Directions for Research Data Management in UK Universities

This report addresses five key topics: »» Policy development and implementation »» Skills and capability »» Infrastructure and interoperability »» Incentives for researchers and support stakeholders »» Business case and sustainability

Research at Risk: facing your RDM challenges

Overview of research at risk activities and the breakout sessions. Jisc RDM at Repository Fringe 2015.

Journal research data policy registry

Presentation on the journal research data policy registry at the Repository Fringe 2015.

Online communication and promotion of research expertise report

Examining how universities use online channels to promote their research expertise and making recommendations for how institutions can improve this.

Presenting research expertise information online: a guide for higher education institutions

Helping HEIs plan the use of online channels to communicate information about the expertise of researchers within their institution so that it meets the needs of business and community users, as well researchers themselves

Promotion of research expertise online project report

An output from the online promotion of research expertise project:

Promotion of research expertise online: the self-assessment tool

Helping HEIs identify whether the way they use online channels to communicate information about the expertise of researchers within their institution meets the needs of: – Business and community users – Researchers themselves.

Keeping Research Data Safe: a cost model and guidance for UK universities (KRDS1)

This study has investigated the medium to long term costs to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) of the preservation of research data and developed guidance to HEFCE and institutions on these issues. It has provided an essential methodological foundation on research data costs for the forthcoming HEFCE-sponsored feasibility study for a UK Research Data Service.It will also assist HEIs and funding bodies wishing to establish strategies and TRAC costings for long-term data management and archiving. The rising tide of digital research data raises issues relating to access, curation and preservation for HEIs and within the UK a growing number of research funders are now implementing policies requiring researchers to submit data management, preservation or data sharing plans with their funding applications.

Keeping Research Data Safe 2 (KRDS2)

Data has always been fundamental to many areas of research but in recent years it has become central to more disciplines and inter-disciplinary projects and grown substantially in scale and complexity. There is increasing awareness of its strategic importance as a resource in addressing modern global challenges and the possibilities being unlocked by rapid technological advances and their application in research (NAS2009). The first Keeping Research Data Safe study funded by JISC made a major contribution to understanding of long-term preservation costs for research data by developing a cost model and identifying cost variables for preserving research data in UK universities (Beagrie et al, 2008). The Keeping Research Data Safe 2 (KRDS2) project has built on this work.

The status of shark and ray fishery resources in the Gulf of California: applied research to improve management and conservation

Seasonal surveys were conducted during 1998–1999 in Baja California, Baja California Sur, Sonora, and Sinaloa to determine the extent and activities of artisanal elasmobranch fisheries in the Gulf of California. One hundred and forty–seven fishing sites, or camps, were documented, the majority of which (n = 83) were located in Baja California Sur. Among camps with adequate fisheries information, the great majority (85.7%) targeted elasmobranchs during some part of the year. Most small, demersal sharks and rays were landed in mixed species fisheries that also targeted demersal teleosts, but large sharks were usually targeted in directed drift gillnet or, to a lesser extent, surface longline fisheries. Artisanal fishermen were highly opportunistic, and temporally switched targets depending on the local productivity of teleost, invertebrate, and elasmobranch fishery resources. Major fisheries for small sharks (< 1.5 m, “cazón”) were documented in Baja California during spring, in Sonora during autumn–spring, and in Sinaloa during winter and spring. Triakid sharks (Mustelus spp.) dominated cazón landings in the northern states, whereas juvenile scalloped hammerheads (Sphyrna lewini) primarily supported the fishery in Sinaloa. Large sharks (> 1.5 m, “tiburón”) were minor components of artisanal elasmobranch fisheries in Sonora and Sinaloa, but were commonly targeted during summer and early autumn in Baja California and Baja California Sur. The pelagic thresher shark (Alopias pelagicus) and silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) were most commonly landed in Baja California, whereas a diverse assemblage of pelagic and large coastal sharks was noted among Baja California Sur landings. Rays dominated summer landings in Baja California and Sinaloa, when elevated catch rates of the shovelnose guitarfish (Rhinobatos productus, 13.2 individuals/vessel/trip) and golden cownose ray (Rhinoptera steindachneri, 11.1 individuals/vesse/trip) primarily supported the respective fisheries. The Sonoran artisanal elasmobranch fishery was the most expansive recorded during this study, and rays (especially R. productus) dominated spring and summer landings in this state. Seasonal catch rates of small demersal sharks and rays were considerably greater in Sonora than in other surveyed states. Many tiburón populations (e.g., C. leucas, C. limbatus, C. obscurus, Galeocerdo cuvier) have likely been overfished, possibly shifting effort towards coastal populations of cazón and rays. Management recommendations, including conducting demographic analyses using available life history data, determining and protecting nursery areas, and enacting seasonal closures in areas of elasmobranch aggregation (e.g., reproduction, feeding), are proposed. Without effective, enforceable management to sustain or rebuild targeted elasmobranch populations in the Gulf of California, collapse of many fisheries is a likely outcome. (PDF contains 243 pages)

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.

Authority files: Breaking out of the library silo to become signposts for research information

Authority files serve to uniquely identify real world ‘things’ or entities like documents, persons, organisations, and their properties, like relations and features. Already important in the classical library world, authority files are indispensable for adequate information retrieval and analysis in the computer age. This is because, even more than humans, computers are poor at handling ambiguity. Through authority files, people tell computers which terms, names or numbers refer to the same thing or have the same meaning by giving equivalent notions the same identifier. Thus, authority files signpost the internet where these identifiers are interlinked on the basis of relevance. When executing a query, computers are able to navigate from identifier to identifier by following these links and collect the queried information on these so-called ‘crosswalks’. In this context, identifiers also go under the name controlled access points. Identifiers become even more crucial now massive data collections like library catalogues or research datasets are releasing their till-now contained data directly to the internet. This development is coined Open Linked Data. The concatenating name for the internet is Web of Data instead of the classical Web of Documents.