[Rdap] FW: NIH Request for Information (RFI): Metrics to Assess Value of Biomedical Digital Repositories

Scheib, Sara sara-scheib at uiowa.edu
Mon Aug 29 14:16:00 EDT 2016


FYI – share your expertise with the NIH

From: Backus, Joyce (NIH/NLM) [E] [mailto:backusj at mail.nlm.nih.gov]
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 9:34 AM
To: arl-directors at arl.org<mailto:arl-directors at arl.org>
Subject: [ARL-Directors] NIH Request for Information (RFI): Metrics to Assess Value of Biomedical Digital Repositories

NIH asking for information again, and your staff and faculty may have relevant experience and recommendations in this area of data repository metrics.
Due September 30.
Joyce

RFI: Metrics to Assess Value of Biomedical Digital Repositories, Notice Number: NOT-OD-16-133.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-16-133.html

The NIH is seeking information on qualitative and quantitative metrics such as those that describe:

  *   Utilization at multiple levels (repository, dataset, data item). In addition to the frequency of access and number of downloads, this might include:
     *   Size and measured demand of the community served, placed in the context of the overall field.
     *   The ongoing rate of data deposition and data access or download
  *   Indicators of data repository quality and impact. Examples include but are not limited to:
     *   Publications from the data
     *   Data citations
     *   Altmetrics
     *   Patents
     *   Utilization of data sets in research studies
     *   Outputs of those research studies, e.g. use in policies or guidelines
     *   Enhanced data sharing and community collaboration around annotation/analysis of data sets
     *   Economic measures such as investment and use value; efficiency impacts; return on investment
  *   Quality of service. Examples may include but are not limited to:
     *   Implementation of a rigorous quality assurance process
     *   Use of community-recognized standards
     *   User support and training
     *   Ease of data deposition and retrieval
     *   Technical indicators, e.g., uptime, response time
  *   Infrastructure and governance.  Examples may include but are not limited to:
     *   Existence of an independent advisory board
     *   Legal structure, e.g., access, security, licensing
     *   Long-term sustainability plan
  *   Qualitative metrics that may address many of the above categories, such as collection of use cases or case studies
  *   Consideration of case studies demonstrating the value of the repository. For example, assessing the questions of:
     *   If the repository weren’t available, how would that impact your work?
     *   What are the data sharing alternatives to the repository?
     *   What are the implications of using these alternatives?

And looking for comments from these areas of expertise,

  *   Biomedical science researcher
  *   Bioinformatician
  *   Data scientist
  *   Standard developer or maintainer
  *   Research data repository manager
  *   Library or information scientist
  *   Data curator
  *   Funder
  *   Publisher
  *   Administrator (president, provost, dean or equivalents in academic or non-profit organizations)
  *   Tool or services vendor

Submitting a Response
All responses must be submitted to NIH_Repository_Metrics_RFI at mail.nih.gov<mailto:NIH_Repository_Metrics_RFI at mail.nih.gov> by September 30, 2016. Please include the Notice number NOT-OD-16-133 in the subject line. Responders are free to address any or all of the categories listed above. The submitted information will be reviewed by NIH staff.

Please direct all inquiries to:
Elizabeth Hsu, PhD, MPH
National Cancer Institute
Telephone: 240-276-5733
Email: NIH_Repository_Metrics_RFI at mail.nih.gov<mailto:NIH_Repository_Metrics_RFI at mail.nih.gov>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kunverj.com/pipermail/rdap/attachments/20160829/3dfe1db9/attachment.html>


More information about the RDAP mailing list