Lifecycle models for research data are often abstract and simple. This comes at the danger of oversimplifying the complex concepts of research data management. The analysis of 90 different lifecycle models lead to two approaches to assess the quality of these models. While terminological issues make direct comparisons of models hard, an empirical evaluation seems possible.
@cite_20 provides a scoped review of 301 articles and 10 companion documents discussing research data management practices in academic institutions between 1995 and 2016. The review is not limited to, but includes publications discussing data lifecycle models. The discussion includes the observation, that of the papers reviewed, only a view provided empirical evidence for their results, which is in accordance to our findings. The study classifies the papers based on the UK data lifecycle https: www.ukdataservice.ac.uk manage-data lifecycle , which fortunately is preserved as an attachement to this paper (its "official" version has changed since the original publication).
@cite_20
2617597628 2407478184 2663075978 2109154616
Objective The purpose of this study is to describe the volume, topics, and methodological nature of the existing research literature on research data management in academic institutions. Materials and methods We conducted a scoping review by searching forty literature databases encompassing a broad range of disciplines from inception to April 2016. We included all study types and data extracted on study design, discipline, data collection tools, and phase of the research data lifecycle. Results We included 301 articles plus 10 companion reports after screening 13,002 titles and abstracts and 654 full-text articles. Most articles (85 ) were published from 2010 onwards and conducted within the sciences (86 ). More than three-quarters of the articles (78 ) reported methods that included interviews, cross-sectional, or case studies. Most articles (68 ) included the Giving Access to Data phase of the UK Data Archive Research Data Lifecycle that examines activities such as sharing data. When studies were grouped into five dominant groupings (Stakeholder, Data, Library, Tool Device, and Publication), data quality emerged as an integral element. Conclusion Most studies relied on self-reports (interviews, surveys) or accounts from an observer (case studies) and we found few studies that collected empirical evidence on activities amongst data producers, particularly those examining the impact of research data management interventions. As well, fewer studies examined research data management at the early phases of research projects. The quality of all research outputs needs attention, from the application of best practices in research data management studies, to data producers depositing data in repositories for long-term use. As science becomes more data-intensive and collaborative, researchers increasingly use larger and more complex data to answer research questions. The capacity of storage infrastructure, the increased sophistication and deployment of sensors, the ubiquitous availability of computer clusters, the development of new analysis techniques, and larger collaborations allow researchers to address grand societ al challenges in a way that is unprecedented. In parallel, research data repositories have been built to host research data in response to the requirements of sponsors that research data be publicly available. Libraries are re-inventing themselves to respond to a growing demand to manage, store, curate and preserve the data produced in the course of publicly funded research. As librarians and data managers are developing the tools and knowledge they need to meet these new expectations, they inevitably encounter conversations around Big Data. This paper explores definitions of Big Data that have coalesced in the last decade around four commonly mentioned characteristics: volume, variety, velocity, and veracity. We highlight the issues associated with each characteristic, particularly their impact on data management and curation. We use the methodological framework of the data life cycle model, assessing two models developed in the context of Big Data projects and find them lacking. We propose a Big Data life cycle model that includes activities focused on Big Data and more closely integrates curation with the research life cycle. These activities include planning, acquiring, preparing, analyzing, preserving, and discovering, with describing the data and assuring quality being an integral part of each activity. We discuss the relationship between institutional data curation repositories and new long-term data resources associated with high performance computing centers, and reproducibility in computational science. We apply this model by mapping the four characteristics of Big Data outlined above to each of the activities in the model. This mapping produces a set of questions that practitioners should be asking in a Big Data project In this paper, we present the results of a user study on exploratory search activities in a social science digital library. We conducted a user study with 32 participants with a social sciences background—16 postdoctoral researchers and 16 students—who were asked to solve a task on searching related work to a given topic. The exploratory search task was performed in a 10-min time slot. The use of certain search activities is measured and compared to gaze data recorded with an eye tracking device. We use a novel tree graph representation to visualise the users’ search patterns and introduce a way to combine multiple search session trees. The tree graph representation is capable of creating one single tree for multiple users and identifying common search patterns. In addition, the information behaviour of students and postdoctoral researchers is being compared. The results show that search activities on the stratagem level are frequently utilised by both user groups. The most heavily used search activities were keyword search, followed by browsing through references and citations, and author searching. The eye tracking results showed an intense examination of documents metadata, especially on the level of citations and references. When comparing the group of students and postdoctoral researchers, we found significant differences regarding gaze data on the area of the journal name of the seed document. In general, we found a tendency of the postdoctoral researchers to examine the metadata records more intensively with regard to dwell time and the number of fixations. By creating combined session trees and deriving subtrees from those, we were able to identify common patterns like economic (explorative) and exhaustive (navigational) behaviour. Our results show that participants utilised multiple search strategies starting from the seed document, which means that they examined different paths to find related publications. We propose a new unsupervised learning technique for extracting information from large text collections. We model documents as if they were generated by a two-stage stochastic process. Each author is represented by a probability distribution over topics, and each topic is represented as a probability distribution over words for that topic. The words in a multi-author paper are assumed to be the result of a mixture of each authors' topic mixture. The topic-word and author-topic distributions are learned from data in an unsupervised manner using a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. We apply the methodology to a large corpus of 160,000 abstracts and 85,000 authors from the well-known CiteSeer digital library, and learn a model with 300 topics. We discuss in detail the interpretation of the results discovered by the system including specific topic and author models, ranking of authors by topic and topics by author, significant trends in the computer science literature between 1990 and 2002, parsing of abstracts by topics and authors and detection of unusual papers by specific authors. An online query interface to the model is also discussed that allows interactive exploration of author-topic models for corpora such as CiteSeer.