Snippet - Data, Journals and Academic Publishers: JoRD Project
CC Attribution 3.0 Unported:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Smith, Jane
In this webinar recording Jane Smith from the JoRD Project (UK) talks about recent initiatives, current examples and future directions of data publishing.
 Welcome everyone to another ANS webinar event. It's a pleasure to have you all here online from near and far as part of the Greater ANS webinar series which today have included topics such as data management, data licensing, data citation, to name it a few. My name is Alexander Hayes and I have with me here on the sunny Canberra Day, Jerry Ryder, research standard analyst from at ANS who's flown all the way from Fair Adelaide. Welcome everybody. South Australia to join us for this important event and of course a myriad of meetings that she's doing. Welcome Jerry. For your interest everyone and to acknowledge the significance of this webinar topic it's important to note that we've got attendees registered for this webinar from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, University of Tasmania, the Australian Antarctic Division, the University of Edinburgh, Chair Sciences Australia, La Trobe University, University of Canberra Australia, Deakin University, University of Melbourne Australia, Wiley Publishers, University of Western Sydney, Griffith University, University of Queensland, Research Data Storage Infrastructure, RDSI, Monash University and that's just to name a few. A few of these organisations it's obviously for to whom data is publishing is of great interest and an already an integral part of their research activities. So we've got very two distinguished guests today joining us today who are privileged to have on board given that the topic at hand is data journals. Jane Smith is the Sherpa Service Development Officer at the Centre for Research Communications University of Nottingham. In this role Jane's involved in a number of projects around open access information including Romeo, the Juliet Open Door, Fact and JORD and those of you who have been involved in institutional publications and repositories you'll be familiar with at least some of these acronyms. Jane's here today to talk about the JORD project, the Journal Research Policy Data Bank, which has a particular focus on journal publishers' data sharing policies. We also have with us Dr Fiona Murphy who is the publisher for Earth and Environmental Sciences, Sciences journals at Wiley working with a number of titles societies and other publishing partners. Fiona is also increasingly involved with emerging initiatives that promote good management practices of research data including reuse, use, citation and linking from primary publications. Among other activities this has led to being a co-partner in the PREPARE project on peer review and publication of data sets and to membership of the STM Association Research Data Group and World Data Systems Data Publication Weapon Group. Now for a very brief background on ANZ activities during late 2012 ANZ staff undertook a desktop survey to identify data journals across a range of disciplines in order to define what a data journal is to review data journal policies in particular, looking for requirements for DOIs, data deposit and data citation, as well as to assess the status of data journals surveyed, taking into account years established peer review processes and whether they're indexed in fact by Thomson Reuters Web of Science. So pleased today to be able to bring together these lead international initiatives and these guest speakers in a webinar that we're sure shed some light on the policies devised by academic publishers to promote linkage between data journals and journal articles and underlying research data. I'd now like to introduce to you Joan Smith from the University of Nottingham. I hope everyone can see the presentation appearing. Okay, I've been working on the journal research data bank, data policy bank, or JOARD for simplification. Just before I talk about what happened through the project and findings, I'm going to give a bit of background. I'm sure you're all quite familiar with it if you're tuning into the ANZ webinars, but you just bear with me. Data has been coming increasingly valuable resource in its own right. People are wanting access to the data behind journals, not just the data in the journal article. So they're looking to access the data sets. Research councils are now wanting that publicly funded research data to be made more available and shared across the communities as much as an indication that they're spending their money appropriately. With changes in research practice and technology, it's now possible to make use of these data sets and collect different data sets, different searches, and extract additional information across the board. As I'm sure you were, I think it was 2011 ANZ had an international workshop, and part of this came out with the conclusion that it would be good advantage to collect journals policies on research data, what the journals and the publishers want the authors to do with that data. So Jisk, which is what who funded JOARD, see the Managing Research Data Programme, incorporated this idea into it and asked for people to debate to look at doing a feasibility study of is exactly sensible to do. Other aspects of the programme, including making research data management programmes and management strands in various institutions, so there's a bit more of an infrastructure to be developed. And if the institutions are developing, asking the researchers to deposit data, they're going to start wanting to know what the journals will let them do. So in some ways, we've been calling it somewhat short and cheekily as the Romeo of the Data to help people understand. So Jordan's Six Months Feasibility Study, it ran July, December last year, as I was commissioned by Jisk, and it was run by Centre for Research Communications Research Information Network, a colleague Paul Sturges at the University of Loughborough that's just down the road from Nottingham and Mark Ware