 100.0 -Archive 32.1% l of Inform States of in the past. data sharing. collaboration to develop an organization that supports the full .0021101.t00 A Globa l Biodiv Center 246 1 Schoo lifecycle tive than particularly, United 1 ersity Inform Tennessee, information collaboraof biological, ecological, and environmental prior from other 27.0% Knoxville, sive and and, rch from researcher National ation Facilit 173 rvation resea data and tools to be used by researchers, educators, students, do not Biological y data inten re-use, prese ts and extending s in the Information 19.0% inclu National ury is more very, decision-makers resul the general public. DataONE ‘‘will ensure of and affect the de other data field were denie Ecological Infrastructur 73 21st cent accessibility, disco verification Observatory e 8.0% t sharing fulfillment progress of scien practices which [16]. These resul d Internationa Abstrac rch in the data ing for preservation and access to multi-scale, nt data the multi-discipline, and l Long-term Network 70 tific resea researchers – method allow ally ce, such may also ts 7.7% ring curre multi-national science data’’ [9] by developing electroniccyberin- of requ Taiwan Ecological y explo their data a strong findings, 64 nd: Scien of tific and the ests, refusals to as signi nega ficant delay tively Ecological Research Backgrouthe data practicespart of the scien frastructure in this survenot engagement programs. fied with; ed and community make Research Network 7.0% ts are satis Discipline failure to publicly s in the South Africa Network 58 to study ng is a valuable tists participat Scientists provide coordinated access to rch datadata DataONE will (i) do Most responden their resea current sharing. s or subd isciplines discuss research present research n Enviro nmental 6.4% Data shari 1329 scien sharing. collections; (ii)funding. new global cyberinfrastructure that cting long-term Som than other e do better (geop have their own with others [16]. doi:10.1371/ Observation 7 total of enablers of data and lack of create a cle (colle satisfied with the short- journal.pone Network .8% results. ings: A time rch lifecy not in s [17]. hysics, biodi culture .0021101.t00 6 ipal Find the barriers and insufficient the data or resea data) but are agement both coming from contains both biological and environmental data willing versity, of 3 .7% ogy/Princ ns of including of different ge of their (research networks, environmental observato- resources man they are and astro data- reported Methodol and perceptio reasons, t-term parts t-term stora rs for data ts agree on prim ary Individua l Choice nomy) that gove shor ries,their researchereprints) responden tices based change the various initial and shor individual scientists, and citizen scientists); and (iii) secrecy rnment practices to others for vs. for agencies for the zing, and to ortscience cultureng ent prac The exten t to whic Institutional technology some publicly often have available nt processes or cataloging, analy provide supp citation and shari data managem and institutions by providing education and primarily funded not h resea Policies reported transfer research. strict polic as formal training, es in engaging citizens in science, and building culture an In a surveies about their curre for, describing ions do have great individual choic rchers share or global officers approach organizat s are met (such rences and communities of practice. In order tothe practices andNSF and e. Underlyin withhold data researcher that their institution in American searching rvation. Many n. d in facilitate change of the influence y of 79 world regio Several s ition t diffe ly roote plans from e scale on enco g policies is not commercia to file an inven had a formal universities, 93% certain cond also significan focus, and researcher data prese science culture through cyberinfrastructure for data, it is necessary on are deep agement Larg uraging and pract -term. If e are work to first understand s for data man lead to changes.resourcesof to Savage and Vick s who failed to or inhib reported lize research resul tion disclosure policy that and long their data. Ther discipline, age, preservatidate the culture of modern scienceand the role and ers, et al., share their iting data shari ices institution required ng and in it. could work to ts. al policies About one-half before to share subject data shari selves. New man preserve data bring attention data provide claimed data in ng. biomateri seeki of the parti ng to agency, tive to effec rchers them Figure 1. Jointresearcher raw data. Information Systems Committee (JISC), it that Stages the would take study by als witho that proh funding e: Barriers share and ONE) will both of the research and datas lifecycle. accompan often fail to deve authors came The become so comp ut a material trans ibited the disse cipants resea need to . to the conc too much ns/S ignificanc as well as the attention to the projects like Data principles Data Sharing ent e21101. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021101.g001 y their resea lop clear Increasing lex and fer agree mination Conclusio rch process de ding agem ONE 6(6): understan rch (i.e., , well-anno lusio the effici demanding that ment of world-wi NET (inclu d data man Encouraging data sharing and reuse begins PLoS good data tions. with ding of metadata) tated datas n that increased data chall ency of current they inhib , which have of the resea agencies and sponsored Data to apply soun practices in all phases of the data lifecycle such as generating and ral Practices and Percep believe that the Although drawnjourn a small sample of researchers, over , and may a policy original dataset these results lose acces ets to to data enges requ data pract it sharing [15]. to from publish a paper other fede, such as the NSF- r for scientists policy and ists: that by Scient collecting theg data, managing the data, analyzing the data, and Data Sharin strongly suggest that journal public repowould requdata sharing do Vickers, s and als or policies which require time. data loss, practice. ires a new comp ices in a world programs and make it easie help to sharing it. However, the data lifecycle cannot be considered ts not necessarily lead authorsnt this their datasets the authors to subm al. (2011) ire preve to make sitories at readily available et al. thus make data delug This rehen e, poor data approach woul sive approach of Wu L, et the issue oglu AU, independently from research lifecycle [10],ution License, are an as data which permi concerned occurrenc time of it datasets took actio better use of (pub practices, d seek to ass K, Aydin Kingdom reported with the preservati e [11]. PAR to other researchers. The amount of data sharing or data hoarding icatio publ n lic) fund scattered avoid S, Dougl n would data colle by announcin C, Allard ies Counc il, Unitedindispensible element of scientificCommons Attrib Figure 1.) ve research. (See NSF from a surve also appears to vary according to the of digita on researcher’s SE Insight, subject s g that all and resources. data, etc., Tenopir .0021101 the Creati credited. (DataONE) organizat a project ction must and Citation: journal.pone ology Facilit 2011 June 29, The specificterms of handling supplementary materials such as of the for Earth ration ions had y of data l informati ‘‘digital prop NSF and Techn Published the costs of source are Network discipline. what managers on data are include a data man osals to NSF recently doi:10.1371/ Science datasets are authowell documented. Observation to publish, or author uted underal not r and prepa policies kinds of to withhold and that specific in research, Neylon, 20, 2011; distrib In a recent survey, only e, Data is, decision Researchers who choose are data datasets often have procedur 64% claim regularly routinely agement involving Cameron Accepted May access article origin ed the and journal subscription fees were mentioned as current specific and easily deposited Editor: infrastructur accepted reasons for doing policies for and Vickers noted es in place to ed plan [1] January 3, 2011; is an open- medium, provid fees n of Cyber collection and analys Though so. Savage the for stora reasons that deter their specialist in alike, are consulted and analywell-document so that Received et al. This uction in any ation, Divisiodesign, data include concerns this numpatient time frame medical preservati mine ge and are reliab ed form Tenopir e Foundfunding sources for supplementary materials in journals. Partic- such polic about ber constprivacy (forand meth fields), on, with openly acces zed ß 2011 and reprod al Scienc role in study rs had no ipants in the survey suggested other potential sources for funding, ly invited its preserved’’ [18]. sible while by specialist and , are Copyright: use, distribution, of the Nation itutes a majo ies publishing opportunities, and the desire to concerns about future or proc od unrestricted d as part ment. The funde Polic edures rity, 32% of subm dissemina member states Similarly, suitably non- t was funde Agree in particular government funding, support from learned societies, exist. retain exclusive ies and to data that [8]. taken many years rted ission. rights proc had repo to to develop the European protected, The projec a Cooperative interests and Funding: 0944 under competing and publishers [11]. Datathan In Campbell’s edur of data sharing produce [14]. passive barri studyes sometimes in genetics, the a lack of [5] [19]. tion, and preservati polic Com award #083 declared that no of data. er to on for scien ies to implemen mission rs have and reuse top reasons cited for withholding data were the serve as of effort sharing. amount an activ t access, manuscript. The autho s for use tific know Interests: Data Sharing/Withholdingproviding acces Practices involved Tabin accessing and sharing datasets and theCampbell et a e rather protection of ledge and Competing including: a key part le 2. al. data tk.edu Data sharing isiated with According s,to a study done which is colleague’s or theirSubject disci to publish [15]. The decision to (2003) assoc important. advantage by own ability : ctenopir@u pline. * E-mail Publishing Research has many sharing Consortium (PRC) verify results data, in 2010 with 3823 share or withhold data is often dependent upon the point of time respondents, access to datasets, data helpsof in the data data models, and algorithms & existing publishing process at which the request is made. Campbell Table 4. critical as N re-analysis tific process; es to Data type in a traditional journal d data are programs was ranked important or highly important; oach however, an interdisci- (2003) reported that nearly all (98.7%) of the technology transfer s. ction nt ce. Soun wise manageme of them of the scien or appr cially in officers surveyed agreed that academic scientists should freely environmen Introdu of scien only 38% felt that they were tions accessible [12]. In easily –espe tal scienc structure decisions, aking. addition, it was thedifferent among thetific progress Moreover, interpreta es & ecolog Frequency the infra Data are basis for good scientific N lowest scien other information types decision-m tive’’ [1]. of them were contribute to in journals, reference works, (some The research articles