[CODATA-international] [EXTERNAL] - Re: October 2019: Publications in the Data Science Journal

Mon Nov 4 22:18:17 EST 2019

Dear all

These are stories (some are anecdotal) – but show what can be done:.

1)      In Geoscience Australia, data from the geochemistry lab and other instrument collecting facilities were loaded automatically to the corporate data bases: the data was never given to researcher. The researcher was required to enter a minimum metadata profile for the sample/station. Once the metadata profile met minimum QA/QC standards, then this was linked to the data record and the user was able to access the data. Until the metadata were in the corporate data base, you could not get the data!

  1.  In one NERC scheme, you only got 80% of your funds for your project and you did not get the remaining funds until your data were in a recognised repository and properly curated. The Australian Dept of Environment did something similar with one of their funding schemes

3)      In another NERC scheme, if you defaulted on making your data accessible from a grant, then you were blacklisted for applying for another grant for at least one year.

4)      The Australian Antarctic Division in the past would only fund one trip to Antarctica to collect specimens/data: until these were then properly curated and the metadata available online you could not get funded for another field trip to Antarctica.
There really is a fair bit that the funding agencies can do for this, if they have the will and it should not be too onerous. Here are a couple of easy ways:

  1.  Given that many publishers now require a DOI and a landing page for any data, software or samples cited in a research paper, it should not be  too difficult for the funding agencies to also require not just a list of publications/reports from a grant, but also a list of DOIs/landing pages for data, software and samples that have been generated by the grant. Here is a link to the commitment statement for the Earth, Space and Environmental sciences (https://copdess.org/enabling-fair-data-project/commitment-statement-in-the-earth-space-and-environmental-sciences/ ) and the signatories are here (https://copdess.org/enabling-fair-data-project/commitment-statement-in-the-earth-space-and-environmental-sciences/signatories/ )

  1.  Here is another way: the Australian Research Data Commons runs a registry (Research Data Australia - https://researchdata.ands.org.au/  that uses Research Graph technology to help trace data sets and also researchers. As an example:

a.       search for Magnetotelluric data: https://researchdata.ands.org.au/search/#!/rows=15/sort=score%20desc/class=collection/q=Magnetotellurics/p=1/

b.       Select Magnetotelluric survey of the Olary Domain, conducted in 1994: https://researchdata.ands.org.au/magnetotelluric-survey-olary-conducted-1994/1423076/?refer_q=rows=15/sort=score%20desc/class=collection/p=1/q=Magnetotellurics/group=National%20Computational%20Infrastructure/  and scroll down to the graph

c.       Click on the person (Graham Heinson) https://researchdata.ands.org.au/graham-heinson/1423080  and you get a list of all the data sets that Graham has contributed the research community.

Take care

Lesley

-----Original Message-----
From: CODATA-international <codata-international-bounces at lists.codata.org<mailto:codata-international-bounces at lists.codata.org>> On Behalf Of Baru, Chaitanya K.
Sent: Tuesday, 5 November, 2019 02:26
To: Mercury Fox <ceds at email.arizona.edu<mailto:ceds at email.arizona.edu>>; Dewaard, Anita (ELS-HBE) <A.dewaard at elsevier.com<mailto:A.dewaard at elsevier.com>>
Cc: Falk Huettmann <fhuettmann at alaska.edu<mailto:fhuettmann at alaska.edu>>; Haak, Wouter (ELS-AMS) <w.haak at elsevier.com<mailto:w.haak at elsevier.com>>; CODATA International <codata-international at lists.codata.org<mailto:codata-international at lists.codata.org>>
Subject: Re: [CODATA-international] [EXTERNAL] - Re: October 2019: Publications in the Data Science Journal

Hi Mercury,
This is an interesting idea and would, indeed, be interesting to look at what it takes to get this done. You are basically suggesting what I would call "exit criteria" for projects. Projects would not receive that last slug of funding until these criteria are met, which means of course that there needs to be some sort of review process--which may be a combination of manual and automated, etc.
As you develop your proposal, you may want to keep in mind what is the "burden" on the funding agencies, in terms of reviewing the exit criteria.

Cheers,
--chaitan
Senior Advisor, Data Science Strategic Initiatives Office of the Vice President for Research San Diego Supercomputer Center Halicioglu Data Science Institute UC San Diego La Jolla, CA 921093
Email: cbaru at ucsd.edu<mailto:cbaru at ucsd.edu>

On 11/4/19, 12:24 AM, "CODATA-international on behalf of Mercury Fox" <codata-international-bounces at lists.codata.org<mailto:codata-international-bounces at lists.codata.org> on behalf of ceds at email.arizona.edu<mailto:ceds at email.arizona.edu>> wrote:

    Hi Anita and All-

    I am in the early stages of developing a proposal for an institutional
    review of NSF's award process.  I believe that they are currently
    receptive to this type of review, and support from publishers and the
    open research community would be very helpful.

    The solution here is so simple and obvious--tie the money to the data
    by making it a deliverable--that there must be something seriously
    dysfunctional in the award process.

    Funders can just withhold the last 20% (or whatever) of the award
    until the data, which they paid for, is formatted and posted according
    to agency guidelines. Then we can forget this nonsense about how to
    shift community norms toward open research and data sharing, and focus
    on how to promote and incorporate FAIR principles in those agency
    guidelines.

