To share or not to share?

633 views

Published on

Presentation by RIN Director Michael Jubb at Dryad repository for datasets workshop linked to published journal articles (http://datadryad.org/repo)
on 27 April 2010, London

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
633
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

To share or not to share?

  1. 1. To Share or not to Share? <ul><li>Dryad Workshop </li></ul><ul><li>27 April 2010 </li></ul>
  2. 2. Motivations and Constraints <ul><li>Evidence of benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Citation esteem and good evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Explicit rewards </li></ul><ul><li>Altruism </li></ul><ul><li>Reciprocity </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced visibility </li></ul><ul><li>Cultural/peer pressures </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunities for collaboration, co-authorship </li></ul><ul><li>Easy-to-do </li></ul><ul><li>No clear benefits/incentives </li></ul><ul><li>Competition; desire to extract maximum value </li></ul><ul><li>Desire for/fear of commercial exploitation </li></ul><ul><li>Access restrictions desired or imposed </li></ul><ul><li>Legal, ethical problems </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of time, funds, expertise </li></ul><ul><li>Sheer size of datasets </li></ul><ul><li>Nowhere to put it </li></ul>
  3. 3. More constraints <ul><li>large-scale collaborative projects and teams not the norm </li></ul><ul><li>confusions over terminology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>data, datasets, databases, digital objects, information </li></ul></ul><ul><li>creation, collection/gathering of data not usually the primary objective of research </li></ul><ul><li>career rewards don’t come from sharing data </li></ul><ul><li>resistance to open sharing of ‘intellectual capital’ </li></ul>
  4. 4. Ownership, protection and trust <ul><li>responsibility, protectiveness and desire for control over data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>concerns about inappropriate use </li></ul></ul><ul><li>preference for co-operative arrangements and direct contact with potential users </li></ul><ul><li>decisions on when and how to share </li></ul><ul><ul><li>commercial, ethical, legal issues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>lack of trust in other researchers’ data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ i don’t know if they have done it to the same standards i would have done it” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>lack of standardisation </li></ul><ul><li>intricacies of experimental design and processes </li></ul>
  5. 5. Curation and sharing <ul><li>little sign that data management or curation yet adopted as standard practice </li></ul><ul><ul><li>except in areas such as astronomy, bioinformatics, genomics etc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>other kinds of information more readily shared </li></ul><ul><ul><li>software, code, tools, protocols etc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>challenges for service providers in meeting diverse needs of wide range of research groups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>disciplinary and subject differences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>subject knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>local, national and international </li></ul></ul><ul><li>relationships and engagement between researchers and information specialists </li></ul>
  6. 6. Take-home messages <ul><li>different kinds of data, different values attached to them, different user needs </li></ul><ul><li>the sustainability challenge: co-operation needed between researchers, funders, institutions </li></ul><ul><li>scope for publishers to promote access </li></ul><ul><ul><li>and need for clarity on text mining </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and monitoring of Web 2.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>need for incentives for researchers: support and reward for good practice </li></ul><ul><li>benefits and evidence of value </li></ul><ul><ul><li>scholarly record </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>re-use and aggregation </li></ul></ul>

×