More from TU:Librarian

Posted in September 2014

International Data Week

This time I am wrapping up the “International Data week” in Amsterdam, with the RDA 4th plenary (Reaping the fruits) as main event on 22-24 September 2014, and a range of satellite events on data were taking place in the same week. Just a (very) short impression!

Robert-Jan Smits kicked off the RDA meeting on Monday, where 520 attendants were present, by saying that only 10-30% of scientific articles can be reproduced.  He urged the community to change their culture, and “treat your data as you treat your publications”.

The video by Neelie Kroes contained a few nice phrases, e.g. “Open science depends on open minds, and it can grow if we build it upon trust”.

Barend Mons held a very entertaining keynote on “Bringing Data to Broadway”, and introduced his FAIR play, to make research findable accessible, interoperable and reusable. Barend referred to his Data FAIRPORT. Do not say open all the time, perhaps call it fair science (I will give this suggestion at the end of the EC public consultation on Science 2.0!).

He showed us that data loss is real and significant, while data growth is staggering. We should realize how important data stewardship is: Educate, reward and keep data scientists.  Professionalize data stewardship! 5% of research funding should go to data stewardship,  it is really worth the money. So award the data steward, introduce a research object impact factor. And do not forget: “Knowledge is like laughter, it increases when shared”.

I could only attend this first day partially and then the third day. The RDA always holds a lot of parallel sessions, similar to the previous plenaries, where the interest groups and working groups talk about their challenges and progress.

The working group on workflows (part of the interest group Publishing Data) is in the midst of a workflow analysis, and they called for people to look at their Excel sheet, add new workflows or columns to address. A few examples of workflows were presented, Martina Stockhause opened a discussion on versions of data, where her suggestion was to have a high-level persistent identifier based on a collection, and then allow for changes within. We thought that her discussion would be addressed by the group on Dynamic Data (I cannot find the correct link to this group though!).

The closing panel on the third day gave an overview of the data situation in Brasil, Japan, Canada and the US. A few interesting, some slightly contradictory, observations:

  • Should we refer to open data, or should we make a variety of how access can be arranged,  realizing that private sector wants to  exploit their data?
  • Do not create artificial silos between research and industry.
  • Data requires us to think in objects and connections,  and we should work on improving  services.
  • Beware to be “going in the rathole of sustainability”. At the end it is of course far more expensive not to invest in infrastructure.

The coming six months (to the next plenary, in San Diego) the RDA will focus on adoption, to be using and eating the fruits, and they will be clustering the interest groups and working groups. I think that this is a sensible thing to do.

One of the remarks of the panel was that you need a national infrastructure to be able to participate in a global infrastructure,  and that we should exchange best practices.  I am proud that we managed in the Netherlands to have Research Data Netherlands, a coalition where now three data archives are sharing their experience and work together on realizing sustainable data archiving.

On 24 September 2014 Research Data Netherlands (RDNL), the collaborative partnership between 3TU.Datacentrum and DANS, welcomed SURFsara.

On 24 September 2014 Research Data Netherlands (RDNL), the collaborative partnership between 3TU.Datacentrum and DANS, welcomed SURFsara.

Talking about the processes is useful and necessary, but it was very rewarding to have presentations of six researchers during the Dutch Data Prize Award on 24 September.

On Thursday the RECODE Workshop had a meeting (and there were as said much much more interesting events this week). RECODE aims to have their final conference in Athens in January 2015. People at the workshop were invited to comment on the draft recommendations document of work package 5.

The group wants to produce evidence-based policy recommendations. They have identified four stakeholder groups, funders, research institutions, data managers and publishers (question was raised whether researchers should be added as stakeholder). To give a quick idea:

  • Funders:  Develop, implement,  monitor and evaluate open access to research data. (During the panel later on, we discussed whether there was a funder that supports reusing data, that could be an addition to this short list.)
  • Research institutions: Develop data management strategies,  develop reward systems, develop training programs and support awareness-raising.
  • Data managers: Develop mission and responsibilities,  develop sustainable business models,  achieve trust worthiness of repositories and content, and develop data management services.
  • Publishers: Get policies for deposit of data and require data submissions in certified repositories.