social with sharen data other scientists after publication, while only 30.5% data sciences retaibiolog y on helps agreed that scientists should share data and materials before 475 Percent the informed collabora technicalhas d setting; preservati y 36.1 Experiment Responses they form resources, and sive and plinary d, and store information, patent information, term Several previous long- etc.). physical The 204 publication. d; vast majority also believed that scientists should al and use of data inten re-analyze in computational explored themanaged,and barriers of sharing datadata be minimizesciencwhen sharing data with industry than with other is more careful es 15.5 Observation Percent is becoming analyzed, ‘‘science data collected, to developments acqu[13] and the extent tointegrity; surveys have isition, and N well- benefits which researchers share (re-)collectiondata. or withhold of computer 181 scienc The PARSE Insight survey indicated that academics [15]. e/engineeri 158 13.7 Data Mode ls al 711 632 54.6% rch other onduct of amount enormously due automated data previous resea to suggest that current sharing practices are minimal, Results seem is available, optimized; st misc ng researchers who are reluctant to share data with others reported 12.0 Biotic Surve N 48.5% , the onal), this when data is uards againmajor concerns with legal issues, misuse of data, and incompatible 118 499 although the amount of data use of resources ys increased and modeling [2]. Following sharing varies among different fields. atmospheric es computati intensive thus, ides safeg n; scienc 9.0 Abiotic Surveys 446 38.3% simulation tion technologi l, and Some journals have specific guidelines y provrequire authors to data- which n and falsificatio medicrations of a data types [8]. In e survey of geneticists98 other life scientists, and theoretica h paradigm: e, abilit gene ine N 7.4 communica (experimental, share is onlin data availdata fabricatio the extent for newTotal 52 Remote-Sen 442 34.3% fourt literature theireach with other researchers. However,training toolsto data Campbell et al., found that withholding data may be more sed Abioti paradigm s called ‘‘the of the science related to out es serve largely untested. which these guidelines are carried studiremains as ate with but common in genetics and related fields. 31 3.9 Reasons may include the Remote-Sen c 358 33.9% has been where ‘‘all interoper reseaand Vickers requested ation from ten researchers who had doi:10shers in the sed Biotic new era scientific discovery’ ’ e, and they data is onlin only the outp scientific insig uts Savage of rch hts N replic data s [5][6][7] researcher published articles in PLoS journals, which have specific data managers increased scientific competitiveness of1317 field, as well as the and publi .1371/journa the ing was l.pone.0021101.t00 the opportunities for commercial applications. Respondents of the 2.4 100.0 Social Scienc Interviews e Surve ys 264 27.5% science not ling new sharing policies. Only one author sent an rchers, data public fund estimated that ten percent of their requests for information 2 251 20.3% all of the Digital data are agree that lly, resea original dataset d[14]. survey theses, enab Other 19.3% other’’ [3]. ts to new hypo data Additiona y overwhelmingly 195 borative, PLoS ONE 1 provide inpu ation [4]. and colla includes the surve | www 6 | e2110 .ploso 15.0% ng innov intensive ng PARSE e 6 | Issue ne.org doi:10.1371/ 80 and drivi more data . Data shari it is primarily www.plosone.org PLoS ONE | | Volum2 June 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 6 | e21101 journal.pone 6.1% ce becomes rtant June 2011 .0021101.t00 As scien mes more impo of data; however, 4 beco on 3 sharing and preservati 1 deposition June 2011 | Volum ne.org e 6 | Issue | www.ploso 6 | e211 PLoS ONE 01 researchers Publisher 5
  • 6. Main Library, Open AccessOpen Access via Repository Data Sharing by Scientists Table 1. Primary work secto ptions r. and Perce therefore Read , most important reason for data preservation. Nearly all (98%) of participants agreed that if research is publicly funded, the results Data Shari actices public property and Eleanor properly preserved 2 ng by Scien should become Table 3. tists tists: Pr [8].This Ayd reports , Lei Wu 1 Academic Frequency , Data acce 1 Percent ss. by Scien glass , Arsev Umur articleinog the results of a survey of scientists’ current lu Governmen t 1058 Sharing ssee, of Tenne Commercial 167 80.5 1 data sharing practices and their perceptions of the barriers and University America Libraries, Data y Dou enablers of data sharing. The survey was conducted by the , Kimberl 2 Unive rsity of Tennessee ssee, United States of researchca,team of Oak Ridge, Tenne Science Foundation-funded Non-profit 34 12.7 An organ ization-speci(Green Road) 2.6 y, the National Ameri Other 35 fic system States of gical Surve Long-tem Frequency United DataONE project. DataNet supports short- and long-term data Ecological Percent Tennessee, States Geolo Total 21 2.7 Other data Research Knoxville, atics, United management and open access to data. DataONE is one of the Network 351 h Manoff Tennessee, ical Inform 1315 1.6 access 38.5% rsity of Maribet ation Scienc es, Unive 3 Cente r for Biolog initially funded NSF DataNet partners. DataONE is a large scale It is impo rtant doi:10.1371/ journal.pone A Distrib uted Active 292 America, 100.0 -Archive 32.1% l of Inform States of in the past. data sharing. collaboration to develop an organization that supports the full .0021101.t00 A Globa l Biodiv Center 246 1 Schoo lifecycle tive than particularly, United 1 ersity Inform Tennessee, information collaboraof biological, ecological, and environmental from prior from other National 27.0% Knoxville, and on and, research researcher Biological ation Facilit 173 sive rvati data and tools to be used by researchers, educators, students, do not y data inten re-use, prese ts and extending s in the Information 19.0% inclu National ury is more very, decision-makers resul the general public. DataONE ‘‘will ensure of and affect the de other data field were denie Ecological Infrastructur 73 21st cent accessibility, disco verification Observatory e 8.0% t sharing fulfillment progress of scien practices which [16]. These resul d Internationa Abstrac rch in the data ing for preservation and access to multi-scale, nt data the multi-discipline, and l Long-term Network 70 tific resea researchers – method allow ally ce, such may also ts 7.7% ring curre multi-national science data’’ [9] by developing electroniccyberin- of requ Taiwan Ecological y explo their data a strong findings, 64 nd: Scien of tific and the ests, refusals to as signi nega ficant delay tively Ecological Research Backgrouthe data practicespart of the scien frastructure in this survenot engagement programs. fied with; ed and community make Research Network 7.0% ts are satis Discipline failure to publicly s in the South Africa Network 58 to study ng is a valuable tists participat Scientists provide coordinated access to rch datadata DataONE will (i) do Most responden their resea current sharing. s or subd isciplines discuss research present research n Enviro nmental 6.4% Data shari 1329 scien sharing. collections; (ii)funding. new global cyberinfrastructure that cting long-term Som than other e do better (geop have their own with others [16]. doi:10.1371/ Observation 7 total of enablers of data and lack of create a cle (colle satisfied with the short- journal.pone Network .8% results. ings: A time rch lifecy not in s [17]. hysics, biodi culture .0021101.t00 6 ipal Find the barriers and insufficient the data or resea data) but are agement both coming from contains both biological and environmental data willing versity, of 3 .7% ogy/Princ ns of including of different ge of their (research networks, environmental observato- resources man they are and astro data- reported Methodol and perceptio reasons, t-term parts t-term stora rs for data ts agree on prim ary Individua l Choice nomy) that gove shor ries,their researchereprints) responden tices based change the various initial and shor individual scientists, and citizen scientists); and (iii) secrecy rnment practices to others for vs. for agencies for the zing, and to ortscience cultureng ent prac The exten t to whic Institutional technology some publicly often have available nt processes or cataloging, analy provide supp citation and shari data managem and institutions by providing education and primarily funded not h resea Policies reported transfer research. strict polic as formal training, es in engaging citizens in science, and building culture an In a surveies about their curre for, describing ions do have great individual choic rchers share or global officers approach organizat s are met (such rences and communities of practice. In order tothe practices andNSF and e. Underlyin withhold data researcher that their institution in American searching rvation. Many n. d in facilitate change of the influence y of 79 world regio Several s ition t diffe ly roote plans from e scale on enco g policies is not commercia to file an inven had a formal universities, 93% certain cond also significan focus, and researcher data prese science culture through cyberinfrastructure for data, it is necessary on are deep agement Larg uraging and pract -term. If e are work to first understand s for data man lead to changes.resourcesof to Savage and Vick s who failed to or inhib reported lize research resul tion disclosure policy that and long their data. Ther discipline, age, preservatidate the culture of modern scienceand the role and ers, et al., share their iting data shari ices institution required ng and in it. could work to ts. al policies About one-half before to share subject data shari selves. New man preserve data bring attention data provide claimed data in ng. biomateri seeki of the parti ng to agency, tive to effec rchers them Figure 1. Jointresearcher raw data. Information Systems Committee (JISC), it that Stages the would take study by als witho that proh funding e: Barriers share and ONE) will both of the research and datas lifecycle. accompan often fail to deve authors came The become so comp ut a material trans ibited the disse cipants resea need to . to the conc too much ns/S ignificanc as well as the attention to the projects like Data principles Data Sharing ent e21101. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021101.g001 y their resea lop clear Increasing lex and fer agree mination Conclusio rch process de ding agem ONE 6(6): understan rch (i.e., , well-anno lusio the effici demanding that ment of world-wi NET (inclu d data man Encouraging data sharing and reuse begins PLoS good data tions. with ding of metadata) tated datas n that increased data chall ency of current they inhib , which have of the resea agencies and sponsored Data to apply soun practices in all phases of the data lifecycle such as generating and ral Practices and Percep believe that the Although drawnjourn a small sample of researchers, over , and may a policy original dataset these results lose acces ets to to data enges requ data pract it sharing [15]. to from publish a paper other fede, such as the NSF- r for scientists policy and ists: that by Scient collecting theg data, managing the data, analyzing the data, and Data Sharin strongly suggest that journal public repowould requdata sharing do Vickers, s and als or policies which require time. data loss, practice. ires a new comp ices in a world programs and make it easie help to sharing it. However, the data lifecycle cannot be considered ts not necessarily lead authorsnt this their datasets the authors to subm al. (2011) ire preve to make sitories at readily available et al. thus make data delug This rehen e, poor data approach woul sive approach of Wu L, et the issue oglu AU, independently from research lifecycle [10],ution License, are an as data which permi concerned occurrenc time of it datasets took actio better use of (pub practices, d seek to ass K, Aydin Kingdom reported with the preservati e [11]. PAR to other researchers. The amount of data sharing or data hoarding icatio publ n lic) fund scattered avoid S, Dougl n would data colle by announcin C, Allard ies Counc il, Unitedindispensible element of scientificCommons Attrib Figure 1.) ve research. (See NSF from a surve also appears to vary according to the of digita on researcher’s SE Insight, subject s g that all and resources. data, etc., Tenopir .0021101 the Creati credited. (DataONE) organizat a project ction must and Citation: journal.pone ology Facilit 2011 June 29, The specificterms of handling supplementary materials such as of the for Earth ration ions had y of data l informati ‘‘digital prop NSF and Techn Published the costs of source are Network discipline. what managers on data are include a data man osals to NSF recently doi:10.1371/ Science datasets are authowell documented. Observation to publish, or author uted underal not r and prepa policies kinds of to withhold and that specific in research, Neylon, 20, 2011; distrib In a recent survey, only e, Data is, decision Researchers who choose are data datasets often have procedur 64% claim regularly routinely agement involving Cameron Accepted May access article origin ed the and journal subscription fees were mentioned as current specific and easily deposited Editor: infrastructur accepted reasons for doing policies for and Vickers noted es in place to ed plan [1] January 3, 2011; is an open- medium, provid fees n of Cyber collection and analys Though so. Savage the for stora reasons that deter their specialist in alike, are consulted and analywell-document so that Received et al. This uction in any ation, Divisiodesign, data include concerns this numpatient time frame medical preservati mine ge and are reliab ed form Tenopir e Foundfunding sources for supplementary materials in journals. Partic- such polic about ber constprivacy (forand meth fields), on, with openly acces zed ß 2011 and reprod al Scienc role in study rs had no ipants in the survey suggested other potential sources for funding, itutes a majo ly invited its preserved’’ [18]. sible while by specialist and , are Copyright: use, distribution, of the Nation ies publishing opportunities, and the desire to concerns about future or proc od unrestricted d as part ment. The funde Polic edures rity, 32% of subm dissemina member states Similarly, suitably non- t was funde Agree in particular government funding, support from learned societies, exist. retain exclusive ies and to data that [8]. taken many years rted ission. rights proc had repo to to develop the European protected, The projec a Cooperative interests and Funding: 0944 under competing and publishers [11]. Datathan In Campbell’s edur of data sharing produce [14]. passive barri studyes sometimes in genetics, the a lack of [5] [19]. tion, and preservati polic Com award #083 declared that no of data. er to on for scien ies to implemen mission rs have and reuse top reasons cited for withholding data were the serve as of effort sharing. amount an activ t access, manuscript. The autho s for use tific know Interests: Data Sharing/Withholdingproviding acces Practices involved Tabin accessing and sharing datasets and theCampbell et a e rather protection of ledge and Competing including: a key part le 2. al. data tk.edu Data sharing isiated with According s,to a study done which is colleague’s or theirSubject disci to publish [15]. The decision to (2003) assoc important. advantage by own ability : ctenopir@u pline. * E-mail Publishing Research has many sharing Consortium (PRC) verify results data, in 2010 with 3823 share or withhold data is often dependent upon the point of time respondents, access to datasets, data helpsof in the data data models, and algorithms & existing publishing process at which the request is made. Campbell Table 4. critical as N re-analysis tific process; es to Data type in a traditional journal d data are programs was ranked important or highly important; oach however, an interdisci- (2003) reported that nearly all (98.7%) of the technology transfer s. ction nt ce. Soun wise manageme of them of the scien or appr cially in officers surveyed agreed that academic scientists should freely environmen Introdu of scien only 38% felt that they were tions accessible [12]. In easily –espe tal scienc structure decisions, aking. addition, it was thedifferent among thetific progress Moreover, interpreta es & ecolog Frequency the infra Data are basis for good scientific N lowest scien other information types decision-m tive’’ [1]. of them were contribute to in journals, reference works, (some The research articles social with sharen data other scientists after publication, while only 30.5% data sciences retaibiolog y on helps agreed that scientists should share data and materials before 475 Percent the informed collabora technicalhas d setting; preservati y 36.1 Experiment Responses they form resources, and sive and plinary d, and store information, patent information, term Several previous long- etc.). physical The 204 publication. d; vast majority also believed that scientists should al and use of data inten re-analyze in computational explored themanaged,and barriers of sharing datadata be minimizesciencwhen sharing data with industry than with other is more careful es 15.5 Observation Percent is becoming analyzed, ‘‘science data collected, to developments acqu[13] and the extent tointegrity; surveys have isition, and N well- benefits which researchers share (re-)collectiondata. or withhold of computer 181 scienc The PARSE Insight survey indicated that academics [15]. e/engineeri 158 13.7 Data Mode ls al 711 632 54.6% rch other onduct of amount enormously due automated data previous resea to suggest that current sharing practices are minimal, Results seem is available, optimized; st misc ng researchers who are reluctant to share data with others reported 12.0 Biotic Surve N 48.5% , the onal), this when data is uards againmajor concerns with legal issues, misuse of data, and incompatible 118 499 although the amount of data use of resources ys increased and modeling [2]. Following sharing varies among different fields. atmospheric es computati intensive thus, ides safeg n; scienc 9.0 Abiotic Surveys 446 38.3% simulation tion technologi l, and Some journals have specific guidelines y provrequire authors to data- which n and falsificatio medicrations of a data types [8]. In e survey of geneticists98 other life scientists, and theoretica h paradigm: e, abilit gene ine N 7.4 communica (experimental, share is onlin data availdata fabricatio the extent for newTotal 52 Remote-Sen 442 34.3% fourt literature theireach with other researchers. However,training toolsto data Campbell et al., found that withholding data may be more sed Abioti paradigm s called ‘‘the of the science related to out es serve largely untested. which these guidelines are carried studiremains as ate with but common in genetics and related fields. 31 3.9 Reasons may include the Remote-Sen c 358 33.9% has been where ‘‘all interoper reseaand Vickers requested ation from ten researchers who had doi:10shers in the sed Biotic new era scientific discovery’ ’ e, and they data is onlin only the outp scientific insig uts Savage of rch hts N replic data s [5][6][7] researcher published articles in PLoS journals, which have specific data managers increased scientific competitiveness of1317 field, as well as the and publi .1371/journa the ing was l.pone.0021101.t00 the opportunities for commercial applications. Respondents of the 2.4 100.0 Social Scienc Interviews e Surve ys 264 27.5% science not ling new sharing policies. Only one author sent an rchers, data public fund estimated that ten percent of their requests for information 2 251 20.3% all of the Digital data are agree that lly, resea original dataset d[14]. survey theses, enab Other 19.3% other’’ [3]. ts to new hypo data Additiona y overwhelmingly 195 borative, PLoS ONE 1 provide inpu ation [4]. and colla includes the surve | www 6 | e2110 .ploso 15.0% ng innov intensive ng PARSE e 6 | Issue ne.org doi:10.1371/ 80 and drivi more data . Data shari it is primarily www.plosone.org PLoS ONE | | Volum2 June 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 6 | e21101 journal.pone 6.1% ce becomes rtant June 2011 .0021101.t00 As scien mes more impo of data; however, 4 beco on 3 sharing and preservati 1 deposition June 2011 | Volum ne.org e 6 | Issue | www.ploso 6 | e211 PLoS ONE 01 researchers Publisher + deposit a copy on ZORA zora.uzh.ch 6
  • 7. Main Library, Open AccessOpen Access via Repository Data Sharing by Scientists Table 1. Primary work secto ptions r. and Perce therefore Read , most important reason for data preservation. Nearly all (98%) of participants agreed that if research is publicly funded, the results Data Shari actices public property and Eleanor properly preserved 2 ng by Scien should become Table 3. tists tists: Pr [8].This Ayd reports , Lei Wu 1 Academic Frequency , Data acce 1 Percent ss. by Scien glass , Arsev Umur articleinog the results of a survey of scientists’ current lu Governmen t 1058 Sharing ssee, of Tenne Commercial 167 80.5 1 data sharing practices and their perceptions of the barriers and University America Libraries, Data y Dou enablers of data sharing. The survey was conducted by the 1 rd , Kim berl 2 Unive rsity of Tennessee ssee, United States of researchca,team of Oak Ridge, Tenne Science Foundation-funded Non-profit 34 12.7 An organ ization(Green Road) 2.6 -specific y, the National Other 35 Suzie Alla Ameri 1 3 States of gical Surve Long-tem system Frequency opir *, 2 Frame Tennessee, United DataONE project. DataNet supports short- and long-term data States Geolo Total 21 2.7 Ecological Percent Carol Ten , Mike Other data Research Knoxville, atics, United management and open access to data. DataONE is one of the Network 351 h Manoff Tennessee, ical Inform 1315 1.6 access 38.5% rsity of Maribet ation Scienc es, Unive 3 Cente r for Biolog initially funded NSF DataNet partners. DataONE is a large scale It is impo rtant doi:10.1371/ journal.pone A Distrib uted Active 292 America, 100.0 -Archive 32.1% l of Inform States of in the past. data sharing. collaboration to develop an organization that supports the full .0021101.t00 A Globa l Biodiv Center 246 1 Schoo lifecycle tive than particularly, United 1 ersity Inform Tennessee, information collaboraof biological, ecological, and environmental prior from other 27.0% Knoxville, sive and and, rch from researcher National ation Facilit 