On November 21st 2014 at the Tufts University Medford campus and November 25th 2014 at the campus of the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester, the BLC and Digital Science hosted a workshop focused on better understanding the research information management landscape. Mark Hahnel, CEO of Figshare discussed more specific aspects of the research data management landscape and various approaches to address the growing suite of mandates.

1. 32
The Evolving World of
Research Data Management
Options and Opportunties
@MarkHahnel
@figshare

2. “But taxpayers who are paying for that
research will want to see something
back. Directly – through open access
to results and data. And indirectly –
through making science work better
for all of us.
That’s why we will require open access
to all publications stemming from EU-funded
research. That’s why we will
progressively open access to the
research data, too. And why we’re
asking national funding bodies to do
the same.”
Neelie Kroes.
Vice President for the Eurpoean Commission

4. 4
“The Obama Administration is committed to the proposition that citizens deserve
easy access to the results of scientific research their tax dollars have paid for.
That’s why, in a policy memorandum released today, OSTP Director John
Holdren has directed Federal agencies with more than $100M in R&D
expenditures to develop plans to make the published results of federally funded
research freely available to the public within one year of publication and
requiring researchers to better account for and manage the digital data
resulting from federally funded scientific research.”
February 22nd 2013

5. “Investigators are expected to share with other researchers, at no more than
incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the primary data, samples, physical
collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of
work under NSF grants”
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/aag_6.jsp#VID4
“NIH expects the timely release and sharing of data to be no later than the
acceptance for publication of the main findings from the final dataset”
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharingdata_sharing_guidance.htm#time
“NEH is committed to timely and rapid data distribution”
http://www.neh.gov/files/grants/data_management_plans_2012.pdf

6. 6
"Products of research are not just publications.”
NSF senior policy specialist Beth Strausser.
Biographical Sketch(es), has been revised to rename the “Publications”
section to “Products” and amend terminology and instructions accordingly.
13 January 2013: "National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Criteria: Review and Revisions” Chapter II.C.2.f(i)(c),

11. 11

12. 1. Recommended open access to scholarly papers of publicly
funded research
2. Recommended open access to all digital outputs of publicly
funded research
3. Mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded
research
4. Mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded
research
5. Enforced, mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly
funded research
6. Enforced, mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly
funded research
The Open Academic Tidal Wave

13. 1. Recommended open access to scholarly papers of publicly
funded research
2. Recommended open access to all digital outputs of publicly
funded research
3. Mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded
research
4. Mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded
research
5. Enforced, mandated open access to scholarly papers of
publicly funded research
6. Enforced, mandated open access to all digital outputs of
publicly funded research
The Open Academic Tidal Wave

14. 14

15. 2
What is figshare?
A cloud based research data management
system for academics and administrators:
Manage their research
outputs privately and
securely, with controlled
collaborative spaces
Public repository of all
research outputs from an
institution, with impact and
usage metrics

17. 17

18. Promo9ng
Sharing
Managing
Open
Data
Making
it
discoverable
Storing
it
properly

19. Edi9ng
an
item
on
figshare

20. Confiden9al
item
on
figshare

21. Linked
item
on
figshare

25. 16363
There are 109 metrics!
‘Greater effort than expected: over 500 person hours’
‘A full audit would cost us 10,000 to 25,000 euro’s, a midterm review 5,000 to 10,000 euro’s.
Every year such an effort would not be feasible and too costly’
‘The formulation of the metrics is a bit idealistic (“down to the bit level”)… since no archive
is perfect, what will be the ‘less than perfect’ level (or levels for the different metrics), which
is acceptable and deserves certification?’
Feedback from test audits
http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/04/APARSEN-REP-D33_1B-01-1_0.pdf

26. 4 Key Modules
1
2
3
4 Reporting Dashboard
Research Data Management
Private, controlled storage and collaborative spaces
for every academic at the institution.
Public Digital Research Repository
A customisable public portal with all digital files made public at an
institutional, departmental and group level.
Administrative Workflow Portal
A portal where administrators can manage curation of files to be
made public, storage space allocation and user rights.
Impact and Usage Reporting.

29. 37
Institutional API
The figshare API allows you to push
data to figshare, or pull data out.
This allows you to build applications on
top of your academic’s research.

32. 2326

33. 2337

39. • Incentivising compliance
• Facilitating international collaboration
• Integration into user workflows
• Quantifying impact
• Administrative curation layer
• Embargo support
• Open data principles
• Citable – with DOIs
• Increases impact of research
• Trusted Repository
• Persistent links
• Heavyweight infrastructure

43. Persistent identifiers are essential
43

44. Persistent identifiers are essential
44

45. 4
5
APIs
are
essen9al

46. 4
6
Open
Access
is
essen9al

47. 4
7
Advocacy
is
essen9al

48. 4
8

49. 49
Institutions
Generating the world’s knowledge

50. 50

51. Thanks for your time.
@markhahnel
@figshare
figshare.com
api.figshare.com
institutions.figshare.com
mark@figshare.com

52. Publisher examples
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003094#s5
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0059671#s4
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0059503#s5
51
http://f1000research.com/articles/2-5/v1
http://f1000research.com/articles/1-47/v1

58. Figshare’s
posi9oning:
the
only
player
to
support
ins9tu9ons
all
the
way
to
the
top
of
the
hierarchy:
‘Ac9ve
Data’
Figshare Mendelay Archivum
Research
Gate Dryad Eprints
Fedora
+Front
End Zenodo
Lab
Archive
✓ ✓ no ✓
have the
community
✓
Needs
developers.
Files all stored
as individual
objects
Can but don’t
have a
community of
eyes on the
system.
Example of
Missouri
✓ ✓
✓
no no no no
Can track use
at level of
article.
No - needs
manual
intervention
no no
✓ ✓ no ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ No – focused
on papers.
None of the
permanence
✓ no
✓
but not an
institutional
offer
✓
Own servers
so yes
✓
because its on
the institutions
servers
No – as only a
5 (2?) year
funding plan
Active Data
Promoting
Sharing
Managing
Open Data
Making it
discoverable
• advocacy – driving uptake of
tools
• training for researchers,
• incentives?
• facilitating international
collaboration
• knowing the numbers. How
many papers, how many
citations, also for data
• Allocation of space around the
institution – e.g. 30GB / user.
User management
• Having a rights system for
access approval. CCO, CCBY,
CCNC etc
• Configurable workflow?
• Open data principles
• Having data stored somewhere
where – technically – it’s
discoverable – ie not on hard
drives
• Ensuring metadata attached
within 12 months
• Raw storage capacity
• Security and back up
• Persitent links
• Storage for 10 years from last use
(which must therefore be known)
• Archiving for posterity
Storing it properly no