    I think we all know why these simple solutions aren't adopted, and I
    think that an institutional review would be a good place to start
    moving past those encumbrances.

    On 11/3/19, Dewaard, Anita (ELS-HBE) <A.dewaard at elsevier.com<mailto:A.dewaard at elsevier.com>> wrote:
    > It would actually be very interesting to 'get you started on the publishing
    > industry', Mark!
    >
    > I completely agree with Mercury that 'publishers should be partners in the
    > research ecosystem, not gatekeepers who determine what gets in
    > and what stays out of the sphere of public knowledge':  so what should we
    > do, that we're not currently doing, to be the best partners that we can be?
    >
    >
    > Thanks so much for your advice!
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Anita
    >
    >
    > Anita de Waard
    > Vice President of Research Collaborations
    > Elsevier Research Collaborations Unit
    > 71 Hanley Lane, Jericho, VT 05465
    > @anitawaard | +1 (619) 252 8589
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: CODATA-international <codata-international-bounces at lists.codata.org<mailto:codata-international-bounces at lists.codata.org>>
    > On Behalf Of Parsons, Mark
    > Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 1:56 PM
    > To: Mercury Fox <ceds at email.arizona.edu<mailto:ceds at email.arizona.edu>>
    > Cc: Falk Huettmann <fhuettmann at alaska.edu<mailto:fhuettmann at alaska.edu>>; CODATA International
    > <codata-international at lists.codata.org<mailto:codata-international at lists.codata.org>>
    > Subject: Re: [CODATA-international] October 2019: Publications in the Data
    > Science Journal
    >
    >
    > I totally agree, Mercury. (Don’t get me started on the publishing industry).
    > I just wanted to give credit to one small program (NSF Arctic) that is doing
    > the right thing, and that other agencies and programs should follow its
    > lead.
    >
    > cheers,
    >
    > -m.
    >
    >> On 1 Nov 2019, at 11:52, Mercury Fox <ceds at email.arizona.edu<mailto:ceds at email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
    >>
    >> Thanks, Mark--that's a great point.  That program's open data policy
    >> is stated in the DCL
    >> (https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16055/nsf16055.jsp), which also
    >> states that the policy is a requirement of international treaty, which
    >> probably provides some context for the political will behind the
    >> policy in this case.  My point is that this kind of clear policy
    >> directive shouldn't be a one-off.
    >>
    >> And since I'm on a soap box about it, I also don't think it's
    >> acceptable for NSF & c. to expect the scientific community to simply
    >> shift norms and practices in this regard, when the federal funding
    >> agencies are unwilling to change the institutional conditions that
    >> drive those norms.
    >>
    >> And another thing... I also think it's inappropriate for them to pass
    >> their oversight and quality control duties to the publishing industry,
    >> which is basically a roadmap for corruption.  I'm not pointing fingers
    >> at any specific publisher or agency; but publishers should be partners
    >> in the research ecosystem, not gatekeepers who determine what gets in
    >> and what stays out of the sphere of public knowledge.
    >>
    >> OK, that's all the rant I have left in me for today.  Thanks everybody
    >> and have a great weekend!
    >>
    >>
    >> -Mercury
    >>
    >> On 11/1/19, Parsons, Mark <parsom3 at rpi.edu<mailto:parsom3 at rpi.edu>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 1 Nov 2019, at 10:04, Mercury Fox
    >>> <ceds at email.arizona.edu<mailto:ceds at email.arizona.edu><mailto:ceds at email.arizona.edu<mailto:ceds at email.arizona.edu>>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> they could change the norm overnight by simply tying the policy to
    >>> the award and requiring open data as a deliverable.
    >>>
    >>> For the record, the NSF Arctic Program does just that, and they
    >>> follow up and do QC, AND they fund an archive to make it possible.
    >>>
    >>> cheers,
    >>>
    >>> -m.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Merc Fox
    >> Director, CODATA-UA Center of Excellence in Data for Society
    >> Data7 + iSchool
    >> University of Arizona
    >> Tucson, AZ  85721
    >>
    >> https://ceds.arizona.edu
    >>
    >> https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0726-7301
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > CODATA-international mailing list
    > CODATA-international at lists.codata.org<mailto:CODATA-international at lists.codata.org>
    > http://lists.codata.org/mailman/listinfo/codata-international_lists.codata.org
    >

    --
    Merc Fox
    Director, CODATA-UA Center of Excellence in Data for Society
    Data7 + iSchool
    University of Arizona
    Tucson, AZ  85721

    https://ceds.arizona.edu

    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0726-7301

    _______________________________________________
    CODATA-international mailing list
    CODATA-international at lists.codata.org<mailto:CODATA-international at lists.codata.org>
    http://lists.codata.org/mailman/listinfo/codata-international_lists.codata.org

_______________________________________________
CODATA-international mailing list
CODATA-international at lists.codata.org<mailto:CODATA-international at lists.codata.org>
http://lists.codata.org/mailman/listinfo/codata-international_lists.codata.org

--
Merc Fox
Director, CODATA-UA Center of Excellence in Data for Society
Data7 + iSchool
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ  85721

https://ceds.arizona.edu

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0726-7301
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.codata.org/pipermail/codata-international_lists.codata.org/attachments/20191105/90e8ddf4/attachment.html>