KE Workshop report: Report Knowledge Exchange workshop Making data count - Research Data and Research Assessment

The possibilities of digital research have altered the production, publication and use of research results. Academic research practice and culture are changing or have already been transformed, but to a large degree the system of academic recognition has not yet adapted to the practices and possibilities of digital research. This applies especially to research data, which are increasingly produced, managed, published and archived, but play hardly a role yet in practices of research assessment. The aim of the workshop was to bring experts and stakeholders from research institutions, universities, scholarly societies and funding agencies together in order to review, discuss and build on possibilities to implement the culture of sharing and to integrate publication of data into research assessment procedures. The report 'The Value of Research Data - Metrics for datasets from a cultural and technical point of view' was presented and discussed. Some of the key finding were that data sharing should be considered normal research practice, in fact not sharing should be considered malpractice. Research funders and universities should support and encourage data sharing. There are a number of important aspects to consider when making data count in research and evaluation procedures. Metrics are a necessary tool in monitoring the sharing of data sets. However, data metrics are at present not very well developed and there is not yet enough experience in what these metrics actually mean. It is important to implement the culture of sharing through codes of conducts in the scientific communities. For further key findings please read the report.

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'

Research Data Management — Activities and Challenges Report on the Knowledge Exchange Workshop

Workshop Research Data Management – Activities and Challenges 14-15 November 2011, Bonn The Knowledge Exchange initiative organised a workshop to highlight current activities and challenges with respect to research data management in the Knowledge Exchange partner countries and beyond. The workshop brought together experts from data centres, libraries, computational centres, funding organisations, publishing services and other institutions in the field of research and higher education who are working to improve research data management and encourage effective reuse of research data. A considerable part of the programme was dedicated to sharing perspectives from these communities, leading to the development of a roadmap of practical actions for the Knowledge Exchange initiative, partner organisations and other stakeholders to progress over the next two years. On the first day, principal investigators and project managers from a great variety of recent projects shared their insights on objectives and methods for improving data management ranging from discipline-specific to more general approaches. A series of short presentations of selected projects was followed by an extensive poster session that functioned as a “trade fair” of current trends and activities in the field of research data management. Moreover, the poster session offered ample network opportunities for participants. The second day was dedicated to intensive group discussions looking at a number of data management challenges. First the most important findings from the "Surfboard for 'Riding the Wave'" report were presented. This included the state of the art on activities and challenges in the field of research data management. The subgroups will concentrate on the following key themes: funding, incentives, training and technical infrastructure. These discussions culminated in the identification of practical recommendations for future cooperation on practical as well as on strategic levels that should be taken forward by the KE partner organisations and beyond. These activities aim to improve the sustainability of services and infrastructures at both national and international levels.

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).

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.

National policy framework and strategy for fisheries and aquaculture development in Pakistan: final national workshop Islamabad, 30-31 Oct. 2006

The Final National Workshop was held from 30-31 October 2006 in Islamabad, Pakistan, with the objectives to:

Knowledge Exchange RDM Training & Skills Workshop, 9-10 Feb 2016, London

In today’s changing research environment, RDM is important in all stages of research. The skills and know-how in RDM that researchers and research support staff need, should be nurtured all though their career. At the end of 2015, KE initiated a project to compare approaches in RDM training within the partnership’s five member countries. The project was structured around two strands of activity: In the last months of 2015 a survey was conducted to collect information on current practice around RDM training, in order to provide an overview of the RDM training landscape. In February 2016 a workshop was held to share successful approaches to RDM training and capacity building provided within institutions and by infrastructure. The report describes the outputs of both the analysis of the survey and the outcomes of the workshop. The document provides an evidence base and informed suggestions to help improve RDM training practices in KE partner countries and beyond.