Consulting. And together we sculpt and shape a potential service that could provide ready source information for covering journal policy landscape of research data. So we did this in three stages. Sorry, I need to have my notes in the right order. Our aims, we've identified the scope and format of a service to collate and summarize journal data policies, but also to investigate and recommend business models, which just wanted the aim that it would be financially self-sustaining. So those key stages I mentioned. First, we wanted to investigate what was the current state of journal policies on research data. Are there any out there? How good are they? What do they cover? That sort of thing. We also wanted to consult with stakeholders. I'm not just talking about researchers, but the research managers, the funders, the publishers, support work people who support the researchers like librarians and repository staff. And as mentioned, we want to look at the business models and what service options are available. So the literature review. I want to look at what have been done already in the literature. Had anyone done something similar? Did they have any recommendations? And how to do the studies? These are that. In summary of the literature review, general thoughts was there wasn't a great deal of literature on this area, particularly on journal policies on research data. There might be stuff about research data, but not necessarily about journals having policies. However, there were some key studies, and these found that a large percentage of journals lacked policies and data sharing. And those studies are the likes of McCain in 95 and perhaps more famously, Perouin and Chapman in 2008. I don't have the full references, but I can get them to people if they wish. There's also no standard procedures across these from these studies indicated how a journal should trade a data sharing policy or what those policies should advise. That's right. The spectrum is also this is a large degree of inconsistency. Some were very vague, some were very clear cut of what was wanted. There's also little guidance available to the authors. However, some subject areas like biomedical science was leading the way in this area. And also, perhaps for close to little guidance, researchers did share habits were also quite inconsistent. So with this knowledge, we went to start looking at what policies the journals actually have. We decided to look at both the highest and lowest impact factor journals and to pick 100 of each of these from the two subject areas covered by the Thompson Reuters citation index, that's science and social sciences. However, as you've noticed, we only have to look at 371. This is because there's actually some duplication across these two lists. Of those 371 titles we investigated, 162, which is 44 percent, actually had policies. In fact, there's 230 policies, which I'll explain a bit later, but it does make sense. Those are quite good subject coverage, the 36 subject areas covered across these two lists. We did consider whether or not to contain journals we knew had policies in, but decided at the end to remove these because that could give a bit of bias and we didn't actually know where they sat on an impact factor scale. So this is a graph of who had policies. As you can see, the majority of the journals we looked at had no policy. We have some listed as unknown, and that's really where we were unable to find a journal website, so we couldn't find it if they had a policy. We decided not to go for direct contact with the journal that's due to the timescale of the project. However, the worst-case were multiple policies for the journals, about 15 percent. And this would be where there might be a policy on data sharing, there might be a policy on data preservation, there might be a policy on the formats of the data. So there were multiple policies, the data policy was spread across multiple policies of the journal. We used PIRWAR and Chapman's definition of strong and weak policies, which in summary is where strong policies where data to deposit is a condition of publication. For example, if you don't deposit it, you can't publish. Whereas a weak policy would merely suggest or recommend the deposit. Based on this, of the journal policies we found, nearly three quarters were weak, with only a quarter being strong. Perhaps again not too surprising, the high impact journals were more likely to have a strong policy and the lower impact journals were more likely to be just recommend or suggest that authors shared data. However, again as indicated in our literature view, approaches varied between subject disciplines with some more stars than others. We did in fact notice in addition to biomedical sciences, some of the chemical structure journals had more established practices. So in addition to finding where they had a policy, we also wanted to know what was in that policy. So we looked at data types and with this, basically what type of data they wanted to deposit. Most of the time we found it was data sets, multimedia, other data, fairly general terms, quite important in terms of data sets, but general was very few asking for specific types of data, but those it did were actually like program code or protein and crystal structure to be deposited somewhere. We looked at where they're asking to deposit. The great percentage of the policies we looked at requested materials were put on a website, fairly general again or just journal website. However, when we did some stakeholder consultation, it was revealed that a lot of the publishers were actually quite keen on well-managed subject repositories, but few were actually specifying then in their journals to do so. When was it looking at deposit? This is again quite inconsistent across the policies. 23% of the policies we looked at asked the data to be made available for peer reviewers, but not necessarily available to the readers after that point. 