KE & Science Europe briefing paper: Funding Research Data Management and related infrastructures

Responsible Research Data Management (RDM) is a pillar of quality research. In practice good RDM requires the support of a well-functioning Research Data Infrastructure (RDI). One of the challenges the research community is facing is how to fund the management of research data and the required infrastructure. Knowledge Exchange and Science Europe have both defined activities to explore how RDM/RDI are, or can be, funded. Independently they each planned to survey users and providers of data services and on becoming aware of the similar objectives and approaches, the Science Europe Working Group on Research Data and the Knowledge Exchange Research Data expert group joined forces and devised a joint activity to to inform the discussion on the funding of RDM/RDI in Europe.

Knowledge Exchange Institutional Repository Workshop

The workshop took place on 16-17 January in Utrecht, with Seventy experts from eight European countries in attendance. The workshop was structured in six sessions: usage statistics research paper metadata exchanging information author identification Open Archives Initiative eTheses Following the workshop, the discussion groups were asked to continue their collaboration and to produce a report for circulation to all participants. The results can be downloaded below. The recommendations contained in the reports above have been reviewed by the Knowledge Exchange partner organisations and formed the basis for new proposals and the next steps in Knowledge Exchange work with institutional repositories. Institutional Repository Workshop - Next steps During April and May 2007 Knowledge Exchange had expert reviewers from the partner organisations go though the workshop strand reports and make their recommendations about the best way to move forward, to set priorities, and find possibilities for furthering the institutional repository cause. The KE partner representatives reviewed the reviews and consulted with their partner organisation management to get an indication of support and funding for the latest ideas and proposals, as follows: Pragmatic interoperability During a review meeting at JISC offices in London on 31 May, the expert reviewers and the KE partner representatives agreed that ‘pragmatic interoperability' is the primary area of interest. It was also agreed that the most relevant and beneficial choice for a Knowledge Exchange approach would be to aim for CRIS-OAR interoperability as a step towards integrated services. Within this context, interlinked joint projects could be undertaken by the partner organisations regarding the areas that most interested them. Interlinked projects The proposed Knowledge Exchange activities involve interlinked joint projects on metadata, persistent author identifiers, and eTheses which are intended to connect to and build on projects such as ISPI, Jisc NAMES and the Digital Author Identifier (DAI) developed by SURF. It is important to stress that the projects are not intended to overlap, but rather to supplement the DRIVER 2 (EU project) approaches. Focus on CRIS and OAR It is believed that the focus on practical interoperability between Current Research Information Systems and Open Access Repository systems will be of genuine benefit to research scientists, research administrators and librarian communities in the Knowledge Exchange countries; accommodating the specific needs of each group. Timing June 2007: Write the draft proposal by KE Working Group members July 2007: Final proposal to be sent to partner organisations by KE Group August 2007: Decision by Knowledge Exchange partner organisations.

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.

Submission Fees - A Tool in the Transition to Open Access?

Knowledge Exchange examined different routes in achieving the vision of 'having a layer of scholarly and scientific content openly available in the internet'. One of these routes involves exploring new developments in the future of publishing. Work is being undertaken investigating interesting alternative business models which could contribute to the transition to open access. In this light KE has commissioned a study investigating whether submission fees could play a role in a business model for Open Access journals. The general conclusion of the report bearing the title ‘Submission Fees a tool in the transition to open access?', written by Mark Ware, is that there are benefits to publishers in certain cases to switch to a model in which an author pays a fee when submitting an article. Especially journals with a high rejection rate might be interested in combining submission fees with article processing charges in order to make the transition to open access easier. In certain disciplines, notably economic and finance journals and in some areas of the experimental life sciences, submission fees are already common. Overall there seems to be an interest in the model but the risks, particularly those involved in any transition, are seen by the publishers to outweigh the perceived benefits. There is also a problem in that the advantages offered by submission fees are often general benefits that might improve the system but do not provide publishers and authors with direct incentives to change to open access. To support transition funders, institutions and publication funds could make it clear that submission fees would be an allowable cost. At present this is often unclear in their policies. Author acceptance of submission fees is critical to its success. It is an observable fact that authors will accept them in some circumstances. Author acceptance would require further study though. Based on the interviews and the modelling in the study one model in particular is regarded as the most suitable way to meet the current requirements (i.e. to strengthen open access to research publications). In this model authors pay a submission fee plus an Article Processing Fee and the article is subsequently made available in open access. Both fees are set at levels that balance acceptability with the author community with securing a meaningful mix of revenues for the Publisher.