International Workshop for Management and Trade of Caiman yacare, Gainsville, FL, 3-5 October 2002

A workshop was held 3-5 October 2002 in Gainesville, Florida, USA to discuss management, conservation and trade in Caiman yacare. Twenty five official participants represented the four yacare range states (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay), Venezuela, USA, the meeting sponsors (US Fish and Wildlife Service, CITES Secretariat, Louisiana Fur and Alligator Council), TRAFFIC Sur America and Crocodile Specialist Group. A series of country reports detailing yacare management in the four range states were distributed in Spanish and English prior to the meeting and presentations on these and on general principles of crocodilian harvest, conservation and management provided the basis for the discussions. Three working groups considered: • Requirements and field techniques for field data collection. • Requirements and techniques for regulation of harvest. • Requirements and processes for regulation of trade and export. Written reports of working groups and a plenary drafting session were finalized during the meeting and distributed, with the country reports, to participants. The workshop drafted a framework for caiman management and regulation that could be used as a template and adapted for use in each range state. The meeting agreed to convene an ad-hoc working group of range state representatives to continue discussions on the harmonization of caiman management into the future.

Ecology of Juvenile Walleye Pollock, Theragra chalcogramma: Papers from the workshop "The Importance of Prerecruit Walleye Pollock to the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ecosystems" Seattle, Washington, 28-30 October 1993

The Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), hosted an international workshop, 'The Importance of Prerecruit Walleye Pollock to the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ecosystems," from 28 to 30 October 1993. This workshop was held in conjunction with the annual International North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) meeting held in Seattle. Nearly 100 representatives from government agencies, universities, and the fishing industry in Canada, Japan, the People's Republic of China, Russia, and the United States took part in the workshop to review and discuss current knowledge on juvenile pollock from the postlarval period to the time they recruit to the fisheries. In addition to its importance to humans as a major commercial species, pollock also serves as a major forage species for many marine fishes, birds, and mammals in the North Pacific region. (PDF file contains 236 pages.)

Biology, Oceanography, and Fisheries of the North Pacific Transition Zone and Subarctic Frontal Zone: Papers from the North Pacific Transition Zone Workshop, Honolulu, Hawaii, 9-11 May 1988

In the past few years, large-scale, high-seas driftnet fishing has sparked intense debate and political conflict in many oceanic regions. In the Pacific Ocean the driftnet controversy first emerged in the North Pacific transition zone and subarctic frontal zone, where driftnet vessels from Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan pursue their target species of neon flying squid. Other North Pacific driftnet fleets from Japan and Taiwan target stocks of tunas and billfishes. Both types of driftnet fishing incidentally kill valued non-target species of marine life, including fish, mammals, birds, and turtles. In response to public concerns about driftnet fishing, government scientists began early on to assemble available information and consider what new data were required to assess impacts on North Pacific marine resources and the broader pelagic ecosystem. Accordingly, a workshop was convened at the NMFS Honolulu Laboratory in May 1988 to review current information on the biology, oceanography, and fisheries of the North Pacific transition zone and subarctic frontal zone. The workshop participants, from the United States and Canada, also developed a strategic plan to guide NMFS in developing a program of driftnet fishery research and impact assessment. This volume contains a selection of scientific review papers presented at the 1988 Honolulu workshop. The papers represent part of the small kernel of information available then, prior to the expansion of cooperative international scientific programs. Subsequent driftnet fishery monitoring and research by the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have added much new data. Nevertheless, this collection of papers provides a historical perspective and contains useful information not readily available elsewhere. (PDF file contains 118 pages.)

Marine Mammal Strandings in the United States: Proceedings of the Second Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop, Miami, Florida, December 3-5, 1987

Over a decade ago, in August 1977, the First Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop was convened in Athens, Georgia. That workshop, organized by j.R. Geraci and D.J. St. Aubin, not only considered biology and pathology of stranded marine mammals, but it also served as a springboard for the formation of regional marine mammal stranding networks in the United States. The ramifications have been extremely important to the field of marine mammalogy since, for some species, examination or rehabilitation of stranded specimens serves as virtually the only source of information on distribution, anatomy, physiology, reproduction, and pathology. The First Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop led to increased awareness of the marine mammals themselves, as well as the logistic and legal factors associated with effective handling of the animals. A number of individuals indicated that they felt that a Second Marine Mammal Stranding Workshop held prior to the Seventh Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals (Miami, Florida; December 1987) would be both timely and productive. Accordingly, we organized the workshop and scheduled it to occur on 3-5 December. Our goals for the workshop were several, including 1) providing descriptions of some research, especially new techniques, regarding stranded marine mammals; 2) providing a forum where scientists could interact and possibly initiate cooperative research activities; 3) presenting information regarding procedures used effectively to handle stranded animals; 4) assessing ways to standardize data and specimen collection, archiving, and retrieval; and 5) providing a forum for assessing accomplishments and status of regional stranding networks to date, as well as for making recommendations regarding future activities of the networks. Nearly 100 individuals representing Federal and State governments, academic institutions, the oceanarium industry, consulting groups, conservation organizations, and the private sector attended the workshop (see Workshop Participants, this volume). (PDF file contains 166 pages.)

