This document discusses building sustainability for preserving research data. It outlines challenges like short-term funding not addressing long-term preservation needs. It recommends establishing benefits and incentives for stakeholders to invest in preservation. Central support services can help by providing guidance and assisting with data management plans and depositing data in repositories. Limited resources require carefully managing roles, responsibilities, and staff time to enhance data handling practices over the long term.

1. BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY
Preserving research data without breaking the bank
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0
UK: England & Wales License
Gareth Knight
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
gareth.knight@lshtm.ac.uk
M25 Academic Libraries Conference 2015
28 April 2015

2. Overview
1. Motivation & challenges for preserving research data
2. Overview of sustainability research
3. Data management as a sustainable economic activity
– Creating incentives to manage research data
– Acquiring resources to manage process
– Assigning roles & responsibilities
4. Providing centralised support
– Challenges for RDM support services
– Managing process using limited resources
5. Conclusion

3. London School of Hygiene &
Tropical Medicine
Institution
• A university for research and postgraduate
education in public health and tropical
medicine
• Recognised as one of world’s highest rated
universities for collaborative research
• Research taking place in 100+ countries
RDM Support Service
• Researcher-demand for central support
• Established as part of Library & Archives
Service in 2012
– Wellcome Trust funded 2012-15
– Institutional funded 2015 onwards

4. Research data in the university
Context
• Digital information is fragile & needs to be managed over time
• Significant amount of research data held in varied forms
• Library & Archives Services well placed within institution to help researchers and
provide curation function
Challenge:
• Long-term management needs rarely addressed in short-term funding
• Difficult to place value on preservation benefits if not in institution’s core business
• Institutions unwilling to allocate large amount of centralised funding
• Little co-ordination of preservation activities & lack of clear responsibility within
projects
"One of the greatest risks we run in not preserving our own digital assets for
ourselves is that we simultaneously cease to preserve our own viability as
institutions"
Halbert & Skinner (2010)

5. Towards Sustainable resources
“sustainability is the ability to generate or gain access to the resources… needed to
protect and increase the value of the content or service for those who use it”
JISC - Sustaining Digital Resources: An On-the-Ground View of Projects Today (2009)

6. Preservation as a
sustainable economic activity
“ sustainable economics for digital preservation is not just about finding more funds”
Blue Ribbon Task Force (2010)
Rusbridge & Lavoie (2011)
Draft Reference Model for Economic Sustainability of Digital Curation

7. Benefits & Incentives
Build case for preserving research data in institution
Rusbridge & Lavoie (2011)
Draft Reference Model for Economic Sustainability of Digital Curation
Establish benefits
• Outcomes that will be possible as a result of activity
• Objectives that won’t be achievable if not performed
Identify key stakeholders
• Establish role in organisation
• Relation to research data preservation
Tailor message
• Target their “self interests”
• Encourage them to invest & accept responsibility

8. Establishing buy-in: Incentives
Outcomes that may result from improved data management practice
Data Creators
Improve likelihood of
research funding
Potential to use data in
further research
Fulfil publisher
obligations & achieve
higher rate of citation
Spend less time
answering data user
questions
Research
Leaders
Contribution to
“reproducible research”
agenda
Enhanced data handling
practice & less
duplication of effort
Greater take-up of
research outputs in
research & teaching
Senior
Management
Better able to achieve
strategic goals to maximise
research impact
Build capacity within
institution &
collaborators
Remain competitive
with other institutions
Ensure compliance with
regulatory and
contractual obligations

9. Establishing buy-in: Challenges
Reaching audience
•Staff don’t read emails
•Ignore 1-to-1 meeting requests
•Work overseas
Too much work,
too little time
•Sciences are highly regulated
•Concern over institutional ‘red
tape’
Varying motivations
•Many researchers are
supported with no data
management req.
•Uncertainty on how it applies
to their field
Absence of case studies
in subject area
• “These practices may
apply to domain X, but
my research is different”
Departure of local
champions
•Replacement staff unaware
of need / less willing to
champion
•Need to restart process

10. Acquiring data management
resources
Various resources:
• Staff
• IT Systems
• Funding
Appropriately allocated:
Should fulfil:
• Current needs
• Scalable to future needs
Calculating resource allocation:
• Need to tailor to local needs
• Several resource calculators exist