Daniel Spichtinger (from European Commission,  DG Research and Innovation) took part in the workshop and told us about the European Commission’s pilot for open access to research data. A few things were new for me, apparently the deposit in repositories is mandatory, but there is no requirement to have it in a trusted repository. The opt-outs for opening up your data have a wide range: there may be a conflict to protect results,  a confidentiality issue or possible risk for national security, protection of personal data, and more. Another new thing for me was that apart from the selected areas (in the Excellence, Industrial Leadership or Societal Challenges programmes) all projects might go for a pilot on a voluntary basis. Further the data management plans are mandatory,  but are not part of the project evaluation,  they are required 6 months after project starts. At the end Daniel gave a nice quote: “This pilot gives you a chance to coshape policy on opening up research data.“  We also now know the take out so far (out of 3054 proposals): opt out is 24% in core areas, and 27% is the opt in, in other areas.

I am ending my post here, but our team, especially the product group Research Data Services, were of course in (almost) full-strength present, and apart from helping the main organisation DANS, sponsoring as 3TU.datacentrum (which we coordinate) the programme, we followed or contributed to Libraries for research data, Data publication, Long tail data and workshops on technique, training, policy and certification. A very busy week indeed!

And the most important people are … our authors

Reporting on the ALPSP international conference, 10-12 September 2014.

While I am at this (learned society) publishers’ congress, our Board of Directors have sent on September 11 a message to all employees at TU Delft announcing that the way forward is open access. Open access so that contributions to science are spread, read and re-used. In the Netherlands, State Secretary Dekker recently expressed his views on the transition of Dutch academic publications to Open Access, which he hopes to achieve within five years in 60% of the cases. 

A few days in London, that’s what you think. However, the ALPSP meeting is based in a hotel (Park Inn) at Heathrow, so the only thing you see (and hear) is the airport.

Keynote opener was Amy Brand from Digital Science. She presented an overview of the products (a lot fall under Digital Science) that help taking away pains from the researchers. “Pain is the mother of invention”. Products or services I had not heard of before were: Sparrho, Sciencescape  and Uberresearch.

A bit about libraries

The first day (being only the afternoon) held (after the keynote) two things. A library panel (I think that those were the only librarians, apart from me, present) and the presentations of the Innovation Award (winner to be announced Thursday September 11). Surprise surprise, I liked the library panel. The topic was about whether we (librarians / publishers) were competitors or customers. Jill Taylor-Roe asked us to recalibrate the collaboration. Would it be better together? Graham Stone tried to tickle the audience (as you will understand mainly publishers) by explaining that repositories actually help in impact. “It is not about stealing. We have paid, we link and drive usage”. At his university (Huddersfield) they now have their own Press, and publish their undergraduate journal with severe peer reviewing. As Jill also pointed out, Graham said that libraries and publishers are both contributors (not competitors) to advance science. The really important people are the authors, not the librarians or the publishers.

Innovation Award

Seven nominations for the Innovation Awards, 5 minutes each. Wow! I liked (but information might not be complete;-) BioRXiv , initiated by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, as I understand a good filter to proceed to journal publications.  Another success was presented by Frontiers from Open Science platform, where open access journals are being (openly) peer reviewed, with top scientists as Editors, and maximising impact for authors.  They even started a Frontiers for young minds! With an Editorial board of kids. Last one I mention is Edifix (from Inera), where inaccurate references are something from the past.

Congratulations to Kamila Markram from Frontiers. They won!

Congratulations to Kamila Markram from Frontiers. They won!