51% mentioned actually depositing alongside the article. With some of these percentages, they might be ticking several of the inquiries. They might ask for reviewers and to be deposited later and available. So it's more interesting. At least one journal did allow the conclusion of an institutional website URL as an end note to this articles, as long as it was a statement there that said the data hadn't been peer reviewed and maybe updated. It did allow for that tying in of the data, the background data to the article. Regarding sanctions, very few, only 22 of the policies we found made any indication that if you didn't deposit the data, you might not be published. So we decided to look at exulting stakeholders. These were really across the board, scholarly publishers, research funders, research administrators and positive staff, library staff and the researchers themselves. We wanted to look at how the county shared data, do they agree with the idea, do they have any concerns about sharing data, would they use a service-listed journal data policies and for those that are interested in assisting with the sub-keep. So we conducted 23-deep-depth interviews and these were mainly with publishers, libraries, support staff. We also had a focus group of researchers and a workshop with publishers. Then we did an online survey that was directed at researchers again. Across this it found a complex situation where different stakeholders made some assumptions about each other's views and what their actions. However, majority did support making data open and listed quite a few benefits of doing so. For example, preserving data for the future, promoting knowledge, reducing fraudulent claims and enabling the data to be scrutinized by the community. However, there were some concerns and barriers and caveats. The researchers were concerned about who would own the copyright to the data, would the data be available in a form that could be valuable to share. Spreadsheeter numbers might not make any sense to another researcher, do they need another layer or sort of basic analysis before it's shared. And in some cases of the researchers, particularly early careers researchers, they were concerned that making the data available before they submitted their PhD could mean their PhD was worthless. So just some of the three of the main groups and some of their comments. Researchers, they indicated that quite, they thought a journal policy bank would be quite valuable because it allowed them to access whether a particular journal policy fits their form of data or data sharing ethos, other requirements of their funders. And it could be a point of reference of accessing other research data. The librarians and the policy staff, those with the history of librarianship had really not so much knowledge about curating data, but they had similar experience with curating a journal and monographs collections and thought this knowledge could be transferred. However, in spite of this potential, there wasn't much happening. In the UK, since sort of that state called the management, the same JISC program has resulted in several research data management programs at the various institutions taking part. So that picture may be changing. However, they thought the librarians did think that a policy bank would be quite valuable. It enabled them to support and develop research data management at their institution. And would help them gain information, provide publication guidance to the researchers that were interested. Now publishers, obviously, wanted to look at what they thought. They thought that the audience for George was a little bit unclear. Was it researchers? Was it the publishers? Was it the librarians? However, they thought that an accessible list of information on data policies could be useful for the funders and policy staff and authors themselves. But it's better for researchers to ensure compliance with funds and institutional demands. So some sort of summaries of the state called the consultation. All of the state calls us to recognize the importance of linking between journal content and underlying data, particularly where data is stored in subject-based repositories. Those consensus about the importance of making data is freely available. How is the less unified approach about actually doing so in practice? So some of the common features that came out at the stake of the conversation of what should be in a George service. There's quite a wide-ranging specification and requirements. As you listed them all together, it's going to be quite hard to satisfy everyone fully. However, these are the five common features that came out. We wanted to clear automated and simple instructions on the service. Clear documentation on the service's aims, its policies and procedures. We wanted to know for the journal policies, we wanted to know what the conditions or deposit were, would be able to reuse, how to access and any restrictions on the data. We wanted guidelines for recommended file and data types and metadata, policy wording, how to write the policies. We wanted to know where the data could be archived. Almost 8% of our respondents to our online survey, which targeted researchers, answered they would use such a centralized service that records the data sharing policies of academic journals. So certainly was interest in the service. But the big thing is can it be self-sustainable? So having my colleagues developed potential based on the state calls of consultation, some three basic services and then market tested it, spoke to the state calls, which are the more interested in. So the first one suggested was a very basic service. The minimal web interface would have a scoose acronym and an API, an application program as interfaces, which would allow machine to machine interaction with the database. But it wouldn't be much more than that. The second was an enhanced service that would be the same as the basic, but there would be additional data integration. So it would link through to compliance with fund policies, possibly institutional policies, and it may list recommended repositories for the deposit. Lastly, there was a advisory service that would be same as enhanced, but on top of this, it would be a more advisory, more advise, best practice