DataONE Users Group Open Access Roundtable, July 2015
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,868 views
Presentation for Open Access roundtable discussion at 2015 DataONE Users Group (DUG) meeting, Asilomar, CA, 13 July 2015
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (16)
Viewers also liked
Similar to DataONE Users Group Open Access Roundtable, July 2015
Similar to DataONE Users Group Open Access Roundtable, July 2015 (20)
More from Stephanie Simms
More from Stephanie Simms (9)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
DataONE Users Group Open Access Roundtable, July 2015
- 1. Open Access Roundtable DUG, 13 July 2015 Stephanie Simms | @stephrsimms
- 2. Whitmire et al. RDAP 2015
- 3. Articles Data • Most agencies cite PubMed Central as a model for depositing publicly accessible versions of articles • Almost all of the released documents indicate that agencies will be requiring grant recipients to make final versions of their research articles available freely within 12 months of publication • Many will require that the underlying data associated with those articles be made publicly available at the time the article is published or within 12-30 months of compiling the final data set • Most agencies will be, if they are not already, requiring that a data management plan (DMP) be submitted with all grant proposals #OSTPResp http://bit.ly/FedOASummary
- 4. NSF NIH NASA • Takes effect Jan 2016 • ≤ 12 mo after initial publication for articles, considering accepting petitions to extend • Think about at time of publication for data • Investigating data repository options • In effect for articles, partially for data. Data more formed by Dec 2015 • ≤ 12 mo after initial publication for articles • At the time of article publication for data (appropriate timelines being explored) • Takes effect Oct 2015 • ≤ 12 mo after initial publication for articles • At time of publication or a “reasonable time frame” for data • Investigating data repository options Timelines for deposit
- 6. Culture change: stick Boardman Robinson 1916 / Wikimedia Commons
- 7. “A number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases released mainly as a result of human activity.” #encyclical
- 8. CREATE: infrastructure legal framework sustainable business models policy framework collaborations Flickr / swong95765 rewards (carrots)
- 10. 10
Editor's Notes
- Welcome to the OA roundtable. I’m Stephanie Simms, a research data specialist and service manager for the DMPTool at the California Digital Library. Prior to joining the CDL about 6 weeks ago, I was a CLIR Postdoctoral Fellow in the UCLA Library and Center for Digital Humanities. Before that I did environmental archaeology in Mexico and Guatemala. Chris shared the notes from last year’s discussion so I’m aiming to pick up where you left off. A lot has happened in the past year with regard to open access; first, I’ll just be clear that we’re talking about open access as a set of principles and actions — I’ll talk about the implications for academic publishing, for data of all shapes and sizes, open educational resources, as well as the impacts on researchers and the culture of research. DataONE is way ahead of the curve in terms of facilitating open access and after this brief overview I’ll open it up to discussion about how we can all try to stay on the leading edge of these changes.
- I have open access to thank for some of the content of this powerpoint: I stole this slide from a recent presentation given at the Research Data Access and Preservation Summit, where Amanda Whitmire and her colleagues refer to the One Memo to Rule Them All. Following on the Feb 2013 OSTP memo, federal agencies as well as private organizations (e.g., Sloan, Moore, Gates Foundations) are continuing to issue new or revised requirements for ensuring public access to the results of funded research. Amanda Whitmire, Jake Carlson, Patricia Hswe, Susan Wells Parham, Lizzy Rolando & Brian Westra. 2015. “Using assessment of NSF data management plans to enable evidence-based evolution of research data services,” Research Data Access and Preservation Summit 2015 (RDAP), April 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/1957/55693
- Most of the Public Access Plans mandate that researchers create a data management plan that describes how they will manage and share published articles and the underlying data, or alternatively explain why they cannot make their results open. Many folks have been tracking the release of agency requirements with the Twitter hashtag and there is also a crowdsourced Google spreadsheet also started by Amanda Whitmire at Oregon State University, being maintained mostly by others working in libraries. At the CDL, we are monitoring these and other channels of communication to update the public templates in the DMPTool—Sherry Lake deserves most of the credit for keeping things up-to-date in the past 6 months or so. Federal agency policies sometimes come in the form of impossibly long 90 page documents that deliver few specifics. Like many researchers I have talked to, I find this frustrating and disappointing although I recently read an interesting opinion piece speculating on why this is: http://esciencecommunity.umassmed.edu/2015/04/03/an-inside-view-of-the-ostp-memo-responses-on-research-data-management/ The author (Jon Petters), who used to work at an agency himself, named the fact that this is an unfunded mandate (first and foremost) so in an environment of shrinking resources everyone suddenly has to determine the level of priority for research data management, which is definitely not free; there is a lack of existing infrastructure to track research data – many agencies don’t even know what kind of data are being produced; the top-down method of communicating the OSTP Memo is kind of like a game of telephone whereby the reasons *why* RDM is important can be lost by the time you get to the program officers and other staff, many of whom were once researchers themselves and have old-school notions about data sharing Slide content from: Margaret Janz (Slideshare) “Federal Funding Agency Public Access Policies and You,” May 7, 2015.