Impact and relevance

A panel opened the next day, but it was lively enough to attend. I especially appreciated the contributions from David Smith (IET) and chair Toby Green (OECD). Take a look at OECD’s Freemium Access publishing, more or lest the differentiated access Amy Brand presented the day before. It is a mixture of free (just reading) and premium (paying, for downloads or usage). With David I had a nice chat afterwards, where we discussed the typical behaviour of engineers i.e. IET noted having a very low percentage of mobile traffic on their platform. I spoke also with the panellist from Thieme who claimed that open access would leave libraries without a job. What we see in Delft is that we advise in the publication route and start to administer apc’s, so I did not agree with his observation.

31 flavours of research impact. CC-BY-NC by maniacyak on flickr.

31 flavours of research impact. CC-BY-NC by maniacyak on flickr.

Melinda Kenneway opened an interesting session on metrics. I had heard Mike Taylor from Elsevier at the APE, but his story this time was different, he advocated the use of multiple or mixed metrics, not bibliometrics or altmetrics, but choosing the right answers based on the questions of the customers. We also had the joy of listening to Euan Adie, founder of Altmetric. He defines altmetrics as everything in metrics that is not citations, resulting in a broader view of impact. An idea that popped up in my head when he talked was whether we (as librarians) should be starting to tweet much more about the Delft publications, as part of our workflow.

Discovery

In the afternoon presentations on “cracking the discovery code” were scheduled. where EBSCO, Sage and Graham Stone (again, see day before) talked. Graham’s university was the first Summon client in the UK (2009). I liked the way he referred to the discovery system as a tool that is “levelling the playing field,  giving every journal a fair chance” and warned us, librarians, to avoid the desire making minilibrarians out of our users. I also made a note to look at the TERMS – top 14 deal breaks when licensing electronic resources, that he cocreated, so I will definitely get back to his presentation.

Big data

Fiona Murphy chaired the final session of the day on big data. There was in that session not much new for me, though it struck me that the underlying message was that we should be careful. We should not make confusing correlations, will need human interaction to structure the data, and need to make authors aware how to correctly cite data. I learned from my neighbor, one of the nominees for the Innovation Award from Inera, that 20% of the provided data citations have incorrect doi’s. We can of course also have fun, e.g. with the autocomplete text Google makes (why is UK so … cold).

Text mine or yours or …

On Friday morning we had our final sessions. Both were interesting. Gemma Hersh from Elsevier explained their Text and Datamining policy and went through the criticism received, via a.o. LIBER. They have changed a few things since, e.g. users are not asked anymore to provide a project description when they register for mining. The fact that registration is needed however will not be changed, according to Hersh. CrossRef is now working on a cross publisher solution. The talk by researcher Lars Juhl Jensen  (here is his blog) nicely touched upon some of these issues. Jensen gave a wonderful talk about what text and data mining is all about, and that researchers like himself just want to be able “to take it, mine it and make it publicly available”.  Furter reading about this (and other) sessions at the alpsp blog.

... Ours?

The final session had open access as topic. Chair Wim van der Stelt from Springer tried to bring some different angles to the discussion. We had people from Wiley, Royal Society and BMC talking about flipping your subscription journal, learning from starting an open access journal and having the dialogue with your customer, respectively. I liked the contribution by Jackie Jones (Wiley). She gave the Wiley criteria to flip or not to flip. Obviously parameters such as rejection rate, submission level, funder behaviour and proven open access success in the discipline are relevant in this decision. Phil Hurst (The Royal Society) mentioned that they only would be launching open access journals. He referred to the SPARC page, that summarizes why open access is a big benefit. I did not really get an answer when asking when the time would come that the default for launching a new journal would be open access, realizing that large publishers also could drive the change and influence behaviour. Well, I wrote earlier about that of course! Though we all agreed at the congress that our authors and researchers are the most important stakeholders, perhaps some other stakeholders might influence the direction publishers are taking;-)

View from my room. Heathrow!

View from my room. Heathrow!

© 2011 TU Delft