The SHARE initiative aims to enhance the preservation, access, and reuse of research outputs in higher education and research communities through improved infrastructure, workflow, and policy support. It identifies challenges in managing research data and advocates for shared identifiers and standards to streamline communication among stakeholders. The initiative emphasizes collaboration and seeks to establish comprehensive and accessible records of research impact through a notification service, while promoting open access and effective metadata management.

1. SHARE UPDATE
CASRAI Canada ReConnect14
19 November 2014
Judy Ruttenberg, Association of Research Libraries
Eric Celeste, SHARE Technical Director

2. WHO & WHAT IS SHARE?
A higher education and research
community initiative to ensure the
widest possible preservation of, access
to, and reuse of research outputs

3. WHO & WHAT IS SHARE?
Interlocking components that leverage
the existing research ecosystem to
better understand what research is
being produced, and to render that
research as accessible as possible.
Mining
and
Reuse
Services
Discovery
No#fica#on
Service
and
Registry

4. WHO & WHAT IS SHARE?
Advisory Board
Director, small operations group
Repository, Workflow, Technical, and
Communications Working Groups

5. FUNDING
$1,000,000 to develop Notification Service
and long term SHARE vision
March, 2014 through September, 2015

6. MISSION
“Research universities are long-lived and
are mission-driven to generate, make
accessible, and preserve over time new
knowledge and understanding. “
SHared Access Research Ecosystem, June 7, 2013
“The best way to predict the future is to
invent it.”
Alan Kay

7. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
US federal agencies join growing
international trend to require public
access to funded research
Measurable proliferation of institutional
and disciplinary repositories
Premium on impact and visibility in HE

8. RESEARCH CONTEXT
o “Scholarly outcomes are contextualized
by materials generated in the process
and aftermath of scholarly inquiry.
o The research process generates
materials covering methods employed,
evidence used, and formative discussion.
o The research aftermath generates
materials covering discussion, revision,
and reuse of scholarly outcomes.”
(Lavoie, et al, OCLC Research, 2014)

9. RESEARCH CONTEXT
o “Scholarly outcomes are contextualized
by materials generated in the process
and aftermath of scholarly inquiry.
o The research process generates
materials covering methods employed,
evidence used, and formative discussion.
o The research aftermath generates
materials covering discussion, revision,
and reuse of scholarly outcomes.”
(Lavoie, et al, OCLC Research, 2014)

10. RESEARCH CONTEXT
o “Scholarly outcomes are contextualized
by materials generated in the process
and aftermath of scholarly inquiry.
o The research process generates
materials covering methods employed,
evidence used, and formative discussion.
o The research aftermath generates
materials covering discussion, revision,
and reuse of scholarly outcomes.”
(Lavoie, et al, OCLC Research, 2014)

11. RESEARCH LIBRARIES
collaboration among institutions
shift from collections as products to
collections as components of the
academy’s knowledge resources.
library is supporting and embedded
within the processes of scholarship.

12. CHALLENGES
Infrastructure
Workflow Policy

13. CHALLENGES
Infrastructure
Varied
repository
pla.orms/capaci2es
Standards
and
Protocols
Iden2fiers
Workflow Policy
Public
access
Open
access
Copyright
Data
management
&
sharing
Mul2ple
siloed
systems
=
Administra2ve
burden

14. SOLUTIONS
Infrastructure
Good stewardship
SoDware
(No2fica2on
Service
and
other
components)
Open
data
and
APIs
Encouraging
standards
Workflow Policy
Best
prac2ces
re:
ins2tu2onal
policies
New
services
to
op2mize
communica2on;
support
research
lifecycle

15. STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT
15

16. IMMEDIATE PROBLEM SPACE
Knowing who is producing what, and
under whose auspices, is critical to a
wide range of stakeholders—funders,
sponsored research offices, government
agencies, tenure and promotion
committees, repository managers, and
the research community.

17. RESEARCH RELEASE EVENTS
Preprints
Articles Data Sets

18. CONSUMERS OF RESEARCH RELEASE EVENTS
Sponsored
Research Offices
Campus Funders
Repositories

20. SHARE
Notification
Service

21. CENTER FOR OPEN SCIENCE
“We foster openness, integrity,
and reproducibility of scientific research”
centerforopenscience.org & osf.io

22. THE TEAM AT COS

23. SHARE
Notification
Service

31. STATUS AT END OF SUMMER
Planned for 3 platforms, 5 institutions, 2
agencies, and 5 publishers, 50 research release
events, including papers and data.
COS harvesting data from Clinical Trials,
DOE’s SciTech and Pages, PLoS, UC
eScholarship, Wayne State Digital Commons,
VTechWorks, NLM PubMedCentral, CrossRef,
arXiv, and DataONE.
Experimental RSS feed to see output.