for writing policies, policy frameworks, policy languages. Both things kind of matter. There was an additional data in terms of application policies for organizing entitlements. So there had been additional later Maybellist policies, but there were other tease. And at the end we have drew up hope and growth for the guides, best practice for writing policies, policy frameworks, or policy language suggestions. In general, the stakeholders preferred either of the first two. However, when it came to speaking to budget holders, another quite positive idea on the start of a research management side, they were less keen on finding the funding. They didn't think they could persuade the organization that this was sufficient benefit enough to want the funding. Obviously, the publishers were quite keen on funding, but they wanted a lot more in the service that would possibly make it impractical to start off. However, based on these three services options and stakeholder computations, a full business case was submitted to JIS as part of the feasibility study. A quick summary of findings of the project. Regarding data sharing, it was felt that this was quite an interested subject. It was certainly a growing area. The publishers developing data-only journals and a rough guide for some previous studies of McCain in 1995 and Puerhuan in 2008. Bearing in mind the different population sizes, there did appear to be an increased number of policies each time people looked at it. It's certainly an increasing area. However, when it comes to actually sharing the information, there's a lot more floor uptake. Researchers were perhaps more likely to share with their major colleagues, but not less do the colleagues on the other side of the country or the other side of the world. Again, similar reasons down to the hypothetical PhD students mentioned before, the concern that other people would trump them in publications. The policies that did exist, so a possible slight increase in this area, but they were still generally poor, not very clear, and they were missing in some of the subject areas. The general support for a George service, but the requirements differ between research and publishing communities. Although there are some five common features that could be some issues of how to go about. However, the data is in an increasing area, so a George service could benefit the future in this area. It could help build while the numbers of policies are smaller, a bit better than the discussion, and build now. George recommended to JISC a two-phase study, a two-phase procedure to go ahead. Phase one would be grant funded, and it would build a simple service, focusing on getting a good data set of the policies with simple technology, and then use that to build engagement with stakeholders, build awareness, establish a need for the service. There could still be that machine-to-machine interface with third parties creating applications on top of it, and also to further develop a self-sustaining model. Phase two would implement the self-sustaining model, and there might be a need for some additional funding for breaking even, but there could also be opportunities for grant funding research and development activities. Some final thoughts on what we found in the George service. The use base for a George policy bank would probably mainly be people on the service work within and support the research community. A lesser number of users would be publishers and funding bodies, as a representative acknowledges some use for collation of the journal data policies that we found. Such a service could provide easy access to journal data policies, provide clarity on when, where, and what to deposit, provide guidance on file and metadata formats, and help librarians and support staff to enable researchers. As I mentioned, there's currently a small number of policies available. We're talking in the hundreds. We take into account previous studies. So building a George type service would be much simpler and likely built sturdily if done now. I would able introduction of good practice now before the policy numbers increased dramatically, and no one has an idea what to do with them. So at the moment we're waiting a decision from Jask on how to take the George concept for a fair that I think consider our feasibility study. So my recommendation to you is get involved in research data. If your institution has a research data management plan, get involved. If it hasn't, encourage the person to be. It's a good idea. So that's a few references there in short. As I said, I can provide them in full if required. So any questions? That was a really interesting presentation and having done a very small desktop survey of journal data policies, I applaud the rigor of the work that was done by George and recognise it was no small task. Thank you.
 Welcome everyone to another ANS webinar event. It's a pleasure to have you all here online  from near and far as part of the Greater ANS webinar series which today have included topics  such as data management, data licensing, data citation, to name it a few. My name is Alexander  Hayes and I have with me here on the sunny Canberra Day, Jerry Ryder, research standard  analyst from at ANS who's flown all the way from Fair Adelaide. Welcome everybody. South  Australia to join us for this important event and of course a myriad of meetings that she's  doing. Welcome Jerry. For your interest everyone and to acknowledge the significance of this webinar  topic it's important to note that we've got attendees registered for this webinar from the  University of Canterbury, New Zealand, University of Tasmania, the Australian Antarctic Division,  the University of Edinburgh, Chair Sciences Australia, La Trobe University, University of  Canberra Australia, Deakin University, University of Melbourne Australia, Wiley Publishers,  University of Western Sydney, Griffith University, University of Queensland, Research Data Storage  Infrastructure, RDSI, Monash University and that's just to name a few. A few of these organisations  it's obviously for to whom data is publishing is of great interest and an already an integral part  of their research activities. So we've got very two distinguished guests today joining us today who  are privileged to have on board given that the topic at hand is data journals. Jane Smith is the  Sherpa Service Development Officer at the Centre for Research Communications University of Nottingham.  