173 rvation resea data and tools to be used by researchers, educators, students, do not Biological y data inten re-use, prese ts and extending s in the Information 19.0% inclu National ury is more very, decision-makers resul the general public. DataONE ‘‘will ensure of and affect the de other data field were denie Ecological Infrastructur 73 21st cent accessibility, disco verification Observatory e 8.0% t sharing fulfillment progress of scien practices which [16]. These resul d Internationa Abstrac rch in the data ing for preservation and access to multi-scale, nt data the multi-discipline, and l Long-term Network 70 tific resea researchers – method allow ally ce, such may also ts 7.7% ring curre multi-national science data’’ [9] by developing electroniccyberin- of requ Taiwan Ecological y explo their data a strong findings, 64 nd: Scien of tific and the ests, refusals to as signi nega ficant delay tively Ecological Research Backgrouthe data practicespart of the scien frastructure in this survenot engagement programs. fied with; ed and community make Research Network 7.0% ts are satis Discipline failure to publicly s in the South Africa Network 58 to study ng is a valuable tists participat Scientists provide coordinated access to rch datadata DataONE will (i) do Most responden their resea current sharing. s or subd isciplines discuss research present research n Enviro nmental 6.4% Data shari 1329 scien sharing. collections; (ii)funding. new global cyberinfrastructure that cting long-term Som than other e do better (geop have their own with others [16]. doi:10.1371/ Observation 7 total of enablers of data and lack of create a cle (colle satisfied with the short- journal.pone Network .8% results. ings: A time rch lifecy not in s [17]. hysics, biodi culture .0021101.t00 6 ipal Find the barriers and insufficient the data or resea data) but are agement both coming from contains both biological and environmental data willing versity, of 3 .7% ogy/Princ ns of including of different ge of their (research networks, environmental observato- resources man they are and astro data- reported Methodol and perceptio reasons, t-term parts t-term stora rs for data ts agree on prim ary Individua l Choice nomy) that gove shor ries,their researchereprints) responden tices based change the various initial and shor individual scientists, and citizen scientists); and (iii) secrecy rnment practices to others for vs. for agencies for the zing, and to ortscience cultureng ent prac The exten t to whic Institutional technology some publicly often have available nt processes or cataloging, analy provide supp citation and shari data managem and institutions by providing education and primarily funded not h resea Policies reported transfer research. strict polic as formal training, es in engaging citizens in science, and building culture an In a surveies about their curre for, describing ions do have great individual choic rchers share or global officers approach organizat s are met (such rences and communities of practice. In order tothe practices andNSF and e. Underlyin withhold data researcher that their institution in American searching rvation. Many n. d in facilitate change of the influence y of 79 world regio Several s ition t diffe ly roote plans from e scale on enco g policies is not commercia to file an inven had a formal universities, 93% certain cond also significan focus, and researcher data prese science culture through cyberinfrastructure for data, it is necessary on are deep agement Larg uraging and pract -term. If e are work to first understand s for data man lead to changes.resourcesof to Savage and Vick s who failed to or inhib reported lize research resul tion disclosure policy that and long their data. Ther discipline, age, preservatidate the culture of modern scienceand the role and ers, et al., share their iting data shari ices institution required ng and in it. could work to ts. al policies About one-half before to share subject data shari selves. New man preserve data bring attention data provide claimed data in ng. biomateri seeki of the parti ng to agency, tive to effec rchers them Figure 1. Jointresearcher raw data. Information Systems Committee (JISC), it that Stages the would take study by als witho that proh funding e: Barriers share and ONE) will both of the research and datas lifecycle. accompan often fail to deve authors came The become so comp ut a material trans ibited the disse cipants resea need to . to the conc too much ns/S ignificanc as well as the attention to the projects like Data principles Data Sharing ent e21101. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021101.g001 y their resea lop clear Increasing lex and fer agree mination Conclusio rch process de ding agem ONE 6(6): understan rch (i.e., , well-anno lusio the effici demanding that ment of world-wi NET (inclu d data man Encouraging data sharing and reuse begins PLoS good data tions. with ding of metadata) tated datas n that increased data chall ency of current they inhib , which have of the resea agencies and sponsored Data to apply soun practices in all phases of the data lifecycle such as generating and ral Practices and Percep believe that the Although drawnjourn a small sample of researchers, over , and may a policy original dataset these results lose acces ets to to data enges requ data pract it sharing [15]. to from publish a paper other fede, such as the NSF- r for scientists policy and ists: that by Scient collecting theg data, managing the data, analyzing the data, and Data Sharin strongly suggest that journal public repowould requdata sharing do Vickers, s and als or policies which require time. data loss, practice. ires a new comp ices in a world programs and make it easie help to sharing it. However, the data lifecycle cannot be considered ts not necessarily lead authorsnt this their datasets the authors to subm al. (2011) ire preve to make sitories at readily available et al. thus make data delug This rehen e, poor data approach woul sive approach of Wu L, et the issue oglu AU, independently from research lifecycle [10],ution License, are an as data which permi concerned occurrenc time of it datasets took actio better use of (pub practices, d seek to ass K, Aydin Kingdom reported with the preservati e [11]. PAR to other researchers. The amount of data sharing or data hoarding icatio publ n lic) fund scattered avoid S, Dougl n would data colle by announcin C, Allard ies Counc il, Unitedindispensible element of scientificCommons Attrib Figure 1.) ve research. (See NSF from a surve also appears to vary according to the of digita on researcher’s SE Insight, subject s g that all and resources. data, etc., Tenopir .0021101 the Creati credited. (DataONE) organizat a project ction must and Citation: journal.pone ology Facilit 2011 June 29, The specificterms of handling supplementary materials such as of the for Earth ration ions had y of data l informati ‘‘digital prop NSF and Techn Published the costs of source are Network discipline. what managers on data are include a data man osals to NSF recently doi:10.1371/ Science datasets are authowell documented. Observation to publish, or author uted underal not r and prepa policies kinds of to withhold and that specific in research, Neylon, 20, 2011; distrib In a recent survey, only e, Data is, decision Researchers who choose are data datasets often have procedur 64% claim regularly routinely agement involving Cameron Accepted May access article origin ed the and journal subscription fees were mentioned as current specific and easily deposited Editor: infrastructur accepted reasons for doing policies for and Vickers noted es in place to ed plan [1] January 3, 2011; is an open- medium, provid fees n of Cyber collection and analys Though so. Savage the for stora reasons that deter their specialist in alike, are consulted and analywell-document so that Received et al. This uction in any ation, Divisiodesign, data include concerns this numpatient time frame medical preservati mine ge and are reliab ed form Tenopir e Foundfunding sources for supplementary materials in journals. Partic- such polic about ber constprivacy (forand meth fields), on, with openly acces zed ß 2011 and reprod al Scienc role in study rs had no ipants in the survey suggested other potential sources for funding, ly invited its preserved’’ [18]. sible while by specialist and , are Copyright: use, distribution, of the Nation itutes a majo ies publishing opportunities, and the desire to concerns about future or proc od unrestricted d as part ment. The funde Polic edures rity, 32% of subm dissemina member states Similarly, suitably non- t was funde Agree in particular government funding, support from learned societies, exist. retain exclusive ies and to data that [8]. taken many years rted ission. rights proc had repo to to develop the European protected, The projec a Cooperative interests and Funding: 0944 under competing and publishers [11]. Datathan In Campbell’s edur of data sharing produce [14]. passive barri studyes sometimes in genetics, the a lack of [5] [19]. tion, and preservati polic Com award #083 declared that no of data. er to on for scien ies to implemen mission rs have and reuse top reasons cited for withholding data were the serve as of effort sharing. amount an activ t access, manuscript. The autho s for use tific know Interests: Data Sharing/Withholdingproviding acces Practices involved Tabin accessing and sharing datasets and theCampbell et a e rather protection of ledge and Competing including: a key part le 2. al. data tk.edu Data sharing isiated with According s,to a study done which is colleague’s or theirSubject disci to publish [15]. The decision to (2003) assoc important. advantage by own ability : ctenopir@u pline. * E-mail Publishing Research has many sharing Consortium (PRC) verify results data, in 2010 with 3823 share or withhold data is often dependent upon the point of time respondents, access to datasets, data helpsof in the data data models, and algorithms & existing publishing process at which the request is made. Campbell Table 4. critical as N re-analysis tific process; es to Data type in a traditional journal d data are programs was ranked important or highly important; oach however, an interdisci- (2003) reported that nearly all (98.7%) of the technology transfer s. ction nt ce. Soun wise manageme of them of the scien or appr cially in officers surveyed agreed that academic scientists should freely environmen Introdu of scien only 38% felt that they were tions accessible [12]. In easily –espe tal scienc structure decisions, aking. addition, it was thedifferent among thetific progress Moreover, interpreta es & ecolog Frequency the infra Data are basis for good scientific N lowest scien other information types decision-m tive’’ [1]. of them were contribute to in journals, reference works, (some The research articles social with sharen data other scientists after publication, while only 30.5% data sciences retaibiolog y on helps agreed that scientists should share data and materials before 475 Percent the informed collabora technicalhas d setting; preservati y 36.1 Experiment Responses they form resources, and sive and plinary d, and store information, patent information, term Several previous long- etc.). physical