scholarly journals Application Profile for Machine-Actionable Data Management Plans

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Tomasz Miksa ◽  
Paul Walk ◽  
Peter Neish ◽  
Simon Oblasser ◽  
Hollydawn Murray ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 554-568
Author(s):  
Chris Graf ◽  
Dave Flanagan ◽  
Lisa Wylie ◽  
Deirdre Silver

Data availability statements can provide useful information about how researchers actually share research data. We used unsupervised machine learning to analyze 124,000 data availability statements submitted by research authors to 176 Wiley journals between 2013 and 2019. We categorized the data availability statements, and looked at trends over time. We found expected increases in the number of data availability statements submitted over time, and marked increases that correlate with policy changes made by journals. Our open data challenge becomes to use what we have learned to present researchers with relevant and easy options that help them to share and make an impact with new research data.


Author(s):  
Susanne Blumesberger ◽  
Nikos Gänsdorfer ◽  
Raman Ganguly ◽  
Eva Gergely ◽  
Alexander Gruber ◽  
...  

This article gives an overview of the FAIR Data Austria project objectives and current results. In collaboration with our project partners, we work on the development and establishment of tools for managing the lifecycle of research data, including machine-actionable Data Management Plans (maDMPs), repositories for long-term archiving of research results, RDM training and support services, models, and profiles for Data Stewards and FAIR Office Austria.


2017 ◽  
Vol 78 (5) ◽  
pp. 274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Barbrow ◽  
Denise Brush ◽  
Julie Goldman

Research in many academic fields today generates large amounts of data. These data not only must be processed and analyzed by the researchers, but also managed throughout the data life cycle. Recently, some academic libraries have begun to offer research data management (RDM) services to their communities. Often, this service starts with helping faculty write data management plans, now required by many federal granting agencies. Libraries with more developed services may work with researchers as they decide how to archive and share data once the grant work is complete.


2017 ◽  
Vol 71 ◽  
pp. 130-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Williams ◽  
Jacqueline Bagwell ◽  
Meredith Nahm Zozus

Author(s):  
Lizzy Rolando ◽  
Jake Carlson ◽  
Patricia Hswe ◽  
Susan Wells Parham ◽  
Brian Westra ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renato Alves ◽  
Dimitrios Bampalikis ◽  
Leyla Jael Castro ◽  
José María Fernández ◽  
Jennifer Harrow ◽  
...  

Data Management Plans are now considered a key element of Open Science. They describe the data management life cycle for the data to be collected, processed and/or generated within the lifetime of a particular project or activity. A Software Manag ement Plan (SMP) plays the same role but for software. Beyond its management perspective, the main advantage of an SMP is that it both provides clear context to the software that is being developed and raises awareness. Although there are a few SMPs already available, most of them require significant technical knowledge to be effectively used. ELIXIR has developed a low-barrier SMP, specifically tailored for life science researchers, aligned to the FAIR Research Software principles. Starting from the Four Recommendations for Open Source Software, the ELIXIR SMP was iteratively refined by surveying the practices of the community and incorporating the received feedback. Currently available as a survey, future plans of the ELIXIR SMP include a human- and machine-readable version, that can be automatically queried and connected to relevant tools and metrics within the ELIXIR Tools ecosystem and beyond.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Smale ◽  
Kathryn Unsworth ◽  
Gareth Denyer ◽  
Daniel Barr

AbstractData management plans (DMPs) have increasingly been encouraged as a key component of institutional and funding body policy. Although DMPs necessarily place administrative burden on researchers, proponents claim that DMPs have myriad benefits, including enhanced research data quality, increased rates of data sharing, and institutional planning and compliance benefits.In this manuscript, we explore the international history of DMPs and describe institutional and funding body DMP policy. We find that economic and societal benefits from presumed increased rates of data sharing was the original driver of mandating DMPs by funding bodies. Today, 86% of UK Research Councils and 63% of US funding bodies require submission of a DMP with funding applications. Given that no major Australian funding bodies require DMP submission, it is of note that 37% of Australian universities have taken the initiative to internally mandate DMPs.Institutions both within Australia and internationally frequently promote the professional benefits of DMP use, and endorse DMPs as ‘best practice’. We analyse one such typical DMP implementation at a major Australian institution, finding that DMPs have low levels of apparent translational value. Indeed, an extensive literature review suggests there is very limited published systematic evidence that DMP use has any tangible benefit for researchers, institutions or funding bodies.We are therefore led to question why DMPs have become the go-to tool for research data professionals and advocates of good data practice. By delineating multiple use-cases and highlighting the need for DMPs to be fit for intended purpose, we question the view that a good DMP is necessarily that which encompasses the entire data lifecycle of a project. Finally, we summarise recent developments in the DMP landscape, and note a positive shift towards evidence-based research management through more researcher-centric, educative, and integrated DMP services.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document