11. Roles & responsibilityProjectstaff
• Role:
•RDM responsibility during project.
•Limited RDM role in post-project
•Supported by research funder(?)
•Challenges:
•Staff may not have expertise
•Not all funders support RDM costs
•RDM costs often removed during
negotiation phase
RDMstaff
•Role:
• Post-project curation & preservation
• Typically located within Library, Research
Office or Archives
•Challenges:
• How to fund model in long-term
• Standard - Standard (institutional fund)
• Project-specific support (day rate)
• Out-sourced/in-house data repository
• How to pass charges to project
• Flat vs. variable
• Oxford Research Archive £140 + £5 per
GB
• Archaeology Data Service – data type
Management structure for maintaining data

12. Scientific Data Management
• Research methods can be
difficult to understand for non-
experts
• Language varies between
– Subject domains
– Science & technology
(DOI has a different meaning!)
Specialised software & file formats
• Characterisation tools don’t identify
• Limited conversion options
• Few recognised preservation formats

13. Using staff time effectively
Providing RDM support using limited resources
Plan
proposal
Project
Start
Project
End
Possible
deletion
Identify
RDM
resources
Develop
funder
DMP
Create &
store data
Journal data
needs
Data
sharing
agreement
Prepare data
for deposit
Data
description
Preservation &
sharing Qs
RDM Website Training sessions RDM videos

14. Responding to evolving needs
Support requests:
• Monitor demand over time
– 88 (2013)
– 120 (2014)
– 42 (Jan-Mar 2015)
• Produce/Update guidance to reflect
common questions
Data Management Plans
• Tailored feedback on request
• Produce sample DMPs for common funders
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/researchdataman/plan/
Top 10 RDM topics raised in 2014
http://blogs.lshtm.ac.uk/rdmss/support-planning/

15. Enhancing RDM Practice
Mandate that projects without a funder DMP obligation should produce
a institutional DMP
Strategy for minimising resource allocation:
1. Prioritise key projects: LSHTM-led projects are mandated, consultancies &
others encouraged
2. Avoid duplication: Allow projects to submit a Research Protocol or other
DMP if they have produced one
3. Acquire DMPs for funded projects only: Analysis of 2013 funding bids
found that:
– 247 met eligibility criteria at pre-award
– 97 met eligibility criteria at post-award
Ensure Data Management is considered from outset

16. End of project support
Guidance on ‘data archiving’ process:
• (re)familiarisation with
funder/publisher requirements
• Prepare data for transfer
• Locating appropriate repository
– Domain repository preferred
– LSHTM repository for non-
sensitive ‘homeless data’
Liaise with projects in final 3 months of funding

17. Concluding thoughts
• Need to embed digital preservation within research process and institution
structure
• Emphasise outcomes of digital preservation to obtain commitment to
maintain digital resources in long-term
• University library & archives well placed to drive change - collaborative
approach necessary to fulfil objectives
• Future levels of support cannot be guaranteed - careful management of
resources is needed to support and enhance data handling practice
“ sustainable economics for digital preservation is… about building an economic activity firmly
rooted in a compelling value proposition, clear incentives to act, and well-defined preservation
roles and responsibilities.”
Blue Ribbon Task Force (2010)

18. Thank You for your attention!
Gareth Knight.
Project Manager, LSHTM Research Data Management Service
Email: gareth.knight@lshtm.ac.uk
Questions

19. References
Blue Ribbon Task Force - Sustainable Economics for a Digital Planet
http://brtf.sdsc.edu/biblio/BRTF_Final_Report.pdf
eSpida balanced scorecard handbook - http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/library/espida/
Balanced value Impact Model - http://www.kdcs.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/impact.html
A Digital Roadmap for Long‐Term Access to Digital Heritage Conference (2013) -
http://www.unesco.nl/sites/default/files/uploads/Comm_Info/digital_roadmap_-_report.pdf
Keeping Research Data Safe - http://www.beagrie.com/krds/
JISC - Sustaining Digital Resources: An On-the-Ground View of Projects Today (2009)
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/programmerelated/2009/scaithakaprojectstoday.aspx
Rusbridge & Lavoie (2011). Draft Reference Model for Economic Sustainability of Digital Curation
https://unsustainableideas.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/sustainability-strategy-revised/
JISC. Funding for sustainability: How funders' practices influence the future of digital resources
http://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20140614201525/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publicati
ons/programmerelated/2011/fundingforsustainability.aspx