Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The Italian Universities RDM WG: tools and best practices

560 views

Published on

Presentation by Paola Galimberti, University of Milan, at RDA National Event in Florence, Italy, November 2016

Published in: Data & Analytics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

The Italian Universities RDM WG: tools and best practices

  1. 1. The Italian Universities RDM WG: tools and best practices Paola Galimberti (University of Milan) on behalf of the Working Group on reasearch data RDA National Event in Italy, 14-15 November 2016 FAIR Data Management: best practices and open issues
  2. 2. The focus of this presentation is to speak about an informal cooperation between a group of italian universities in order to deliver a shared model of ⟶ Research Data Management policy ⟶ Research Data Management template ⟶ Research Data Infrastructure aiming at a well-developed national Data Management Plan, compliant with EU-funded projects or other funders requirements. The main problem of the group was: the lack of Italian guidelines (policy or plan). This in an example of a bottom-up initiative. 2
  3. 3. The Italian context ▪ CRUI established an OA Working group in 2006 who worked on policies and guidelines (for oa journals ,PHD theses, institutional repositories) ▪ the OA WG is still not working on research data. ▪ The Italian Ministry (MIUR) has not expressed any interest in this issue and the new appointed group on big data did not face the problem of RDM at all 3
  4. 4. The international context: EU EU has recognized the importance of RDM and of research data  organisation of data (entry, research cycle, dissemination & archiving of valuable results);  being part of the research process, and aiming to make it as efficient as possible & meet requirements of the university, funders, legislation. It concerns how to: Create data and plan for its use, Organise, structure & name data, Keep data (secure, provide access, store and back up), Find information resources Share & re-use data, publish and get cited. 4
  5. 5. Our group starting point  Common needs & OpenAIRE - NOAD contact  absence of Italian guidelines, no endorsement  in most cases, no internal structure in universities; no RDM and data stewardship integration in institutional communication strategy  need to support researchers in grant applications 5
  6. 6. The group & competencies Positive feedback from colleagues: • Politecnico di Milano • Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia • Università di Milano • Università di Padova • Università di Torino • Università di Trento Different skills and different roles: IT service, Digital library, Research Support Service, Legal service 6
  7. 7. Working method 3 WG: main coordinator Paola Gargiulo (OpenAIRE- NOAD, Cineca). Group n. 1: deliverable ➔ Policy model Group n. 2: deliverable ➔ DMP Template Group n. 3: deliverable ➔ E-Infrastructure ▪ Every member decided which group to belong to ▪ No meetings in presence, only on-line, mailing list, wiki, materials shared on google drive ▪ 6 Plenary sessions from April to October 2016 7
  8. 8. GROUP n. 1: POLICY Background: • results of the LEARN project, policies of the University of Edinburgh and of UCL, Austrian group e- infrastructures • local interviews on research data management and researchers needs and habits (data type, size, archiving, long term preservation Timing: • first draft July • second draft August • final document October Next steps: • Contextualization and Adoption of the policy (approval by SA) 8
  9. 9. Main issues • Introduction (why?) • A definition of research data (what?) • Handling of research data (where, how long?) • Ownership • Responsibilities 9
  10. 10. GROUP n. 2: DMP TEMPLATE Task:  analyze documents & templates from DCC, the European project LEARN, E-infrastructures Austria and several European universities provide a simple & clear template, accompanied by self- explaining examples Timing:  1st draft: July; 2nd draft: August; Final version: October 10
  11. 11. DMP Template structure: Administrative details Dataset description Standards & metadata Data Management, Documentation and Curation Data security, Ethics and Legal compliance Data sharing and access Responsibilities Institutional policies on data sharing and security 11
  12. 12. GROUP n. 3: e-INFRASTRUCTURES Tasks •Definition of technological and service requirements for research data life cycle • data PRODUCTION (During the research) • data PRESERVATION and DISSEMINATION & REUSE (once the research endded) 12
  13. 13. •Analysis of existing Data Repositories (Tools & Service) Timing: 1st draft: July; 2nd draft: September; Final version: November 13 GROUP n. 3: e-INFRASTRUCTURES Category Sub-category http://guides.da taverse.org/en/l  All data files are stored in CERN Data Centres, primarily Geneva, with soluzioni varie d2drop owncloud b2safe iRODS  https://eudat.eu/s ervices/userdoc/e OPEN SOURCE /Local installation  OPEN SOURCE /Local installation    Size https://dataverse.harvard.edu/ http://service.re3data.org/repository/r3d100010051 57385 files; 3153 datasets https://zenodo.org/search?page=1&size=20&q=http://service.re3data.org/repository/r3d100010468 Hardware & Infrastructure Server (server resources, platforms etc.) Cost
  14. 14. Conclusion •During the research •There is yet nothing specifically suited for this matter •Warning about spread use of cloud service outside the EU law •When the research is ended •Analyzed services and platforms are compliant to Horizon 2020 requirements and in general to FAIR principles but not specifically built for datasets management (e.g.: no detailed description/license is available for different objects in the same dataset) •Long term sustainability? Costs, governance, istitutional vs community vs central service… 14 GROUP n. 3: e-INFRASTRUCTURES
  15. 15. A chair has three legs 15 CULTURE INFRASTRUCTURE POLICIES
  16. 16. STRONG POINTS • Easy to work in an informal working group • High motivation of the participating institutions (better saying of the members of the group) • Possibility to take advantage of previous experiences (and materials) and outcomes 16
  17. 17. WEAK POINTS • Lack of endorsement • Lack of awareness of the importance of research data (and of open access to scientific publications tout court) at government level This poor awareness at central level results in: • a lack of interest locallyt so that research data are not (yet) an issue in many universities • a lack of instruments (both conceptual and technical) to manage data production, archiving and preservation • No funding for research data management. At international level concerns about the embargo period of 6 months (considered too short for a fair exploitation from the author http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1605654) 17
  18. 18. FUTURE STEPS •Dissemination Sharing of the outputs on the OA WIKI Italia Presentation of results in workshops and conferences •Development Involvement of the OA WK of CRUI Enrichment of the current documentation 18

×