The 204 publication. d; vast majority also believed that scientists should al and use of data inten re-analyze in computational explored themanaged,and barriers of sharing datadata be minimizesciencwhen sharing data with industry than with other is more careful es 15.5 Observation Percent is becoming analyzed, ‘‘science data collected, to developments acqu[13] and the extent tointegrity; surveys have isition, and N well- benefits which researchers share (re-)collectiondata. or withhold of computer 181 scienc The PARSE Insight survey indicated that academics [15]. e/engineeri 158 13.7 Data Mode ls al 711 632 54.6% rch other onduct of amount enormously due automated data previous resea to suggest that current sharing practices are minimal, Results seem is available, optimized; st misc ng researchers who are reluctant to share data with others reported 12.0 Biotic Surve N 48.5% , the onal), this when data is uards againmajor concerns with legal issues, misuse of data, and incompatible 118 499 although the amount of data use of resources ys increased and modeling [2]. Following sharing varies among different fields. atmospheric es computati intensive thus, ides safeg n; scienc 9.0 Abiotic Surveys 446 38.3% simulation tion technologi l, and Some journals have specific guidelines y provrequire authors to data- which n and falsificatio medicrations of a data types [8]. In e survey of geneticists98 other life scientists, and theoretica h paradigm: e, abilit gene ine N 7.4 communica (experimental, share is onlin data availdata fabricatio the extent for newTotal 52 Remote-Sen 442 34.3% fourt literature theireach with other researchers. However,training toolsto data Campbell et al., found that withholding data may be more sed Abioti paradigm s called ‘‘the of the science related to out es serve largely untested. which these guidelines are carried studiremains as ate with but common in genetics and related fields. 31 3.9 Reasons may include the Remote-Sen c 358 33.9% has been where ‘‘all interoper reseaand Vickers requested ation from ten researchers who had doi:10shers in the sed Biotic new era scientific discovery’ ’ e, and they data is onlin only the outp scientific insig uts Savage of rch hts N replic data s [5][6][7] researcher published articles in PLoS journals, which have specific data managers increased scientific competitiveness of1317 field, as well as the and publi .1371/journa the ing was l.pone.0021101.t00 the opportunities for commercial applications. Respondents of the 2.4 100.0 Social Scienc Interviews e Surve ys 264 27.5% science not ling new sharing policies. Only one author sent an rchers, data public fund estimated that ten percent of their requests for information 2 251 20.3% all of the Digital data are agree that lly, resea original dataset d[14]. survey theses, enab Other 19.3% other’’ [3]. ts to new hypo data Additiona y overwhelmingly 195 borative, PLoS ONE 1 provide inpu ation [4]. and colla includes the surve | www 6 | e2110 .ploso 15.0% ng innov intensive ng PARSE e 6 | Issue ne.org doi:10.1371/ 80 and drivi more data . Data shari it is primarily www.plosone.org PLoS ONE | | Volum2 June 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 6 | e21101 journal.pone 6.1% ce becomes rtant June 2011 .0021101.t00 As scien mes more impo of data; however, 4 beco on 3 sharing and preservati 1 deposition June 2011 | Volum ne.org e 6 | Issue | www.ploso 6 | e211 PLoS ONE 01 researchers Publisher + deposit a copy on ZORA zora.uzh.ch 7
  • 8. Main Library, Open AccessOpen Access via Publisher Data Sharing by Scientists Table 1. Primary work secto ptions r. and Perce therefore Read , most important reason for data preservation. Nearly all (98%) of participants agreed that if research is publicly funded, the results Data Shari actices public property and Eleanor properly preserved 2 ng by Scien should become Table 3. tists tists: Pr [8].This Ayd reports , Lei Wu 1 Academic Frequency , Data acce 1 Percent ss. by Scien glass , Arsev Umur articleinog the results of a survey of scientists’ current lu Governmen t 1058 Sharing ssee, of Tenne Commercial 167 80.5 1 data sharing practices and their perceptions of the barriers and University America Libraries, Data y Dou enablers of data sharing. The survey was conducted by the 1 rd , Kim berl 2 Unive rsity of Tennessee ssee, United States of researchca,team of Oak Ridge, Tenne Science Foundation-funded Non-profit 34 12.7 An organ ization(Golden Road) 2.6 -specific y, the National Other 35 Suzie Alla Ameri 1 3 States of gical Surve Long-tem system Frequency opir *, 2 Frame Tennessee, United DataONE project. DataNet supports short- and long-term data States Geolo Total 21 2.7 Ecological Percent Carol Ten , Mike Other data Research Knoxville, atics, United management and open access to data. DataONE is one of the Network 351 h Manoff Tennessee, ical Inform 1315 1.6 access 38.5% rsity of Maribet ation Scienc es, Unive 3 Cente r for Biolog initially funded NSF DataNet partners. DataONE is a large scale It is impo rtant doi:10.1371/ journal.pone A Distrib uted Active 292 America, 100.0 -Archive 32.1% l of Inform States of in the past. data sharing. collaboration to develop an organization that supports the full .0021101.t00 A Globa l Biodiv Center 246 1 Schoo lifecycle tive than particularly, United 1 ersity Inform Tennessee, information collaboraof biological, ecological, and environmental prior from other 27.0% Knoxville, sive and and, rch from researcher National ation Facilit 173 rvation resea data and tools to be used by researchers, educators, students, do not Biological y data inten re-use, prese ts and extending s in the Information 19.0% inclu National ury is more very, decision-makers resul the general public. DataONE ‘‘will ensure of and affect the de other data field were denie Ecological Infrastructur 73 21st cent accessibility, disco verification Observatory e 8.0% t sharing fulfillment progress of scien practices which [16]. These resul d Internationa Abstrac rch in the data ing for preservation and access to multi-scale, nt data the multi-discipline, and l Long-term Network 70 tific resea researchers – method allow ally ce, such may also ts 7.7% ring curre multi-national science data’’ [9] by developing electroniccyberin- of requ Taiwan Ecological y explo their data a strong findings, 64 nd: Scien of tific and the ests, refusals to as signi nega ficant delay tively Ecological Research Backgrouthe data practicespart of the scien frastructure in this survenot engagement programs. fied with; ed and community make Research Network 7.0% ts are satis Discipline failure to publicly s in the South Africa Network 58 to study ng is a valuable tists participat Scientists provide coordinated access to rch datadata DataONE will (i) do Most responden their resea current sharing. s or subd isciplines discuss research present research n Enviro nmental 6.4% Data shari 1329 scien sharing. collections; (ii)funding. new global cyberinfrastructure that cting long-term Som than other e do better (geop have their own with others [16]. doi:10.1371/ Observation 7 total of enablers of data and lack of create a cle (colle satisfied with the short- journal.pone Network .8% results. ings: A time rch lifecy not in s [17]. hysics, biodi culture .0021101.t00 6 ipal Find the barriers and insufficient the data or resea data) but are agement both coming from contains both biological and environmental data willing versity, of 3 .7% ogy/Princ ns of including of different ge of their (research networks, environmental observato- resources man they are and astro data- reported Methodol and perceptio reasons, t-term parts t-term stora rs for data ts agree on prim ary Individua l Choice nomy) that gove shor ries,their researchereprints) responden tices based change the various initial and shor individual scientists, and citizen scientists); and (iii) secrecy rnment practices to others for vs. for agencies for the zing, and to ortscience cultureng ent prac The exten t to whic Institutional technology some publicly often have available nt processes or cataloging, analy provide supp citation and shari data managem and institutions by providing education and primarily funded not h resea Policies reported transfer research. strict polic as formal training, es in engaging citizens in science, and building culture an In a surveies about their curre for, describing ions do have great individual choic rchers share or global officers approach organizat s are met (such rences and communities of practice. In order tothe practices andNSF and e. Underlyin withhold data researcher that their institution in American searching rvation. Many n. d in facilitate change of the influence y of 79 world regio Several s ition t diffe ly roote plans from e scale on enco g policies is not commercia to file an inven had a formal universities, 93% certain cond also significan focus, and researcher data prese science culture through cyberinfrastructure for data, it is necessary on are deep agement Larg uraging and pract -term. If e are work to first understand s for data man lead to changes.resourcesof to Savage and Vick s who failed to or inhib reported lize research resul tion disclosure policy that and long their data. Ther discipline, age, preservatidate the culture of modern scienceand the role and ers, et al., share their iting data shari ices institution required ng and in it. could work to ts. al policies About one-half before to share subject data shari selves. New man preserve data bring attention data provide claimed data in ng. biomateri seeki of the parti ng to agency, tive to effec rchers them Figure 1. Jointresearcher raw data. Information Systems Committee (JISC), it that Stages the would take study by als witho that proh funding e: Barriers share and ONE) will both of the research and datas lifecycle. accompan often fail to deve authors came The become so comp ut a material trans ibited the disse cipants resea need to . to the conc too much ns/S ignificanc as well as the attention to the projects like Data principles Data Sharing ent e21101. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021101.g001 y their resea lop clear Increasing lex and fer agree mination Conclusio rch process de ding agem ONE 6(6): understan rch (i.e., , well-anno lusio the effici demanding that ment of world-wi NET (inclu d data man Encouraging data sharing and reuse begins PLoS good data tions. with ding of metadata) tated datas n that increased data chall ency of current they inhib , which have of the resea agencies and sponsored Data to apply soun practices in all phases of the data lifecycle such as generating and ral Practices and Percep believe that the Although drawnjourn a small sample of researchers, over , and may a policy original dataset these results lose acces ets to to data enges requ data pract it sharing [15]. to from publish a paper other fede, such as the NSF- r for scientists policy and ists: that by Scient collecting theg data, managing the data, analyzing the data, and Data Sharin strongly suggest that journal public repowould requdata sharing do Vickers, s and als or policies which require time. data loss, practice. ires a new comp ices in a world programs and make it easie help to sharing it. However, the data lifecycle cannot be considered ts not necessarily lead authorsnt this their datasets the authors to subm al. (2011) ire preve to make sitories at readily available et al. thus make data delug This rehen e, poor data approach woul sive approach of Wu L, et the issue oglu AU, independently from research lifecycle [10],ution License, are an as data which permi concerned occurrenc time of it datasets took actio better use of (pub practices, d seek to ass K, Aydin Kingdom reported with the preservati e [11]. PAR to other researchers. The amount of data sharing or data hoarding icatio publ n lic) fund scattered avoid S, Dougl n would data colle by announcin C, Allard ies Counc il, Unitedindispensible element of scientificCommons Attrib Figure 1.) ve research. (See NSF from a surve also appears to vary according to the of digita on researcher’s SE Insight, subject s g that all and resources. data, etc., Tenopir .0021101 the Creati credited. (DataONE) organizat a project ction must and Citation: journal.pone ology Facilit 2011 June 29, The specificterms of handling supplementary materials such as of the for Earth ration ions had y of data l informati ‘‘digital prop NSF and Techn Published the costs of source are Network discipline. what managers on data are include a data man osals to NSF recently doi:10.1371/ Science datasets are authowell documented. Observation to publish, or author uted underal not r and prepa policies kinds of to withhold and that specific in research, Neylon, 20, 2011; distrib In a recent survey, only e, Data is, decision Researchers who choose are data datasets often have procedur 64% claim regularly routinely agement involving Cameron Accepted May access article origin ed the and journal subscription fees were mentioned as current specific and easily deposited Editor: infrastructur accepted reasons for doing policies for and Vickers noted es in place to ed plan [1] January 3, 2011; is an open- medium, provid fees n of Cyber collection and analys Though so. Savage the for stora reasons that deter their specialist in alike, are consulted and analywell-document so that Received et al. This uction in any ation, Divisiodesign, data include concerns this numpatient time frame medical preservati mine ge and are reliab ed form Tenopir e Foundfunding sources for supplementary materials in journals. Partic- such polic about ber constprivacy (forand meth fields), on, with openly acces zed ß 2011 and reprod al Scienc role in study rs had no ipants in the survey suggested other potential sources for funding, ly invited its preserved’’ [18]. sible while by specialist and , are Copyright: use, distribution, of the Nation itutes a majo ies publishing opportunities, and the desire to concerns about future or proc od unrestricted d as part ment. The funde Polic edures rity, 32% of subm dissemina member states Similarly, suitably non- t was funde Agree in particular government funding, support from learned societies, exist. retain exclusive ies and to data that [8]. taken many years rted ission. rights proc had repo to to develop the European protected, The projec a Cooperative interests and Funding: 0944 under competing and publishers [11]. Datathan In Campbell’s edur of data sharing produce [14]. passive barri studyes sometimes in genetics, the a lack of [5] [19]. tion, and preservati polic Com award #083 declared that no of data. er to on for scien ies to implemen mission rs have and reuse top reasons cited for withholding data were the serve as of effort sharing. amount an activ t access, manuscript. The autho s for use tific know Interests: Data Sharing/Withholdingproviding acces Practices involved Tabin accessing and sharing datasets and theCampbell et a e rather protection of ledge and Competing including: a key part le 2. al. data tk.edu Data sharing isiated with According s,to a study done which is colleague’s or theirSubject disci to publish [15]. The decision to (2003) assoc important. advantage by own ability : ctenopir@u pline. * E-mail Publishing Research has many sharing Consortium (PRC) verify results data, in 2010 with 3823 share or withhold data is often dependent upon the point of time respondents, access to datasets, data helpsof in the data data models, and algorithms & existing publishing process at which the request is made. Campbell Table 4. critical as N re-analysis tific process; es to Data type in a Open Access journal d data are programs was ranked important or highly important; oach however, an interdisci- (2003) reported that nearly all (98.7%) of the technology transfer s. ction nt ce. Soun wise manageme of them of the scien or appr cially in officers surveyed agreed that academic scientists should freely environmen Introdu of scien only 38% felt that they were tions accessible [12]. In easily –espe tal scienc structure decisions, aking. addition, it was thedifferent among thetific progress Moreover, interpreta es & ecolog Frequency the infra Data are basis for good scientific N lowest scien other information types decision-m tive’’ [1]. of them were contribute to in journals, reference works, (some The research articles social with sharen data other scientists after publication, while only 30.5% data sciences retaibiolog y on helps agreed that scientists should share data and materials before 475 Percent the informed collabora technicalhas d setting; preservati y 36.1 Experiment Responses they form resources, and sive and plinary d, and store information, patent information, term Several previous long- etc.). physical The 204 publication. d; vast majority also believed that scientists should al and use of data inten re-analyze in computational explored themanaged,and barriers of sharing datadata be minimizesciencwhen sharing data with industry than with other is more careful es 15.5 Observation Percent is becoming analyzed, ‘‘science data collected, to developments acqu[13] and the extent tointegrity; surveys have isition, and N well- benefits which researchers share (re-)collectiondata. or withhold of computer 181 scienc The PARSE Insight survey indicated that academics [15]. e/engineeri 158 13.7 Data Mode ls al 711 632 54.6% rch other onduct of amount enormously due automated data previous resea to suggest that current sharing practices are minimal, Results seem is available, optimized; st misc ng researchers who are reluctant to share data with others reported 12.0 Biotic Surve N 48.5% , the onal), this when data is uards againmajor concerns with legal issues, misuse of data, and incompatible 118 499 although the amount of data use of resources ys increased and modeling [2]. Following sharing varies among different fields. atmospheric es computati intensive thus, ides safeg n; scienc 9.0 Abiotic Surveys 446 38.3% simulation tion technologi l, and Some journals have specific guidelines y provrequire authors to data- which n and falsificatio medicrations of a data types [8]. In e survey of geneticists98 other life scientists, and theoretica h paradigm: e, abilit gene ine N 7.4 communica (experimental, share is onlin data availdata fabricatio the extent for newTotal 52 Remote-Sen 442 34.3% fourt literature theireach with other researchers. However,training toolsto data Campbell et al., found that withholding data may be more sed Abioti paradigm s called ‘‘the of the science related to out es serve largely untested. which these guidelines are carried studiremains as ate with but common in genetics and related fields. 31 3.9 Reasons may include the Remote-Sen c 358 33.9% has been where ‘‘all interoper reseaand Vickers requested ation from ten researchers who had doi:10shers in the sed Biotic new era scientific discovery’ ’ e, and they data is onlin only the outp scientific insig uts Savage of rch hts N replic data s [5][6][7] researcher published articles in PLoS journals, which have specific data managers increased scientific competitiveness of1317 field, as well as the and publi .1371/journa the ing was l.pone.0021101.t00 the opportunities for commercial applications. Respondents of the 2.4 100.0 Social Scienc Interviews e Surve ys 264 27.5% science not ling new sharing policies. Only one author sent an rchers, data public fund estimated that ten percent of their requests for information 2 251 20.3% all of the Digital data are agree that lly, resea original dataset d[14]. survey theses, enab Other 19.3% other’’ [3]. ts to new hypo data Additiona y overwhelmingly 195 borative, PLoS ONE 1 provide inpu ation [4]. and colla includes the surve | www 6 | e2110 .ploso 15.0% ng innov intensive ng PARSE e 6 | Issue ne.org doi:10.1371/ 80 and drivi more data . Data shari it is primarily www.plosone.org PLoS ONE | | Volum2 June 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 6 | e21101 journal.pone 6.1% ce becomes rtant June 2011 .0021101.t00 As scien mes more impo of data; however, 4 beco on 3 sharing and preservati 1 deposition June 2011 | Volum ne.org e 6 | Issue | www.ploso 6 | e211 PLoS ONE 01 researchers Publisher 8
  • 9. Main Library, Open Access 9
  • 10. Main Library, Open AccessOpen Access via publisher (Golden Road)To publish in Open Access Journals authors sometimes (but not always!)have to pay a fee per article:•! Range of fee: 8 – 3900 USD•! Average fee: 906 USD•! 7892 journals in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)Some Journals use explicitly: : orSolomon and Björk (2012). A study of open access journals using article processing charges. Journal of the American Societyfor Information Science and Technology. Preprint available at: http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/. 10
  • 11. Main Library, Open Access Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003)„ Our mission of disseminating knowledge is only half complete if the information is not made widely and readily available to society. New possibilities of knowledge dissemination [...] through the open access paradigm via the Internet have to be supported.„ Open access contributions include original scientific research results, raw data and metadata, source materials, digital representations of pictorial and graphical materials and scholarly multimedia material. http://oa.mpg.de/lang/de/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/ 11
  • 12. Main Library, Open AccessSwiss Signatories of the Berlin Declarationhttp://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/signatoren/ 12
  • 13. Main Library, Open Access Guidelines Swiss National Science Foundation„ (since 2007) The SNSF requires grantees to provide open access to research results obtained with the help of SNSF grants (Article 44 Funding Regulations). http://www.snf.ch/SiteCollectionDocuments/allg_reglement_valorisierung_e.pdf 13
  • 14. Main Library, Open Access Guidelines University of Zurich (since 2008)„ The University of Zurich requires their researchers to deposit a copy of all their published scientific works in the Zurich Open Repository and Archive (ZORA) with open„ access, if there are no legal objections. The University of Zurich encourages and supports their authors to publish their research articles in Open Access journals where a suitable journal exists and provides the support to enable that to happen. http://www.oai.uzh.ch/en/working-with-zora/regulations/guidelines 14
