[Rdap] BIO directorate DMP guidance document

Wed Oct 21 10:20:11 EDT 2015

I thought I would share the email I sent to NSF and NSF's response about the new BIO directorate DMP guidance doc<http://www.nsf.gov/bio/biodmp.jsp> (2015 document). While it is over all an improvement (specimens and samples are data again!) I found a passage that I find worrisome. I'm curious if anyone else has seen this and feels the same.

The passage I'm worried about is on page 2, bullet 6 and reads:
6. Where relevant, describe plans for archiving data, samples, software, and other research products, and for on-going access to these products through their lifecycle of usefulness to research and education. Consider which data (or research products) will be deposited for long-term access and where. (What physical and/or cyber resources and facilities (including third party resources) will be used to store and preserve the data after the grant ends?

I bolded the part I'm worried about - what is relevant isn't very clear. From Sarah's response it seems that this coordinates with the statement that "BIO ...recognizes that not all data are appropriate for post-project dissemination or preservation" which is, of course, true. I just happen to think that reluctant data sharers read use this passage as a loop-hole to avoid data sharing. If the leading sentence was instead the closing sentence for this point I think it the ambiguity would be avoided...

Thoughts?

Megan
(who now has slides and activities to update)

─────────────────────────────
Megan O'Donnell
Scholarly Communications
and Science & Technology Librarian
Iowa State University Library
mno at iastate.edu   (515) 294-1670
─────────────────────────────
Librarian for: Ecology, Evolution & Organismal Biology (EEOB);
Entomology; Environment; Natural Resource Ecology & Management (NREM)
Impact Story<https://impactstory.org/mno>  ORCiD: 0000-0002-4632-6642<http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4632-6642>

From: Bates, Sarah [mailto:sabates at nsf.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 6:21 AM
To: O'Donnell, Megan N [LIB] <mno at iastate.edu>
Subject: RE: BIO directorate DMP guidance document
Importance: Low

Dear Megan:

Thank you for your email and thoughtful comments.

Per your request for clarification, updated guidance from the Directorate for Biological Sciences is intended to augment the existing NSF requirements, which read in part:

"Investigators are expected to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the primary data, samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of work under NSF grants."  (Link here.)<http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf15001/aag_6.jsp#VID4>

In the BIO guidance, items 4 and 5 address data sharing specifically; item 6 is intended to address planning for archival deposit of materials or products resulting from the NSF award. These items are described separately because while data sharing is expected, not all data are appropriate for post-project publishing or preservation.

For further information, I encourage you to visit the BIO Directorate's blog, BIO Buzz, which has a recent post on the release of the updated guidance<https://nsfbiobuzz.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/dmp_guidance/>.

Best,

Sarah
------------------------
Sarah Bates
Public Affairs Specialist
Office of Legislative and Public Affairs
National Science Foundation
(703) 292-7738
sabates at nsf.gov<mailto:sabates at nsf.gov>
NSF.gov<http://www.nsf.gov/>
Twitter: @NSF<https://twitter.com/NSF>, @NSF_ENG<https://twitter.com/NSF_ENG>

From: O'Donnell, Megan N [LIB] [mailto:mno at iastate.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 5:08 PM
To: NSF Public Access Feedback
Subject: BIO directorate DMP guidance document

Hello,

After reading the BIO guidance document (http://www.nsf.gov/bio/pubs/BIODMP061511.pdf) I would like to comment, and maybe receive clarification, about part 6 under the "CONTENT of the DMPs" section which starts with "Where relevant...".

This phrase concerns me because what is "relevant" is not described in this document. I assume it pertains to the data that should be preserved aka data needed to validate results, data that would be expensive to reprocess or recollect, data of one-time events, etc. but this is not defined anywhere.

I believe that many researchers will see this phrase as a way out of sharing and preserving their data. I do not believe this was the intention but it can certainly be read this way. I have worked with researchers collecting data that could be of use to others and been met with "I'm not sharing my data because I want to, but because I have to." These are the PIs whom are the most likely to take advantage of this phrase. Clarification of "what is relevant" could avoid this confusion.

I am also a little disappointed that the phrase "BIO is also committed to timely and rapid data distribution" did not make it into this updated document as it was an important endorsement of timely sharing over data hoarding.

I am however pleased with the inclusion of the data management resources list and am glad both Software and Data Carpentry are included and also by the fact that PIs will be held accountable for the execution of past DMPs when their proposals are evaluated.

Thank you,

Megan

─────────────────────────────
Megan O'Donnell
Scholarly Communications
and Science & Technology Librarian
Iowa State University Library
mno at iastate.edu<mailto:mno at iastate.edu>   (515) 294-1670
─────────────────────────────

Librarian for: Ecology, Evolution & Organismal Biology (EEOB);
Entomology; Environment; Natural Resource Ecology & Management (NREM)
Impact Story<https://impactstory.org/mno>  ORCiD: 0000-0002-4632-6642<http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4632-6642>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kunverj.com/pipermail/rdap/attachments/20151021/81df7f1d/attachment.html>