In this role Jane's involved in a number of projects around open access information including  Romeo, the Juliet Open Door, Fact and JORD and those of you who have been involved in institutional  publications and repositories you'll be familiar with at least some of these acronyms. Jane's here  today to talk about the JORD project, the Journal Research Policy Data Bank, which has a particular  focus on journal publishers' data sharing policies. We also have with us Dr Fiona Murphy  who is the publisher for Earth and Environmental Sciences, Sciences journals at Wiley working with  a number of titles societies and other publishing partners. Fiona is also increasingly involved  with emerging initiatives that promote good management practices of research data including  reuse, use, citation and linking from primary publications. Among other activities this has  led to being a co-partner in the PREPARE project on peer review and publication of data sets  and to membership of the STM Association Research Data Group and World Data Systems  Data Publication Weapon Group. Now for a very brief background on ANZ activities during late  2012 ANZ staff undertook a desktop survey to identify data journals across a range of disciplines in  order to define what a data journal is to review data journal policies in particular,  looking for requirements for DOIs, data deposit and data citation, as well as to assess the status  of data journals surveyed, taking into account years established peer review processes and whether  they're indexed in fact by Thomson Reuters Web of Science. So pleased today to be able to bring  together these lead international initiatives and these guest speakers in a webinar that we're sure  shed some light on the policies devised by academic publishers to promote linkage between data journals  and journal articles and underlying research data. I'd now like to introduce to you Joan Smith  from the University of Nottingham. I hope everyone can see the presentation appearing.  Okay, I've been working on the journal research data bank, data policy bank, or JOARD for  simplification. Just before I talk about what happened through the project and findings,  I'm going to give a bit of background. I'm sure you're all quite familiar with it if you're tuning  into the ANZ webinars, but you just bear with me. Data has been coming increasingly valuable  resource in its own right. People are wanting access to the data behind journals, not just the  data in the journal article. So they're looking to access the data sets. Research councils are now  wanting that publicly funded research data to be made more available and shared across the communities  as much as an indication that they're spending their money appropriately.  With changes in research practice and technology, it's now possible to make use of these data sets  and collect different data sets, different searches, and extract additional information across the board.  As I'm sure you were, I think it was 2011 ANZ had an international workshop,  and part of this came out with the conclusion that it would be good advantage to collect  journals policies on research data, what the journals and the publishers want  the authors to do with that data. So Jisk, which is what who funded JOARD,  see the Managing Research Data Programme, incorporated this idea into it and asked for  people to debate to look at doing a feasibility study of is exactly sensible to do.  Other aspects of the programme, including making research data management programmes and management  strands in various institutions, so there's a bit more of an infrastructure to be developed.  And if the institutions are developing, asking the researchers to deposit data,  they're going to start wanting to know what the journals will let them do.  So in some ways, we've been calling it somewhat short and cheekily as the  Romeo of the Data to help people understand.  So Jordan's Six Months Feasibility Study, it ran July, December last year, as I was commissioned  by Jisk, and it was run by Centre for Research Communications Research Information Network,  a colleague Paul Sturges at the University of Loughborough that's just down the road from  Nottingham and Mark Ware Consulting. And together we sculpt and shape a potential service that  could provide ready source information for covering journal policy landscape of research data.  So we did this in three stages. Sorry, I need to have my notes in the right order.  Our aims, we've identified the scope and format of a service to collate and summarize  journal data policies, but also to investigate and recommend business models, which just wanted  the aim that it would be financially self-sustaining. So those key stages I mentioned.  First, we wanted to investigate what was the current state of journal policies on research data.  Are there any out there? How good are they? What do they cover? That sort of thing.  We also wanted to consult with stakeholders. I'm not just talking about researchers, but the  research managers, the funders, the publishers, support work people who support the researchers  like librarians and repository staff. And as mentioned, we want to look at the  business models and what service options are available. So the literature review.  I want to look at what have been done already in the literature. Had anyone done something similar?  Did they have any recommendations? And how to do the studies? These are that.  In summary of the literature review, general thoughts was there wasn't a great deal of literature on  this area, particularly on journal policies on research data. There might be stuff about research  data, but not necessarily about journals having policies. However, there were some key studies,  and these found that a large percentage of journals lacked policies and data sharing.  