  • 15. Main Library, Open Access Publications in ZORA (2008 – June 2012) 8000 6000 4000 35% 38% 44% 44% 2000 35% 38% 42% 39% 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Closed Access 5235 5167 4708 5123 899 Open Access 2784 3149 3463 3300 424 Open Access includes publications with an embargo and publications which are freely accessible at the publishers website 15
  • 16. Main Library, Open AccessWhy not 100% Open Access?Some personal observations... 16
  • 17. Main Library, Open Access Legal Objections„ Copyright Transfer Statement The author signs for and accepts responsibility for releasing this material on behalf of any and all co-authors. The copyright transfer covers the exclusive right and license to reproduce, publish, distribute and archive the article in all forms and media of expression now known or developed in the future, including reprints, translations, photographic reproductions, microform, electronic form (offline, online) or any other reproductions of similar nature. Example CTA of Springer: http://www.springer.com/?SGWID=3-102-45-69724-0 17
  • 18. Main Library, Open AccessReluctance to share accepted manuscript The Journal of Neuroscience, November 9, 2005 • 25(45):10479 –10493 • 10479 Journal of Neuroscience, in press Section: Cellular/Molecular Neuroscience Cellular/Molecular Senior Editor: Dr. Gail Mandel Src-Family Kinases Stabilize the Neuromuscular Synapse In Src-family kinases stabilize the neuromuscular synapse in vivo Vivo via Protein Interactions, Phosphorylation, and via protein interactions, phosphorylation, and cytoskeletal linkage Cytoskeletal Linkage of Acetylcholine Receptors of acetylcholine receptors Gayathri Sadasivam,1 Raffaella Willmann,1 Shuo Lin,2 Susanne Erb-Vogtli,1 Xian Chu Kong,2 Markus A. Ruegg,2 and ¨ ¨ Christian Fuhrer1 Abbreviated title: Src action in postsynaptic stabilization 1Department of Neurochemistry, Brain Research Institute, University of Zurich, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland, and 2Biozentrum, University of Basel, ¨ ¨rich, ¨ CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland Gayathri Sadasivam*, Raffaella Willmann*, Shuo Lin§, Susanne Erb-Vögtli*, Xian Chu Kong§, Postnatal stabilization and maturation of the postsynaptic membrane are important for development and function of the neuromuscular junction (NMJ), but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly characterized. We examined the role of Src-family kinases (SFKs) in vivo. Markus A. Rüegg§, and Christian Fuhrer* Electroporation of kinase-inactive Src constructs into soleus muscles of adult mice caused NMJ disassembly: acetylcholine receptor (AChR)-rich areas became fragmented; the topology of nerve terminal, AChRs, and synaptic nuclei was disturbed; and occasionally nerves started to sprout. Electroporation of kinase-overactive Src produced similar but milder effects. We studied the mechanism of SFK action using cultured srcϪ/Ϫ;fynϪ/Ϫ myotubes, focusing on clustering of postsynaptic proteins, their interaction with AChRs, and AChR phosphorylation. Rapsyn and the utrophin-glycoprotein complex were recruited normally into AChR-containing clusters by agrin in *Department of Neurochemistry, Brain Research Institute, University of Zürich, srcϪ/Ϫ;fynϪ/Ϫ myotubes. But after agrin withdrawal, clusters of these proteins disappeared rapidly in parallel with AChRs, revealing that Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland SFKs are of general importance in postsynaptic stability. At the same time, AChR interaction with rapsyn and dystrobrevin and AChR phosphorylation decreased after agrin withdrawal from mutant myotubes. Unexpectedly, levels of rapsyn protein were increased in srcϪ/Ϫ;fynϪ/Ϫ myotubes, whereas rapsyn– cytoskeleton interactions were unaffected. The overall cytoskeletal link of AChRs was weak but still strengthened by agrin in mutant cells, consistent with the normal formation but decreased stability of AChR clusters. These data §Biozentrum, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 70, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland show that correctly balanced activity of SFKs is critical in maintaining adult NMJs in vivo. SFKs hold the postsynaptic apparatus together through stabilization of AChR–rapsyn interaction and AChR phosphorylation. In addition, SFKs control rapsyn levels and AChR- cytoskeletal linkage. Key words: Src; acetylcholine receptor; neuromuscular synapse; agrin; tyrosine phosphorylation; postsynaptic membrane Address for correspondence: Christian Fuhrer, Brain Research Institute, University of Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 44 635 33 10. Fax: +41 44 635 Introduction view, see Bezakova and Ruegg, 2003; Luo et al., 2003). Central in 33 03. E-mail: chfuhrer@hifo.unizh.ch Neuromuscular junctions (NMJs) develop in a series of steps in these is rapsyn, the main AChR-anchoring protein mediating which the postsynaptic membrane first forms by concentrating clustering (Gautam et al., 1995). Rapsyn increasingly binds to acetylcholine receptors (AChRs) and associated proteins in a flat AChRs in response to agrin (Moransard et al., 2003), mediates topology. Postnatally, NMJs mature and AChRs get arranged at agrin-induced phosphorylation of the AChR ␤ and ␦ subunits Number of Figures: 10; 1 Supplementary Figure; Number of pages: 32 the crests of postjunctional folds. Concomitantly, all but one (Mittaud et al., 2001), and links the receptor to ␤-dystroglycan, a Key words: Src, acetylcholine receptor, neuromuscular synapse, agrin, tyrosine-phosphorylation, axon withdrew, paralleled by destabilization of adjacent AChRs component of the postsynaptic utrophin-glycoprotein complex (Sanes and Lichtman, 2001). Maturation and stabilization of (UGC) (Cartaud et al., 1998; Bartoli et al., 2001). In clustering, postsynaptic membrane AChR clusters ensure proper synaptic development, which forms AChRs become immobilized and less detergent extractable, both the basis for nerve-evoked muscle contractibility. in agrin-treated myotubes (Prives et al., 1982; Stya and Axelrod, Much is known about the molecular pathways that first form 1983; Podleski and Salpeter, 1988) and developing NMJs Acknowledgements: We thank Dr. Mathias Höchli and Dr. Anne Greet Bittermann from the NMJs. Neural agrin, by activating the muscle-specific kinase (Dennis, 1981; Slater, 1982). The players in this cytoskeletal link (MuSK), is crucial by triggering downstream cascades (for re- remain uncertain. Agrin-induced phosphorylation of AChR ␤ is Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the University of Zürich for their excellent technical involved (Borges and Ferns, 2001) and can occur through Abl- and Src-family kinases (SFKs) (Finn et al., 2003; Mittaud et al., assistance with the confocal microscope. This work was supported by the Eric Slack-Gyr Received May 25, 2005; revised Sept. 28, 2005; accepted Sept. 29, 2005. This work was supported by the Eric Slack-Gyr Foundation and by grants from the Swiss National Science Foun- 2004). dation, the Swiss Foundation for Research on Muscle Diseases, and the Zurich Neuroscience Center (C.F.). We thank ¨ Much less is known about the mechanisms that mature NMJs Foundation, and by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Foundation Drs. Mathias Hochli and Anne Greet Bittermann (Laboratory of Electron Microscopy, University of Zurich) for their ¨ ¨ and stabilize AChR clusters postnatally. Although MuSK is re- excellent technical assistance with the confocal microscope. quired (Kong et al., 2004), some of these pathways may not be for Research on Muscle Diseases and the Zürich Neuroscience Center (to C.F.). Correspondence should be addressed to Christian Fuhrer, Brain Research Institute, University of Zurich, Winter- ¨ thurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: chfuhrer@hifo.unizh.ch. ¨ essential in initial NMJ formation (Willmann and Fuhrer, 2002), DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2103-05.2005 as illustrated by mice lacking utrophin and dystrophin or the 1 Copyright © 2005 Society for Neuroscience 0270-6474/05/2510479-15$15.00/0 UGC components ␣-dystrobrevin or dystroglycan (Grady et al., Accepted manuscript (Post-Print) Published PDFImage: Charles Le Brun, 1760 18
  • 19. Main Library, Open AccessReluctance to share accepted manuscript Sharing a The Journal of Neuroscience, November 9, 2005 • 25(45):10479 –10493 • 10479 Journal of Neuroscience, in press Section: Cellular/Molecular Neuroscience Cellular/Molecular Senior Editor: Dr. Gail Mandel non-final version? Src-Family Kinases Stabilize the Neuromuscular Synapse In Src-family kinases stabilize the neuromuscular synapse in vivo Vivo via Protein Interactions, Phosphorylation, and via protein interactions, phosphorylation, and cytoskeletal linkage Cytoskeletal Linkage of Acetylcholine Receptors No Way!! of acetylcholine receptors Gayathri Sadasivam,1 Raffaella Willmann,1 Shuo Lin,2 Susanne Erb-Vogtli,1 Xian Chu Kong,2 Markus A. Ruegg,2 and ¨ ¨ Christian Fuhrer1 Abbreviated title: Src action in postsynaptic stabilization 1Department of Neurochemistry, Brain Research Institute, University of Zurich, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland, and 2Biozentrum, University of Basel, ¨ ¨rich, ¨ CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland Gayathri Sadasivam*, Raffaella Willmann*, Shuo Lin§, Susanne Erb-Vögtli*, Xian Chu Kong§, ann*, Postnatal stabilization and maturation of the postsynaptic membrane are important for development and function of the neuromuscular junction (NMJ), but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly characterized. We examined the role of Src-family kinases (SFKs) in vivo. Markus A. Rüegg§, and Christian Fuhrer* Electroporation of kinase-inactive Src constructs into soleus muscles of adult mice caused NMJ disassembly: acetylcholine receptor (AChR)-rich areas became fragmented; the topology of nerve terminal, AChRs, and synaptic nuclei was disturbed; and occasionally nerves started to sprout. Electroporation of kinase-overactive Src produced similar but milder effects. We studied the mechanism of SFK action using cultured srcϪ/Ϫ;fynϪ/Ϫ myotubes, focusing on clustering of postsynaptic proteins, their interaction with AChRs, and AChR phosphorylation. Rapsyn and the utrophin-glycoprotein complex were recruited normally into AChR-containing clusters by agrin in *Department of Neurochemistry, Brain Research Institute, University of Zürich, srcϪ/Ϫ;fynϪ/Ϫ myotubes. But after agrin withdrawal, clusters of these proteins disappeared rapidly in parallel with AChRs, revealing that Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland -8057 SFKs are of general importance in postsynaptic stability. At the same time, AChR interaction with rapsyn and dystrobrevin and AChR phosphorylation decreased after agrin withdrawal from mutant myotubes. Unexpectedly, levels of rapsyn protein were increased in srcϪ/Ϫ;fynϪ/Ϫ myotubes, whereas rapsyn– cytoskeleton interactions were unaffected. The overall cytoskeletal link of AChRs was weak but still strengthened by agrin in mutant cells, consistent with the normal formation but decreased stability of AChR clusters. These data §Biozentrum, University of Basel, Klingelbergstrasse 70, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland lbergstrasse show that correctly balanced activity of SFKs is critical