V.1 launched in Oct 2011, about a year after DMPonline was born, to address the specific requirements of US funders. The team of founding partners (included DCC) determined that a separate tool was necessary because the original data model for DMPonline was designed for the more centralised funding and policy situation in the UK. DMPTool was and still is offered as a free service that was instantly popular among institutions and researchers.
Partners came back together and released V.2 in May 2014, developed with grant funding from Sloan and Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). Ambitious project: with lots of extra functionality. Also aimed to promote best practices beyond minimum reqs, public library of DMPs to encourage openness and sharing, build communities across all stakeholder groups. V.2 continues to be popular, now 180 partner institutions many with SSO.
Recently issued a Roadmap: in response to community feedback, need for more usage stats, API work to integrate with other systems, improve UX for current system
Lots of activity within a few large stakeholder groups, not great coordination among them. Government policy-makers and funders Institutions and libraries Individual researchers
I stole this slide from a presentation given by Amanda Whitmire and her colleagues who refer to the One Memo to Rule Them All.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) memo issued by the White House in Feb 2013 requiring all federal agencies that grant > $100 million annually to provide public access to the results of research. Applies to 18 federal agencies, each working independently, very decentralized in our special American way, continuing to issue new and revised requirements. Another important thing to note: this is an unfunded mandate so everyone is waiting on someone else to provide resources (infrastructure, training) for compliance. In a parallel trend, some private funders (e.g., Sloan, Moore, Gates) have their own requirements for DMPs and public access.
This slide implies that the mandate is evil, but I guess I would just say that it’s complicated.
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
Data librarians (some of whom are here at IDCC) have assumed responsibility for monitoring agency responses to the OSTP memo using this Twitter hashtag #OSTPResp and a crowd-sourced Google spreadsheet (link here). Agencies almost never announce things publicly, just sneak them out on their websites. So it really does take a village to track these evolving policies.
We currently maintain 30 U.S. funder templates in the DMPTool (list on left), not comprehensive, mainly based on demand, we need to add more. Beginning to have more direct communication with funders but slow process since it involves building personal relationships. You’ll notice these drop-down arrows because some funders have different requirements for different divisions and even specific programs, so e.g., National Science Foundation (major funder) = 13 different templates.
DMPTool also has 180 Institutional partners, primarily U.S. universities, who customize the tool for local users. More signing up every week. This reflects a rising trend in library-led initiatives to build IRs and offer DMP consultation services.
Individual researchers are using the tool, but the number of plans per user suggests low return rates. The typical grant cycle and length of funded projects may account for some of this, but we hope to incentivise greater use through enhancements to integrate DMPs with other data management systems and align them with research workflows. We see these as key advantages of forming an international partnership.
DMPTool also has international users in developing world, from unaffiliated universities – really want to understand more about these users. Recently, a data management course at Meru University in Kenya published all of their practice DMPs publicly.
This is a list of the key players we’ve identified in the DMP landscape. On both sides of the pond we’ve determined that we need to do a better job of reaching out to: Research funders Disciplinary communities – social networks for education about DMPs, fitting them into workflows
Other common areas of interest for our teams include: Monitoring policies and updating templates Supporting institutions to customise the tool and get machine-readable content Integration with emerging standards, other RDM tools and systems
We’ve concluded that by combining our years of DMP experience to create a single hub, we can engage with evolving community initiatives more effectively, and contribute to developing standards for DMPs at an international scale. This should also help us carry more clout with funders, research communities, other stakeholders whose reach extends beyond national borders.
Move DMPs beyond a culture of compliance to promote culture change
This involves such lofty goals as: Linking DMPs to their actual implementation This is part of advancing open scholarship Using the DMP as a training platform to accomplish these things
We’ll close with the Pope, who recently acknowledged the science supporting human-induced climate change. Climate research is a high profile example of why open science is a good idea. As the evidence piles up, public opinion changes, which (hopefully) increases public support of funding for scientific research and puts pressure on policymakers.
Increasingly good science is defined by openness and this can only be achieved through careful planning.
IDCC Presentation on the Future of Data Management Planning, Feb 2016
The Future of DMPs:
Tools, Policies and Players
Digital Curation Centre
IDCC, Amsterdam, 23-24 February 2016 #idcc16
California Digital Library
• DMPTool, U.S. policies and players
• DMPonline, UK/EU policies and players
• Sustaining and extending services
• Moving beyond compliance
Create, review, and share data management plans that
meet institutional and funder requirements
A short history
Launched in October 2011 following planning efforts of founding
partners: CDL, DCC, DataONE, Smithsonian, UCLA, UCSD, UIUC, UVa
Released v.2 in May 2014 with extra functionality
Roadmap for new work on API, usability in 2016
DMPs in the U.S. context
1. OSTP memo 2013, funder responses
2. Institution/library-led initiatives
3. Individual researchers
What about the researchers?
• Individual researchers using the tool, but not
reaching disciplinary communities
• Low return rates (0.86 plans/user for DMPTool)
• International users
A web-based tool to help researchers develop and
maintain data management plans
A short history
Launched in April 2010 at the Jisc conference
Released v.2 in March 2011 with extra functionality
Released v.3 in April 2012 with revisions in light of the DMPTool and
work from the Jisc MRD programme
Released v.4 in Dec 2013, incorporating major changes from an
evaluation and extensive user testing
Subsequent point releases in 2014-2015 to add new features
DMPs in the European context
• Lots of national RDM pilot projects
• Surge of overseas enquiries and use of DMPonline
• Requests to deliver DMP services internationally
• Translations into French, Spanish, German…
• Engagement with European Commission to advise and
train project officers
Locale-aware support for DMPonline
• Supporting use of the tool in different contexts
• Presentation of different (smaller set of) options
based on location / organisation / affiliation
• Single sign-on for non-UK contexts
• Support for foreign languages
Move towards chargeable DMP services
• Delivering separate instances of DMPonline for
University of Melbourne and DMPTuuli
• Potential for subscriptions services e.g. admin
access to customise the tool
• Libraries of templates with a feed of updates
Engaging with developer community
• Few active forks on DMPonline GitHub repository
• Enhancements and bug fixes shared by developer
teams in UK, Canada and Australia
• Integration projects, e.g. DMPTool with OSF
What support is needed?
• DMPonline-dev mailing list?
• Share roadmaps to avoid duplication of effort?
• Reconcile forks / commit to same codebase?
Key stakeholders & common interests
• Disciplinary communities
• Research funders
• Data centres
• Developer community
A single platform for all things DMP?
Co-manage, co-develop and issue joint roadmap
Benefit from pooling resources and expertise
Effective engagement with global research community
“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