And those studies are the likes of McCain in 95 and perhaps more famously,  Perouin and Chapman in 2008. I don't have the full references, but I can get them to people if they wish.  There's also no standard procedures across these from these studies indicated how a journal should  trade a data sharing policy or what those policies should advise.  That's right. The spectrum is also this is a large degree of inconsistency.  Some were very vague, some were very clear cut of what was wanted. There's also little guidance  available to the authors. However, some subject areas like biomedical science was leading the  way in this area. And also, perhaps for close to little guidance, researchers did share habits  were also quite inconsistent. So with this knowledge, we went to start looking at  what policies the journals actually have. We decided to look at both the highest and lowest  impact factor journals and to pick 100 of each of these from the two subject areas covered by  the Thompson Reuters citation index, that's science and social sciences. However, as you've  noticed, we only have to look at 371. This is because there's actually some duplication across  these two lists. Of those 371 titles we investigated, 162, which is 44 percent, actually had policies.  In fact, there's 230 policies, which I'll explain a bit later, but it does make sense.  Those are quite good subject coverage, the 36 subject areas covered across these two lists.  We did consider whether or not to contain journals we knew had policies in, but decided  at the end to remove these because that could give a bit of bias and we didn't actually know  where they sat on an impact factor scale. So this is a graph of who had policies. As you can see,  the majority of the journals we looked at had no policy. We have some listed as unknown,  and that's really where we were unable to find a journal website, so we couldn't find it if they  had a policy. We decided not to go for direct contact with the journal that's due to the  timescale of the project. However, the worst-case were multiple policies for the journals, about 15 percent.  And this would be where there might be a policy on data sharing, there might be a policy on data  preservation, there might be a policy on the formats of the data. So there were multiple  policies, the data policy was spread across multiple policies of the journal. We used  PIRWAR and Chapman's definition of strong and weak policies, which in summary is where strong  policies where data to deposit is a condition of publication. For example, if you don't deposit it,  you can't publish. Whereas a weak policy would merely suggest or recommend the deposit.  Based on this, of the journal policies we found, nearly three quarters were weak, with only a  quarter being strong. Perhaps again not too surprising, the high impact journals were more  likely to have a strong policy and the lower impact journals were more likely to be just  recommend or suggest that authors shared data. However, again as indicated in our literature  view, approaches varied between subject disciplines with some more stars than others. We did in fact  notice in addition to biomedical sciences, some of the chemical structure journals had more  established practices. So in addition to finding where they had a policy, we also wanted to know  what was in that policy. So we looked at data types and with this, basically what type of data  they wanted to deposit. Most of the time we found it was data sets, multimedia, other data, fairly  general terms, quite important in terms of data sets, but general was very few asking for specific  types of data, but those it did were actually like program code or protein and crystal structure to be  deposited somewhere. We looked at where they're asking to deposit. The great percentage of the  policies we looked at requested materials were put on a website, fairly general again or just  journal website. However, when we did some stakeholder consultation, it was revealed that a  lot of the publishers were actually quite keen on well-managed subject repositories,  but few were actually specifying then in their journals to do so.  When was it looking at deposit? This is again quite inconsistent across the policies.  23% of the policies we looked at asked the data to be made available for peer reviewers,  but not necessarily available to the readers after that point. 51% mentioned actually depositing  alongside the article. With some of these percentages, they might be ticking several  of the inquiries. They might ask for reviewers and to be deposited later and available. So  it's more interesting. At least one journal did allow the conclusion of an institutional website  URL as an end note to this articles, as long as it was a statement there that said the data  hadn't been peer reviewed and maybe updated. It did allow for that tying in of the data,  the background data to the article. Regarding sanctions, very few, only 22 of the policies we  found made any indication that if you didn't deposit the data, you might not be published.  So we decided to look at exulting stakeholders. These were really across the board, scholarly  publishers, research funders, research administrators and positive staff, library staff and the  researchers themselves. We wanted to look at how the county shared data, do they agree with the idea,  do they have any concerns about sharing data, would they use a service-listed journal  data policies and for those that are interested in assisting with the sub-keep.  So we conducted 23-deep-depth interviews and these were mainly with publishers, libraries,  support staff. We also had a focus group of researchers and a workshop with publishers.  