Ecology of east Florida sea turtles: Proceedings of the Cape Canaveral, Florida Sea Turtle Workshop Miami, Florida February 26-27, 1985

The Cape Canaveral, Florida, marine ecosystem is unique. There are complex current and temperature regimes that form a faunal transition zone between Atlantic tropical and subtropical waters. This zone is rich faunistically and supports large commercial fISheries for fish, scallops, and shrimp. Canaveral is also unique because it has large numbers of sea turtles year-round, this turtle aggregation exhibiting patterned seasonal changes in numbers, size frequency, and sex ratio. Additionally, a significant portion of this turtle aggregation hibernates in the Canaveral ship channel, a phenomenon rare in marine turtle populations. The Cape Canaveral area has the largest year-round concentration of sea turtles in the United States. However, the ship channel is periodically dredged by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to keep Port Canaveral open to U.S. Navy vessels, and preliminary surveys showed that many sea turtles were incidentally killed during dredging operations. In order for the Corps of Engineers to fulfill its defense dredging responsibilities, and comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, an interagency Sea Turtle Task Force was formed to investigate methods of reducing turtle mortalities. This Task Force promptly implemented a sea turtle research plan to determine seasonal abundance, movement patterns, sex ratios, size frequencies, and other biological parameters necessary to help mitigate dredging conflicts in the channel. The Cape Canaveral Sea Turtle Workshop is a cooperative effort to comprehensively present research results of these important studies. I gratefully acknowledge the support of everyone involved in this Workshop, particularly the anonymous team of referees who painstakingly reviewed the manuscripts. The cover illustration was drawn by Jack C. Javech. (PDF file contains 86 pages.)

Status, biology, and ecology of fur seals: Proceedings of an International Symposium and Workshop Cambridge, England, 23-27 April 1984

The 1984 International Symposium and Workshop on the Biology of Fur Seals originated in informal talks in 1981. However, the scope and focus of the symposium remained unclear until an informal workshop was held in San Diego in June 1983. This meeting synthesised data on the foraging and pup attendance activities of six species of fur seals, and attempted to formulate a coherent framework for the adaptations associated with their maternal strategies (Gentry et al. 1986). During the workshop it was clear that comparative data on many key aspects of fur seal biology and ecology were missing. This absence of data applied not only to less well known species, for some of which considerable unpublished data existed, but also to better known species for which research in some areas had either been neglected or unreported. The value of applying the comparative method to seals, especially comparisons integrating physiology, ecology, and reproductive biology, was amply demonstrated by the results of the 1983 workshop (Gentry and Kooyman 1986). However, we were also aware that many other problems outside the area of maternal strategies could benefit from comparative data, such as recovery of populations from the effects of harvesting. Therefore, to accommodate the range of potential research, we organized this symposium to produce an up-to-date synthesis of relevant information for all species of fur seals. It was also clear that fur seal research could benefit from increased communication and collaboration among its practitioners. To foster the spread of ideas, we held oral presentations on some topics of current research and techniques and organized workshops on specific topics, in addition to providing opportunities for informal talks among participants. Thanks to generous support from the British Antarctic Survey, the National Marine Fisheries Service of the United States, and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the International Fur Seal Symposium was held at the British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, England, 23-27 April 1984. The 36 participants are shown in Figure 1. A list of Symposium participants and authors is presented in Appendix 1 of the Proceedings. (PDF file contains 220 pages.)