in maintaining adult NMJs in vivo. SFKs hold the postsynaptic apparatus together through stabilization of AChR–rapsyn interaction and AChR phosphorylation. In addition, SFKs control rapsyn levels and AChR- cytoskeletal linkage. Key words: Src; acetylcholine receptor; neuromuscular synapse; agrin; tyrosine phosphorylation; postsynaptic membrane Address for correspondence: Christian Fuhrer, Brain Research Institute, University of Zürich, , Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 44 635 33 10. Fax: +41 44 635 zerland. Introduction view, see Bezakova and Ruegg, 2003; Luo et al., 2003). Central in 33 03. E-mail: chfuhrer@hifo.unizh.ch Neuromuscular junctions (NMJs) develop in a series of steps in these is rapsyn, the main AChR-anchoring protein mediating which the postsynaptic membrane first forms by concentrating clustering (Gautam et al., 1995). Rapsyn increasingly binds to acetylcholine receptors (AChRs) and associated proteins in a flat AChRs in response to agrin (Moransard et al., 2003), mediates topology. Postnatally, NMJs mature and AChRs get arranged at agrin-induced phosphorylation of the AChR ␤ and ␦ subunits Number of Figures: 10; 1 Supplementary Figure; Number of pages: 32 the crests of postjunctional folds. Concomitantly, all but one (Mittaud et al., 2001), and links the receptor to ␤-dystroglycan, a Key words: Src, acetylcholine receptor, neuromuscular synapse, agrin, tyrosine-phosphorylation, cular axon withdrew, paralleled by destabilization of adjacent AChRs component of the postsynaptic utrophin-glycoprotein complex (Sanes and Lichtman, 2001). Maturation and stabilization of (UGC) (Cartaud et al., 1998; Bartoli et al., 2001). In clustering, postsynaptic membrane AChR clusters ensure proper synaptic development, which forms AChRs become immobilized and less detergent extractable, both the basis for nerve-evoked muscle contractibility. in agrin-treated myotubes (Prives et al., 1982; Stya and Axelrod, Much is known about the molecular pathways that first form 1983; Podleski and Salpeter, 1988) and developing NMJs Acknowledgements: We thank Dr. Mathias Höchli and Dr. Anne Greet Bittermann from the NMJs. Neural agrin, by activating the muscle-specific kinase (Dennis, 1981; Slater, 1982). The players in this cytoskeletal link (MuSK), is crucial by triggering downstream cascades (for re- remain uncertain. Agrin-induced phosphorylation of AChR ␤ is Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the University of Zürich for their excellent technical involved (Borges and Ferns, 2001) and can occur through Abl- and Src-family kinases (SFKs) (Finn et al., 2003; Mittaud et al., assistance with the confocal microscope. This work was supported by the Eric Slack-Gyr Received May 25, 2005; revised Sept. 28, 2005; accepted Sept. 29, 2005. This work was supported by the Eric Slack-Gyr Foundation and by grants from the Swiss National Science Foun- 2004). dation, the Swiss Foundation for Research on Muscle Diseases, and the Zurich Neuroscience Center (C.F.). We thank ¨ Much less is known about the mechanisms that mature NMJs Foundation, and by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Foundation tional Drs. Mathias Hochli and Anne Greet Bittermann (Laboratory of Electron Microscopy, University of Zurich) for their ¨ ¨ and stabilize AChR clusters postnatally. Although MuSK is re- excellent technical assistance with the confocal microscope. quired (Kong et al., 2004), some of these pathways may not be for Research on Muscle Diseases and the Zürich Neuroscience Center (to C.F.). Correspondence should be addressed to Christian Fuhrer, Brain Research Institute, University of Zurich, Winter- ¨ thurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: chfuhrer@hifo.unizh.ch. ¨ essential in initial NMJ formation (Willmann and Fuhrer, 2002), DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2103-05.2005 as illustrated by mice lacking utrophin and dystrophin or the 1 Copyright © 2005 Society for Neuroscience 0270-6474/05/2510479-15$15.00/0 UGC components ␣-dystrobrevin or dystroglycan (Grady et al., Accepted manuscript (Post-Print) Published PDFImage: Charles Le Brun, 1760 19
  • 20. Main Library, Open Access Assumed conflicts with publishers and editors„ Ich fürchte schlicht Komplikationen mit den jeweiligen Herausgebern, die ich ja nicht gefragt habe. Ein gutes Verhältnis zu denen ist mir aber wichtig, und das möchte ich nicht aufs Spiel setzen. Seminarleiter, April 2012 20
  • 21. Main Library, Open AccessUnawareness of the problems (eg. prices) 21
  • 22. Main Library, Open AccessAcademic evaluation and reputation system 22
  • 23. Main Library, Open AccessNo time for Open AccessPhoto by Timm Suess 23
  • 24. Main Library, Open Access No interest & Ignorance of guidelines„ Danke für Ihre freundliche Frage. Ich verzichte auf die Präsentation in ZORA. Danke und mit den besten Grüssen Professorin, März 2012 24
  • 25. Main Library, Open AccessOpen Access Funding at the University of Zurich 25
  • 26. Main Library, Open AccessMemberships +Open Access Publishing Fundfor social sciences and humanitieshttp://www.oai.uzh.ch/en/at-the-uzh/funding/ 26
  • 27. Main Library, Open AccessBioMed Central – 220 Open Access Journalshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-5-85 27
  • 28. Main Library, Open AccessNumber of BioMed Central publications in ZORA 180 162 160 140 127 120 100 92 85 80 60 48 40 25 19 21 20 13 12 0 3 5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 28
  • 29. Main Library, Open AccessOpen Access funding vs. Journal subscriptionsYear 2011•! Open Access funding: 162‘000 CHF•! Journal subscriptions: 4‘061‘000 CHF (only Main Library)Jahresbericht 2011 der Haupbibliothek Universität ZürichImages: Fly by Domini Li, Wellcome Images, B0004872, Elephant: Meyers Konversationslexikon 29
  • 30. Main Library, Open AccessChallenge: Who can do what? Researcher Funder University Publisher Libraries 30
  • 31. Main Library, Open AccessWho is doing the coordination? Researcher Funder University Publisher Libraries 31
  • 32. Main Library, Open AccessEuropean CommissonMain Library University of Zurich is on of 41 project partnersin the EU-Project:Open Access and Open Science expected to be a key part for the upcomingHorizon 2020 research programhttp://www.openaire.eu/en/open-access/country-information/switzerland 32
  • 33. Main Library, Open AccessSCOAP3 33
  • 34. Main Library, Open AccessSummary•  Open Access is a proven and solid business model•  It works for top journals•  Open Access is growing slowly, but constantly•  100% Open Access is not expected to cost less, but there is added value.•  … Open Access to research data is an upcoming topic 34
  • 35. Main Library, Open AccessBACKUP-SLIDES
  • 36. »Modern science needs the free flow of knowledge … in an e-infrastructure that is open across national borders, disciplines and scientific communities« Neelie Kroes (European Commission, 2012) Supporting Open Science in Europe Main Library, Open Access Infrastructure OpenAIRE gathers research output from repo- Research sitory network, identifying Services Repositories associated links and Supports researchers link to OpenAIRE: enabling enhanced and third-parties to publications, data, publications search, access, and ? funding reuse research information Publications output Data Linked Research € Funding API Who bene ts from OpenAIRE? What is OpenAIRE? Why is OpenAIRE important? Who is OpenAIRE? EU researchers who access, deposit and link to A Participatory European Open Access infrastructure to By facilitating Open Science and Open Access, OpenAIRE OpenAIRE is an FP7 funded project, now in its second research output manage scientific publications and associated information allows scientists to access, reuse and enhance and research phase of funding until May 2014 via repository networks output National Open Access initiatives 41 project partners include 3 scientific communities: Harvests and indexes FP7 Open Access publications OpenAIRE provides a cross-discipline support service for EBI, DANS and BADC Repository managers European Scientists Harvests subsets of related data, and other contextual Collaboration with EuroCRIS, EUDAT, DataCite, COAR, Policy makers and funders who monitor funded work information, cross-linking them to demonstrate Enhanced Tools such as publication usage statistics LIBER, SPARC Europe Publishers who wish to raise visibility of output Publications OpenAIRE is based on Potential data providers who want to explore linking The OpenAIRE portal provides a suite of services Project Coordinator: - versatile technology and innovative research up their research Mike Hatzopoulos, mike@di.uoa.gr - deposit and access - European outreach effort which advocates - guidelines and a helpdesk Open Access OpenAIRE runs a series of workshops, and produces reports on Open Access issuesParticipating countries Austria (University of Wien) France (Couperin) Luxemburg (University of Luxemburg) Slovenia (University of Ljubljana) Contact & Info Belgium (University of Gent) Germany (University of Konstanz) Malta (Malta Council for Science & Technology Spain (Spanish Foundation for Science Bulgaria (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences) Greece (National Documentation Center) and University of Malta) & Technology) Visit the OpenAIRE Portal Croatia (Ruder Boskovic Institute) Hungary (HUNOR) Netherlands (Utrecht University) Sweden (National Library of Sweden) http://www.openaire.eu Cyprus (University of Cyprus) Iceland Landspitali (University Hostpital) Norway (University of Tromsoe) Switzerland (University of Zurich) Czech Republic (Technical University of Ostrava) Italy (CASPUR) Poland (ICM ñ University of Warsaw) Turkey (Izmir Institute of Technology) Funded by the Denmark (Technical University of Denmark) Ireland (Trinity College) Portugal (University of Minho) UK (University of Nottingham) Follow us on Twitter European Union Estonia (University of Tartu) Latvia (University of Latvia) Romania (Kosson) http://twitter.com/OpenAire_eu Finland (University of Helsinki) Lithuania (Kaunas Technical University) Slovakia (University Library of Bratislava) http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall/ 28.6.2012 36
  • 37. Main Library, Open Access„ Coordination of Libraries? A possible explanation is that to do something about the situation requires coordinated action. Even if one library refuses to subscribe to Elsevier journals, plenty of others will feel that they can’t refuse, and Elsevier won’t mind too much. But if all libraries were prepared to club together and negotiate jointly, doing a kind of reverse bundling — accept this deal or none of us will subscribe to any of your journals — then Elsevier’s profits (which are huge, by the way) would be genuinely threatened. However, it seems unlikely that any such massive coordination between libraries will ever take place. Timothy Gowers, Mathematician, Cambridge University http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/elsevier-my-part-in-its-downfall/ 37
  • 38. Main Library, Open AccessVan Noorden, Richard (2012) Nature 486, 302–303, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/486302a 38
  • 39. Main Library, Open AccessPLOS: Public Library of Sciencehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000308 39