Meeting on Provisions in Licensing Incorporating new developments in daily licensing practice: Setting conditions for open access, patron driven access, and data & text mining

Following the workshop on new developments in daily licensing practice in November 2011, we brought together fourteen representatives from national consortia (from Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and the UK) and publishers (Elsevier, SAGE and Springer) met in Copenhagen on 9 March 2012 to discuss provisions in licences to accommodate new developments. The one day workshop aimed to: present background and ideas regarding the provisions KE Licensing Expert Group developed; introduce and explain the provisions the invited publishers currently use;ascertain agreement on the wording for long term preservation, continuous access and course packs; give insight and more clarity about the use of open access provisions in licences; discuss a roadmap for inclusion of the provisions in the publishers’ licences; result in report to disseminate the outcome of the meeting. Participants of the workshop were: United Kingdom: Lorraine Estelle (Jisc Collections) Denmark: Lotte Eivor Jørgensen (DEFF), Lone Madsen (Southern University of Denmark), Anne Sandfær (DEFF/Knowledge Exchange) Germany: Hildegard Schaeffler (Bavarian State Library), Markus Brammer (TIB) The Netherlands: Wilma Mossink (SURF), Nol Verhagen (University of Amsterdam), Marc Dupuis (SURF/Knowledge Exchange) Publishers: Alicia Wise (Elsevier), Yvonne Campfens (Springer), Bettina Goerner (Springer), Leo Walford (Sage) Knowledge Exchange: Keith Russell The main outcome of the workshop was that it would be valuable to have a standard set of clauses which could used in negotiations, this would make concluding licences a lot easier and more efficient. The comments on the model provisions the Licensing Expert group had drafted will be taken into account and the provisions will be reformulated. Data and text mining is a new development and demand for access to allow for this is growing. It would be easier if there was a simpler way to access materials so they could be more easily mined. However there are still outstanding questions on how authors of articles that have been mined can be properly attributed.

A Surfboard for Riding the Wave

The report, A Surfboard for Riding the Wave, by the high level Knowledge Exchange expert group on research data called for a collaborative data infrastructure that will enable researchers and other stakeholders from education, society and business to use, re-use and exploit research data to the maximum benefit of science and society. The Knowledge Exchange partners have embraced this vision and commissioned a report that translates Riding the Wave into actions for the four partner countries and beyond. This paper builds on this report and presents an overview of the present situation with regard to research data in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom and offers broad outlines for a possible action programme for the four countries in realising the envisaged collaborative data infrastructure. An action programme at the level of four countries will require the involvement of all stakeholders from the scientific community

A snapshot of digitisation and OCR Developments

One of the goals of Knowledge Exchange (www.knowledge-exchange.info) is to help partners to share knowledge and expertise and facilitate the build of expert networks. In the area of digitisation, including non-textual and 3-D-digitisation, a first step is to provide a snapshot of current activities and challenges in the KE partner countries. This paper is a synthesis of the information gathered in a questionnaire that was sent to 15 infrastructure institutions, e.g. libraries and also funders, within the five partner countries of Knowledge Exchange: Denmark (DK), Finland (FIN), Germany (GER), the Netherlands (NL) and the United Kingdom (UK). The paper is based on the answers provided by 6 respondents from four countries:  DK o Danish Agency of Culture (Henrik Jarl Hansen) o State and University Library (Tonny Skovgård Jensen)  GER o German research foundation, DFG (Franziska Regner)  NL o Royal Library (Hildelies Balk) o Leiden University Library (Saskia van Bergen)  UK o Jisc (Paola Marchionni, Peter Findlay) The absence of Finnish responses may be due to Finland participating in the recent Enumerate Core Survey II that also addressed digitisation. We have included some of the outcomes of this survey to present a richer picture.