Then we did an online survey that was directed at researchers again. Across this it found a  complex situation where different stakeholders made some assumptions about each other's views  and what their actions. However, majority did support making data open and listed quite a  few benefits of doing so. For example, preserving data for the future, promoting knowledge,  reducing fraudulent claims and enabling the data to be scrutinized by the community. However,  there were some concerns and barriers and caveats. The researchers were concerned about who would own  the copyright to the data, would the data be available in a form that could be valuable to share.  Spreadsheeter numbers might not make any sense to another researcher, do they need another layer  or sort of basic analysis before it's shared. And in some cases of the researchers, particularly  early careers researchers, they were concerned that making the data available before they submitted  their PhD could mean their PhD was worthless. So just some of the three of the main groups  and some of their comments. Researchers, they indicated that quite, they thought a  journal policy bank would be quite valuable because it allowed them to access whether  a particular journal policy fits their form of data or data sharing ethos, other requirements  of their funders. And it could be a point of reference of accessing other research data.  The librarians and the policy staff, those with the history of librarianship had really not so  much knowledge about curating data, but they had similar experience with curating a  journal and monographs collections and thought this knowledge could be transferred.  However, in spite of this potential, there wasn't much happening. In the UK, since sort of that  state called the management, the same JISC program has resulted in several research data  management programs at the various institutions taking part. So that picture may be changing.  However, they thought the librarians did think that a policy bank would be quite valuable.  It enabled them to support and develop research data management at their institution.  And would help them gain information, provide publication guidance to the researchers that  were interested. Now publishers, obviously, wanted to look at what they thought. They thought  that the audience for George was a little bit unclear. Was it researchers? Was it the publishers?  Was it the librarians? However, they thought that an accessible list of information on data  policies could be useful for the funders and policy staff and authors themselves.  But it's better for researchers to ensure compliance with funds and institutional demands.  So some sort of summaries of the state called the consultation. All of the state calls us to  recognize the importance of linking between journal content and underlying data, particularly  where data is stored in subject-based repositories. Those consensus about the importance of making  data is freely available. How is the less unified approach about actually doing so in practice?  So some of the common features that came out at the stake of the conversation of what should  be in a George service. There's quite a wide-ranging specification and requirements. As you listed  them all together, it's going to be quite hard to satisfy everyone fully. However, these are  the five common features that came out. We wanted to clear automated and simple instructions on the  service. Clear documentation on the service's aims, its policies and procedures. We wanted to  know for the journal policies, we wanted to know what the conditions or deposit were, would be able  to reuse, how to access and any restrictions on the data. We wanted guidelines for recommended  file and data types and metadata, policy wording, how to write the policies. We wanted to know where  the data could be archived. Almost 8% of our respondents to our online survey, which targeted  researchers, answered they would use such a centralized service that records the data sharing  policies of academic journals. So certainly was interest in the service. But the big thing is  can it be self-sustainable? So having my colleagues developed potential based on the state calls  of consultation, some three basic services and then market tested it, spoke to the state calls,  which are the more interested in. So the first one suggested was a very basic service. The  minimal web interface would have a scoose acronym and an API, an application program as  interfaces, which would allow machine to machine interaction with the database. But it wouldn't  be much more than that. The second was an enhanced service that would be the same as the basic,  but there would be additional data integration. So it would link through to compliance with  fund policies, possibly institutional policies, and it may list recommended repositories for the  deposit. Lastly, there was a advisory service that would be same as enhanced, but on top of this,  it would be a more advisory, more  advise, best practice for writing policies, policy frameworks, policy languages. Both  things kind of matter. There was an additional data in terms of application policies for  organizing entitlements. So there had been additional later Maybellist policies,  but there were other tease. And at the end we have drew up hope and growth for the  guides, best practice for writing policies, policy frameworks, or policy language suggestions.  In general, the stakeholders preferred either of the first two.  However, when it came to speaking to budget holders, another quite positive idea on the  start of a research management side, they were less keen on finding the funding.  They didn't think they could persuade the organization that this was sufficient benefit  enough to want the funding.  Obviously, the publishers were quite keen on funding, but they wanted a lot more in  the service that would possibly make it impractical to start off.  However, based on these three services options and stakeholder computations, a full business  case was submitted to JIS as part of the feasibility study.  A quick summary of findings of the project.  Regarding data sharing, it was felt that this was quite an interested subject.  It was certainly a growing area.  The publishers developing data-only journals and a rough guide for some previous studies  of McCain in 1995 and Puerhuan in 2008.  