- Here you can see some examples of the range of timelines among the NSF, NIH, and NASA, and varying degrees of vagueness about things such as where you should deposit your data (“investigating data repository options”). Most of the policies state that data underlying articles must be made available within 12 months of publishing an article, although increasingly the publishers themselves are requiring that the data be available at the time of publication (e.g., PLOS, Nature). Slide content from: Margaret Janz (Slideshare) “Federal Funding Agency Public Access Policies and You,” May 7, 2015. This slide completed with aid of Whitmire, Amanda; Briney, Kristin; Nurnberger, Amy; Henderson, Margaret; Atwood, Thea; Janz, Margaret; Kozlowski, Wendy; Lake, Sherry; Vandegrift, Micah; Zilinski, Lisa (2015): A table summarizing the Federal public access policies resulting from the US Office of Science and Technology Policy memorandum of February 2013. figshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1372041. Retrieved [July 9, 2015]
- The Gates Foundation has issued the strongest policy yet – starting in 2017 they will require a CC-BY license for all research products, meaning that everything is available for unrestricted reuse. This conflicts with journal policies that prohibit commercial reuse (Nature, Elsevier, Wiley). It also speaks to the issue of Intellectual Property and Copyright, which is crazy complicated—yet another thing researchers suddenly have to learn about and make sure they retain copyright. So now we have a bunch of semi-articulated policies that researchers have to comply with in order to obtain funding, but the real question is if and how the policies will be enforced. Recently, the NIH and the Wellcome Trust in the UK have begun to enforce their policies by not awarding new grants to researchers who have not made the results available from previous grants. NSF anecdotal evidence (Merced) of requesting revisions for DMP; one more thing to differentiate competitive proposals so now have to pay attention to it -Merced researcher mad at the DMPTool Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab visit because of DOE mandate; competition with other labs
- Lately everyone seems to be talking about carrots and sticks; currently we are in a situation with virtually no carrots and lots of sticks; researchers are frustrated and anxious in an environment of shrinking resources, increasing competition, and seemingly arbitrary application of policies. Anti-war cartoon depicting Death enticing an emaciated donkey towards a precipice with a carrot labeled “Victory” > pretty pessimistic outlook In addition to mandates, we’re in the midst of a fundamental change in research culture that is moving at the speed of bureaucracy and academia — I’m not sure which is slower. There’s lots of talking and good intentions, but not much action until there is more incentive to act (more sticks, probably in the form of rejected grant proposals, and ideally some carrots).
- On a more upbeat note, just last month Pope Francis acknowledged the science supporting human-induced climate change. Climate research is probably the highest profile example of why open access and data sharing are good ideas. As the evidence piles up, public opinion changes, which (hopefully) increases public support of funding for scientific research and puts pressure on policymakers. Reproducibility, integrity/good science Increasingly these things defined by openness
- Heather Joseph, SPARC presentation on OA: now we need to create…infrastructure (RDM tools and repositories), a legal framework/understand IP, sustainable business models (esp. for publishing), mature policy framework, collaborations across disciplines and between stakeholders. I will also point out the need for international collaboration – recent outbreak of Ebola in Africa is a good case to emphasize the importance of open access. The UK, EU, Canada all have similar mandates and we should work across these and other borders through efforts like the Research Data Alliance. A couple of weeks ago the Netherlands announced a plan to boycott Elsevier; this is another experimental tactic that we should pay attention to, perhaps even follow on a global scale to move changes forward. To carry the academic culture change, we need to create more rewards (carrots) to incentivize good RDM. There is still a long way to go, but this is where DataONE and all of you in this room are ahead of the curve, doing important work to educate, promote, enable open science. DataONE webinar JC: ethos of science need for both top down mandates and bottom up open access movement training graduate students/new generation of researchers is key, not just to embrace the idea of data sharing, but give them the skills to actually do it Opportunities for libraries, everyone
- Rewards: data-level metrics to track and measure data use, Making Data Count initiative. This will give researchers the professional credit they need and deserve for taking the time to responsibly manage and share their data. The Center for Open Science created a series of badges including this Open Data badge, which researchers can earn for making the data and documentation required to reproduce their published results available in an open-access repository. And of course they spearheaded the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines, announced just a couple of weeks ago and endorsed by many key players (agencies, publishers, organizations).
- I’ll leave you with an image of the open road and open it up to questions/discussion: Where are we going with open access? Flickr / Rachel, the open road