KE Workshop Report - Main Drivers for Successful re-use of Research Data

On 23-24 September 2009 an international discussion workshop on “Main Drivers for Successful Re-Use of Research Data” was held in Berlin, prepared and organised by the Knowledge Exchange working group on Primary Research Data. The main focus of the workshop was on the benefits, challenges and obstacles of re-using data from a researcher’s perspective. The use cases presented by researchers from a variety of disciplines were supplemented by two key notes and selected presentations by specialists from infrastructure institutions, publishers, and funding bodies on national and European level. Researchers' perspectives The workshop provided a critical evaluation of what lessons have been learned on sharing and re-using research data from a researcher’s perspective and what actions might be taken on to still improve the successful re-use. Despite the individual differences characterising the diverse disciplines it became clear that important issues are comparable. Combine forces to support re-use and sharing of data Apart from several technical challenges such as metadata exchange standards and quality assurance it was obvious that the most important obstacles to re-using research data more efficiently are socially determined. It was agreed that in order to overcome this problem more efforts should be made to rise awareness and combine forces to support re-using and sharing of research data on all levels (researchers, institutions, publishers, funders, governments).

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

The Value of Research Data

Scientific research revolves around the production, analysis, storage, management, and re-use of data. Data sharing offers important benefits for scientific progress and advancement of knowledge. However, several limitations and barriers in the general adoption of data sharing are still in place. Probably the most important challenge is that data sharing is not yet very common among scholars and is not yet seen as a regular activity among scientists, although important efforts are being invested in promoting data sharing. In addition, there is a relatively low commitment of scholars to cite data. The most important problems and challenges regarding data metrics are closely tied to the more general problems related to data sharing. The development of data metrics is dependent on the growth of data sharing practices, after all it is nothing more than the registration of researchers’ behaviour. At the same time, the availability of proper metrics can help researchers to make their data work more visible. This may subsequently act as an incentive for more data sharing and in this way a virtuous circle may be set in motion. This report seeks to further explore the possibilities of metrics for datasets (i.e. the creation of reliable data metrics) and an effective reward system that aligns the main interests of the main stakeholders involved in the process. The report reviews the current literature on data sharing and data metrics. It presents interviews with the main stakeholders on data sharing and data metrics. It also analyses the existing repositories and tools in the field of data sharing that have special relevance for the promotion and development of data metrics. On the basis of these three pillars, the report presents a number of solutions and necessary developments, as well as a set of recommendations regarding data metrics. The most important recommendations include the general adoption of data sharing and data publication among scholars; the development of a reward system for scientists that includes data metrics; reducing the costs of data publication; reducing existing negative cultural perceptions of researchers regarding data publication; developing standards for preservation, publication, identification and citation of datasets; more coordination of data repository initiatives; and further development of interoperability protocols across different actors.

IPR POLICY AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE REPORT FOR SCIENTIFIC POLICY MAKERS

The report provides recommendations to policy makers in science and scholarly research regarding IPR policy to increase the impact of research and make the outcomes more available. The report argues that the impact of publicly-funded research outputs can be increased through a fairer balance between private and public interest in copyright legislation. This will allow for wider access to and easier re-use of published research reports. The common practice of authors being required to assign all rights to a publisher restricts the impact of research outputs and should be replaced by wider use of a non-exclusive licence. Full access and re-use rights to research data should be encouraged through use of a research-friendly licence.

Knowledge Exchange Discussion paper on Open Knowledge

The development of an openly available layer of scholarly and scientific content requires access to all types of output from the scholarly and scientific process. Interoperable and sustainable infrastructure components are invaluable elements and the content should be clearly licensed for re-use. Open Knowledge will improve the discoverability and re-usability of content across the sectors, to the benefit of higher education and research and will help the (European) knowledge economy to move forward. In Autumn 2013, scoping sessions took place with experts to discuss their views around the value of making knowledge open and the steps which need to be taken to achieve this. These discussions are collected in the Knowledge Exchange discussion paper on Open Knowledge.

Open Access in the UK Briefing on the UK Open Access Case Study

Open Access (OA) policies have been adopted at the national, institutional and funder levels in the UK and various infrastructural support mechanisms are available to facilitate open access. In July 2012, following an independent study on ‘Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications’ the UK Government announced its OA policy. The Government’s policy determines that ‘support for publication in open access or hybrid journals, funded by Article Processing Charges (APCs), [i]s the main vehicle for the publication of research’. At the same time that the UK Government announced its OA policy, the UK’s major research funder, the Research Councils UK (RCUK), revised its OA policy announcing its ‘preference for immediate [Gold] Open Access with the maximum opportunity for re-use’. In March 2014, the UK Funding Councils announced their OA policy for the post-2014 Research Evaluation Framework (REF). The policy requires the deposit of peer-reviewed article and conference proceedings in repositories (Green OA) and is applicable from 1 April 2016. By and large, two distinct OA routes are being promoted by the UK Government and RCUK (Gold OA) and the Funding Councils (Green OA). This scenario requires that continued efforts are made to ensure that advice and support are provided to universities, academic libraries and researchers on the distinct OA policies and on policy compliance. The UK research institutions have been adopting OA policies from as early as 2003 and there currently are 85 institutional OA policies. Despite distinct OA policies having been adopted by policymakers, national research funders and research institutions, the UK’s movement towards OA has been a result of stakeholders coordinated efforts and is considered to be a case of good practice.

Virtual Research Environments Catalysts of Change workshop

Knowledge Exchange organised the workshop 'Virtual Research Environments: Catalysts of change', following the success of the Virtual Research Environments: The next steps workshop which took place in Rotterdam, 2010. Changing research behaviour and practice have repercussions for funding programmes, policy and technology infrastructures. The development of tools has the potential to transform research practice, but as these tools become part of the digital infrastructure, challenges of use, maintenance and sustainably inevitably arise. This workshop allowed Knowledge Exchange and its partners to share their experience and understanding with leading experts, influencers and funders, including members of the European Commission. The workshop offered new perspectives and debate on: changing researcher behaviours policies in the creation and use of VREs sustainability re-use of tools and technologies.

The Grimsby Institute Group: Making it easy for students to use their own devices to learn

The Grimsby Institute wanted to create an infrastructure that would enable staff and students to use more mobile technology to enhance learning. They have improved the wifi connectivity in college and streamlined the software used to access college areas, as well as encouraging individuals to use their own technology. So far this has had a positive impact on retention and simplified the support that the college needs to provide, as well as saving the organisation money through some strategic changes.

Research Software Sustainability: Report on Knowledge Exchange Workshop

The report introduces software sustainability, provides definitions, clearly demonstrates that software is not the same as data and illustrates aspects of sustainability in the software lifecycle. The recommendations state that improving software sustainability requires a number of changes: some technical and others societal, some small and others significant. We must start by raising awareness of researchers’ reliance on software. This goal will become easier if we recognise the valuable contribution that software makes to research – and reward those people who invest their time into developing reliable and reproducible software. The adoption of software has led to significant advances in research. But if we do not change our research practices, the continued rise in software use will be accompanied by a rise in retractions. Ultimately, anyone who is concerned about the reliability and reproducibility of research should be concerned about software sustainability. Beside highlighting the benefits of software sustainability and addressing the societal and technical barriers to software sustainability, the report provides access to expertise in software sustainability and outlines the role of funders. The report concludes with a short landscape of national activities in Europe and outside Europe. As a result of the workshop steps will be explored to establish European coordination and cooperation of national initiatives.