32. RESEARCH RELEASE EVENT REPORTS
Only a dozen sources
Over 40,000 reports

33. PROTOTYPE PLANS
Plans for prototype expansion include:
10 more campus sites from DuraSpace
and bepress;
More data, perhaps Data Management
Plans;
At least one more agency;
150 more research release events.

34. NEXT STEPS
Push protocol
Creation of a “push API” to make participation simpler for some
sources.
Consumption of notifications
Provide subscription methods
Recruit trial subscribers
Public release
Early 2015 beta release
Fall 2015 first full release

35. SOME EARLY LESSONS
Clarity about intent to share.
Some sites not sure about their right to, for example, share
abstracts.
Encourage collection of vital metadata.
Most of our sources do not even collect email addresses of
authors, much less universal identifiers such as ORCID or ISNI.
Most sources make no effort to collect funding information or
grant award numbers. This data needs to be collected and
distributed to make effective notifications.
Importance of the SHARE Registry.
Some consumers will want the enhanced records it will provide.

36. Request Response
GET https://frogworld.
com/api/frogs
[
{
name: Kermit,
color: green,
type: felt
},
{
name: Travis,
color: green,
type: tree
}
]

37. Request Response
POST https://osf.io/api/share
{
title: Easy Being Green?,
contributors: [
Kermit,
Travis
],
source: frogworld,
id: 10.100/frogworld.102
}
Success

38. Resource 1 Resource 2
{
title: Easy Being Green?,
contributors: [
Kermit,
Travis
],
source: frogworld,
id: 10.100/frogworld.102
}
{
title: Easy Being Green?,
contributors: [
Kermit,
Travis
],
origin: frogworld,
id: 10.100/frogworld.102,
description:
Exploring greenness.
}

39. Resource 1 Resource 2
{
title: Easy Being Green?,
contributors: [
Kermit,
Travis
],
source: frogworld,
id: 10.100/frogworld.102
}
{
name: Easy Being Green?,
contributors: [
Frog Scientists Intl,
Amphibians United,
],
origin: frogworld,
doi: 10.100/frogworld.102
}

40. Resource 1 Resource 2
{
title: Easy Being Green?,
contributors: [
Kermit,
Travis
],
source: frogworld,
id: 10.100/frogworld.102
}
{
title: Easy Being Green?,
contributors: [
No Contributors
],
source: frogworld,
id: 10.100/frogworld.102
}

41. VARIETY VS. AVAILABILITY
• We accept that we will have a variety
of providers with a variety of
expressions.
• But we need some key identifiers to be
available in order to create effective
notifications.

42. PRIORITY 1: INCLUSION
• Researcher identifiers such as ORCID,
ISNI, and so on.
• Funding identifier such as FundRef.
• Grant award identifiers.
• Further metadata elements
encouraged by CASRAI and others.

43. PRIORITY 2: CONSISTENCY
• We can manage the variety.
…however…
• Consistency reduces errors.
• Consistency simplifies preparing for
new providers.
• Consistency will be required for push
reporting.

44. For Systems via Protocol & API For People
SHARE
Notification
Service
SHARE
Registry
SHARE
Discovery
timely, structured,
comprehensive
organized and
related source of
linked data
searchable and
friendly

45. For Systems via Protocol & API For People
SHARE
Notification
Service
SHARE
Registry
SHARE
Discovery

46. CHALLENGES
• Adoption of key identifiers just getting
underway, requires international
collaboration,
• Inferences prone to error,
• Duplicate detection difficult,
• Scale quite large, not well understood,
• This is a never-ending task requiring
sustainable funding and governance.

47. BENEFITS
• Researchers can keep everyone
informed by keeping anyone
informed,
• Institutions can assemble more
comprehensive record of impact,
• Open access advocates can hold
publishers accountable for promises,
• Other systems can count on
consistency of metadata from SHARE.

48. HOW CASRAI HELPS
Dictionaries and identifiers
• Participants, CASRAI ID
• Activity Info, Activity ID
• Funding Requests, Funding Source ID
• Outputs, what is research?
International Interoperability
• COAR blueprint

49. LOOKING FORWARD
Business planning: agile governance and
institutional sustainability
Strengthening international
partnerships
Workflow pilots and prototypes with
several institutions

50. LOOKING FORWARD
Identifiers and platforms for new,
hybrid, and more granular forms of
research output
Contributor roles & other research
administration data
Higher education policies on non-exclusive
copyrights

51. CONTACT US
www.arl.org/share
www.facebook.com/SHARE.research
www.twitter.com/share_research
share@arl.org