Report on Knowledge Exchange workshop Price of keeping knowledge: financial streams for digital preservation

In contrast to cost modeling activities, the pricing of services must be simple and transparent. Calculating and thus knowing price structures, would not only help identify the level of detail required for cost modeling of individual instititutions, but also help develop a ”public” market for services as well as clarify the division of task and the modeling of funding and revenue streams for data preservation of public institutions. This workshop has built on the results from the workshop ”The Costs and Benefits of Keeping Knowledge” which took place 11 June 2012 in Copenhagen. This expert workshop aimed at: •Identifying ways for data repositories to abstract from their complicated cost structures and arrive at one transparent pricing structure which can be aligned with available and plausible funding schemes. Those repositories will probably need a stable institutional funding stream for data management and preservation. Are there any estimates for this, absolute or as percentage of overall cost? Part of the revenue will probably have to come through data management fees upon ingest. How could that be priced? Per dataset, per GB or as a percentage of research cost? Will it be necessary to charge access prices, as they contradict the open science paradigm? •What are the price components for pricing individual services, which prices are currently being paid e.g. to commercial providers? What are the description and conditions of the service(s) delivered and guaranteed? •What types of risks are inherent in these pricing schemes? •How can services and prices be defined in an all-inclusive and simple manner, so as to enable researchers to apply for specific amount when asking for funding of data-intensive projects?Please

Report on Knowledge Exchange workshop Cost models for keeping knowledge: economic models for digital preservation

Organised by Knowledge Exchange & the Nordbib programme 11 June 2012, 8:30-12:30, Copenhagen Adjacent to the Nordbib conference 'Structural frameworks for open, digital research' Participants in break out discussion during the workshop on cost modelsThe Knowledge Exchange and the Nordbib programme organised a workshop on cost models for the preservation and management of digital collections. The rapid growth of the digital information which a wide range of institutions must preserve emphasizes the need for robust cost modelling. Such models should enable these institutions to assess both what resources are needed to sustain their digital preservation activities and allow comparisons of different preservation solutions in order to select the most cost-efficient alternative. In order to justify the costs institutions also need to describe the expected benefits of preserving digital information. This workshop provided an overview of existing models and demonstrated the functionality of some of the current cost tools. It considered the specific economic challenges with regard to the preservation of research data and addressed the benefits of investing in the preservation of digital information. Finally, the workshop discussed international collaboration on cost models. The aim of the workshop was to facilitate understanding of the economies of data preservation and to discuss the value of developing an international benchmarking model for the costs and benefits of digital preservation. The workshop took place in the Danish Agency for Culture and was planned directly prior to the Nordbib conference 'Structural frameworks for open, digital research'

Legal Status of Research Data in the four partner countries

This report compares the legal status of research data in the four KE partner countries. The report also addresses where European copyright and database law poses flaws and obstacles to the access to research data and singles out pre-conditions for openly available data. Background of the study Intellectual property right regulations regarding primary research data are a recurrent topic in the discussion on the improvement of access to research data. In fact in the final report of the High Level Expert Group on Scientific Data ‘Riding the Wave’ creating clarity on this was considered very important in improving awareness for all parties involved. According to the recommendations of the report legal issues should be “worked out so that they encourage, and not impede, global data sharing” http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/e-infrastructure/docs/hlg-sdi-report.pdf. While open access to research data is a widely recognised goal, achieving it remains a challenge. As European national laws still diverge and sometimes remain unclear it can be difficult for interested parties to fully comprehend in which ways open access to research data can be legally obtained. Based on these discussions the Knowledge Exchange working group on primary research data has commissioned a comparative report on the legal status of research data in the four KE partner countries. The study has been conducted by the Centre for Intellectual Property Law (CIER) at Utrecht University. The report aims at informing Knowledge Exchange and associated stakeholders on the state of the law concerning access to research data in the KE partner countries (Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) and to give an insight in how these laws work in practice. This is explained in several characteristic situations pertaining to open access to research data. The purpose of the report is to identify flaws and obstacles to the access to research data and to single out pre-conditions for openly available data. This is in view of the current discussions concerning open access to research data, especially those originating from publicly funded research. The report intends to be both a description of the status quo of the legislation and a practical instrument to prepare further activities in raising awareness on the potential benefit of improved access to research data, and developing means to support the improved access for research purposes