Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
32
2
“The Obama Administration is committed to the proposition that citizens deserve easy access to the results of scientific research their tax dollars have paid for. That’s why, in a policy memorandum released today, OSTP Director John Holdren has directed Federal agencies with more than $100M in R&D expenditures to develop plans to make the published results of federally funded research freely available to the public within one year of publication and requiring researchers to better account for and manage the digital data resulting from federally funded scientific research.”
February 22nd 2013
“Investigators are expected to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the primary data, samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of work under NSF grants”
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/aag_6.jsp#VID4
“NIH expects the timely release and sharing of data to be no later than the acceptance for publication of the main findings from the final dataset”
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharingdata_sharing_guidance.htm#time
“NEH is committed to timely and rapid data distribution”
http://www.neh.gov/files/grants/data_management_plans_2012.pdf
“But taxpayers who are paying for that research will want to see something back. Directly – through open access to results and data. And indirectly – through making science work better for all of us.
That’s why we will require open access to all publications stemming from EU-funded research. That’s why we will progressively open access to the research data, too. And why we’re asking national funding bodies to do the same.”
Neelie Kroes.
Vice President for the Eurpoean Commission
1. Recommended open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
2. Recommended open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
3. Mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
4. Mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
5. Enforced, mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
6. Enforced, mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
The Open Academic Tidal Wave
1. Recommended open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
2. Recommended open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
3. Mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
4. Mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
5. Enforced, mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
6. Enforced, mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
The Open Academic Tidal Wave
Storing itproperly
Making itdiscoverable
ManagingOpen Data
PromotingSharing
21
34 Reporting Dashboard
Impact and Usage Reporting.
Administrative Workflow PortalA portal where administrators can manage curation of files to bemade public, storage space allocation and user rights.
Public Digital Research RepositoryA customisable public portal with all digital files made public at aninstitutional, departmental and group level.
Research Data ManagementPrivate, controlled storage and collaborative spacesfor every academic at the institution.
4 Key Modules
1. Recommended open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
2. Recommended open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
3. Mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
4. Mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
5. Enforced, mandated open access to scholarly papers of publicly funded research
6. Enforced, mandated open access to all digital outputs of publicly funded research
The Open Academic Tidal Wave
There are 109 metrics!
‘Greater effort than expected: over 500 person hours’
‘A full audit would cost us 10,000 to 25,000 euro’s, a midterm review 5,000 to 10,000 euro’s. Every year such an effort would not be feasible and too costly’
‘The formulation of the metrics is a bit idealistic (“down to the bit level”)… since no archive is perfect, what will be the ‘less than perfect’ level (or levels for the different metrics), which is acceptable and deserves certification?’
Feedback from test auditshttp://www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/04/APARSEN-REP-D33_1B-01-1_0.pdf
16363
“Working with ISO 16363 turned out to be a challenge for the library. The experience from earlier work with DRAMBORA etc. was helpful but using the ISO 16363 was a very different way to work with self-assessment.
Being forced to making implicit knowledge, processes and workflows explicit and prove the trustworthiness of the digital repository by producing evidence for all statements has been a complicated and laborious task.
All in all the amount of work put into the self-assessment over a period of 15 months sums up to three full person-months.”