Bearing in mind the different population sizes, there did appear to be an increased number  of policies each time people looked at it.  It's certainly an increasing area.  However, when it comes to actually sharing the information, there's a lot more floor  uptake.  Researchers were perhaps more likely to share with their major colleagues, but not less  do the colleagues on the other side of the country or the other side of the world.  Again, similar reasons down to the hypothetical PhD students mentioned before, the concern  that other people would trump them in publications.  The policies that did exist, so a possible slight increase in this area, but they were  still generally poor, not very clear, and they were missing in some of the subject areas.  The general support for a George service, but the requirements differ between research  and publishing communities.  Although there are some five common features that could be some issues of how to go about.  However, the data is in an increasing area, so a George service could benefit the future  in this area.  It could help build while the numbers of policies are smaller, a bit better than the  discussion, and build now.  George recommended to JISC a two-phase study, a two-phase procedure to go ahead.  Phase one would be grant funded, and it would build a simple service, focusing on getting  a good data set of the policies with simple technology, and then use that to build engagement  with stakeholders, build awareness, establish a need for the service.  There could still be that machine-to-machine interface with third parties creating applications  on top of it, and also to further develop a self-sustaining model.  Phase two would implement the self-sustaining model, and there might be a need for some  additional funding for breaking even, but there could also be opportunities for grant  funding research and development activities.  Some final thoughts on what we found in the George service.  The use base for a George policy bank would probably mainly be people on the service  work within and support the research community.  A lesser number of users would be publishers and funding bodies, as a representative acknowledges  some use for collation of the journal data policies that we found.  Such a service could provide easy access to journal data policies, provide clarity on  when, where, and what to deposit, provide guidance on file and metadata formats, and  help librarians and support staff to enable researchers.  As I mentioned, there's currently a small number of policies available.  We're talking in the hundreds.  We take into account previous studies.  So building a George type service would be much simpler and likely built sturdily if  done now.  I would able introduction of good practice now before the policy numbers increased dramatically,  and no one has an idea what to do with them.  So at the moment we're waiting a decision from Jask on how to take the George concept  for a fair that I think consider our feasibility study.  So my recommendation to you is get involved in research data.  If your institution has a research data management plan, get involved.  If it hasn't, encourage the person to be.  It's a good idea.  So that's a few references there in short.  As I said, I can provide them in full if required.  So any questions?  That was a really interesting presentation and having done a very small desktop survey  of journal data policies, I applaud the rigor of the work that was done by George and recognise  it was no small task.  Thank you.
Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_0_4511.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_4512_5711.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_5712_5867.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_5868_9299.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_9300_10127.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_10128_10607.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_10608_11567.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_11568_11891.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_11892_13835.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_13836_14051.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_14052_15611.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_15612_18443.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_18444_18551.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_18552_19883.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_19884_21515.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_21516_21683.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_21684_24227.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_24228_26111.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_26112_26843.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_26844_27455.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_27456_28043.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_28044_28091.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_28092_28655.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_28656_29087.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_29088_29591.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_29592_29639.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_29640_30419.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_30420_31955.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_31956_32099.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_32100_34799.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_34800_34967.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_34968_36131.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_36132_36179.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_36180_36227.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_36228_36287.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_36288_36371.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_36372_38327.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_38328_38999.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_39000_39479.png Data_Journals__JoRD_Project_LkBATWzk_gI_1_39480_39480.png