From joshualdull at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 14:27:08 2018 From: joshualdull at gmail.com (Joshua Dull) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 14:27:08 -0400 Subject: [Rdap] Library Carpentry Workshop | New England Message-ID: Hello RDAP, I'm sharing details for an upcoming Library Carpentry workshop for folks in the New England area (or anyone willing to travel to Rhode Island!). Brown University Library, NESCLiC , and NEASIST are organizing this 2-day workshop on October 22-23. Visit our workshop page for full details including registration ( https://nesclic.github.io/2018-10-22-NEASIST-Brown/). Please note that registration costs go towards food (we are providing lunch both days) and travel costs for instructors. Please share this announcement with any individuals or lists who might be interested in attending. Best, Joshua *What: *Library Carpentry Workshop @ Brown When: October 22-23, 2018 Where: Rockefeller Library, 10 Prospect Street, Providence, RI 02912. What are we teaching? OpenRefine, UNIX, Git, and more. View the full workshop agenda here: nesclic.github.io/2018-10-22-NEASIST-Brown Who: The course for librarians, archivists, and other information workers. You don?t need to have any previous knowledge of the tools that will be presented at the workshop. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rsandusky at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 07:48:28 2018 From: rsandusky at gmail.com (Robert Sandusky) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 06:48:28 -0500 Subject: [Rdap] =?utf-8?q?Free_Webinar=3A_Open_Science_as_a_Movement=3A_Mo?= =?utf-8?q?zilla=E2=80=99s_efforts_to_build_community_and_open_lead?= =?utf-8?q?ership_in_science?= Message-ID: ?Open Science as a Movement: Mozilla?s efforts to build community and open leadership in science Stephanie Wright, Mozilla Register: https://dataone.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_U29bIC8BTL2t-gNqt95qHw Tuesday September 11th 9 am Pacific / 10 am Mountain / 11am Central / 12 noon Eastern Our goal at Mozilla Science Lab is to maximize access to papers, data, code, and materials so anyone can read and contribute, while also building a community for researchers advocating from openness and collaboration. On the Open Leadership & Engagement team we achieve this by employing open-science events, training leaders, and developing education materials in an effort to make research more open and accessible and help science reach its full potential. Stephanie Wright leads the Mozilla Science program on the Open Leadership & Engagement team of the Mozilla Foundation, funded by the Sloan Foundation, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, and the Siegel Family Endowment. Her team at Mozilla focuses on hosting events such as Working Open Workshops, the annual Global Sprint and Mozfest events, Open Leadership Trainings, developing educational resources such as the Open Data Training Program, and building a community of leaders through Mozilla Fellowships and other activities. Prior to Mozilla, Stephanie worked for the University of Washington where she developed and led the Libraries Research Data Services Unit, served as a Senior Data Science Fellow at the UW?s eSciences Institute, and co-authored the Librarian Outreach Kit as part of the Community Engagement & Outreach Working Group for DataONE. Sponsored by DataONE: http://dataone.org Robert J. Sandusky, Ph.D. Associate University Librarian for Information Technology Associate Professor and Associate Dean UIC University Library 312-413-9822 Pronouns: he, him, his -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daureen.nesdill at utah.edu Thu Sep 6 15:17:41 2018 From: daureen.nesdill at utah.edu (Daureen Nesdill) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 19:17:41 +0000 Subject: [Rdap] FW: DataONE Webinar Series: Open Science as a Movement In-Reply-To: <24836769de21d9b6a6c4e55c674c7859@mlsend.com> References: <24836769de21d9b6a6c4e55c674c7859@mlsend.com> Message-ID: <4BB8E3E08D34034DB9A7D4F285555FB1C5DD1CB3@X-MB3.xds.umail.utah.edu> FYI ? Daureen From: Amber Budden [mailto:aebudden at dataone.unm.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 1:04 PM To: Daureen Nesdill Subject: DataONE Webinar Series: Open Science as a Movement DataONE Webinar Series and FORCE2018 Make Data Count Wksp Can't see images? Click here... [https://bucket.mlcdn.com/a/1173/1173052/images/ddedbd3d82c054f14e5305a4e33cc31c7a1624ae.png/8a6525b4594732a90a7e826b8f25a61c881c3f95.png] [https://bucket.mlcdn.com/a/1173/1173052/images/8284009fe201d765420cf97dfdb113bb5c42ad92.jpeg/4d148a37bdf710f163c7fe5150ae216c254ec484.jpeg] DataONE Webinar Series Open Science as a Movement: Mozilla?s efforts to build community and open leadership in science Stephanie Wright, Mozilla Science Tuesday September 11th 0900 PT / 1000 MT / 1100 CT / 1200 ET Abstract: The term ?open science? means different things to different people. For some it means open access to publications and peer review. For others, it?s all about reproducibility through the sharing of research data and code. Still others view open science as synonymous with citizen science. During this webinar we will explain how Mozilla?s definition of open science has evolved over time. As a result, our programs have grown and fostered an open community that has outgrown the original Mozilla science team, includes partnerships outside Mozilla, and has now expanded beyond just science. Due to the best practices inherent in working open, the work is being sustained beyond our original resources and investments into a movement with a global reach. *Please note: Capacity is set to 100 attendees. Registration does not guarantee admission if we exceed capacity. You may still be able to call in via phone. [Rounded Rectangle: Register Now] Make Data Count at FORCE2018 Contributing and Consuming Data Metrics to Make Your Data Count Please join the Make Data Count Team for a workshop on data-level metrics, in which we'll demonstrate how you can standardize and display data metrics such as citations, views, and downloads for your repository. This workshop will feature members from the RDA Scholix WG, Crossref, and the Make Data Count project. [Rounded Rectangle: Workshop Sign-up] Best Regards, Amber Budden Director for Community Engagement and Outreach, DataONE aebudden at dataone.unm.edu 505.205.7675 [Rounded Rectangle: SHARE] [Rounded Rectangle: TWEET] [Rounded Rectangle: FORWARD] You received this email because you signed up on our website, are a member of the DataONE Users Group or registered for a DataONE sponsored activity. www.DataONE.org Unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 1006 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 1137 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 822 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 903 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.png Type: image/png Size: 889 bytes Desc: image005.png URL: From kate.barron at sjsu.edu Thu Sep 6 16:00:33 2018 From: kate.barron at sjsu.edu (Kate Barron) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:00:33 -0700 Subject: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? Message-ID: Hi RDAP, When a project is funded by a federal grant, how much raw data are researchers expected to make accessible? Must they truly make everything and anything publicly available, or are brief extracts and/or summary statistics acceptable (in other words, what is the minimum sharing requirement)? What practices have you noticed among your colleagues/constituents? I am specifically looking at NSF grants, for which guidelines are (intentionally?) vague. I am working with a faculty member who is hesitant to share all of their data, as they want to maintain a competitive edge. Thanks for your input, Kate -- Kate Barron Data Services Librarian Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library San Jos? State University kate.barron at sjsu.edu 408-808-2038 <(408)%20808-2038> Explore Data Services at SJSU King Library! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daureen.nesdill at utah.edu Thu Sep 6 16:33:00 2018 From: daureen.nesdill at utah.edu (Daureen Nesdill) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 20:33:00 +0000 Subject: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB8E3E08D34034DB9A7D4F285555FB1C5DD1D7F@X-MB3.xds.umail.utah.edu> I?ve been thinking about that also. NSF wants all data available as soon as possible after the closeout of the grant*, BUT publishers want the data related to the published article available when the manuscript is submitted to them. Any research project will have miscellaneous data. Some of this data is from preliminary study leading to the next grant. Some is negative data. Some is just not worth publishing a paper on or depositing in a repository. NSF does not address this. *Unless the researcher can justify not sharing the data. Daureen Nesdill Univ of Utah From: rdap-bounces at kunverj.com [mailto:rdap-bounces at kunverj.com] On Behalf Of Kate Barron Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 2:01 PM To: rdap at mail.kunverj.com Subject: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? Hi RDAP, When a project is funded by a federal grant, how much raw data are researchers expected to make accessible? Must they truly make everything and anything publicly available, or are brief extracts and/or summary statistics acceptable (in other words, what is the minimum sharing requirement)? What practices have you noticed among your colleagues/constituents? I am specifically looking at NSF grants, for which guidelines are (intentionally?) vague. I am working with a faculty member who is hesitant to share all of their data, as they want to maintain a competitive edge. Thanks for your input, Kate -- Kate Barron Data Services Librarian Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library San Jos? State University kate.barron at sjsu.edu 408-808-2038 Explore Data Services at SJSU King Library! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daureen.nesdill at utah.edu Thu Sep 6 16:33:00 2018 From: daureen.nesdill at utah.edu (Daureen Nesdill) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 20:33:00 +0000 Subject: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB8E3E08D34034DB9A7D4F285555FB1C5DD1D7F@X-MB3.xds.umail.utah.edu> I?ve been thinking about that also. NSF wants all data available as soon as possible after the closeout of the grant*, BUT publishers want the data related to the published article available when the manuscript is submitted to them. Any research project will have miscellaneous data. Some of this data is from preliminary study leading to the next grant. Some is negative data. Some is just not worth publishing a paper on or depositing in a repository. NSF does not address this. *Unless the researcher can justify not sharing the data. Daureen Nesdill Univ of Utah From: rdap-bounces at kunverj.com [mailto:rdap-bounces at kunverj.com] On Behalf Of Kate Barron Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 2:01 PM To: rdap at mail.kunverj.com Subject: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? Hi RDAP, When a project is funded by a federal grant, how much raw data are researchers expected to make accessible? Must they truly make everything and anything publicly available, or are brief extracts and/or summary statistics acceptable (in other words, what is the minimum sharing requirement)? What practices have you noticed among your colleagues/constituents? I am specifically looking at NSF grants, for which guidelines are (intentionally?) vague. I am working with a faculty member who is hesitant to share all of their data, as they want to maintain a competitive edge. Thanks for your input, Kate -- Kate Barron Data Services Librarian Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library San Jos? State University kate.barron at sjsu.edu 408-808-2038 Explore Data Services at SJSU King Library! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mayernik at ucar.edu Thu Sep 6 18:27:15 2018 From: mayernik at ucar.edu (Matthew Mayernik) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 16:27:15 -0600 Subject: [Rdap] Digital Libraries Postdoc Opportunity Message-ID: Hello, I am forwarding this opportunity on behalf of colleagues. See below for details and http://m.rfer.us/LBLTU2z4 for the online posting. Please contact Deb Agarwal (info below) with any questions. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Deb Agarwal > > > Berkeley Lab?s Computational Research Division has an opening for a > Digital Libraries Postdoctoral Scholar. The incumbent will work with > the DOE?s environmental science community in dramatically improving > the access and usability of their datasets. The DOE?s Environmental > Systems Science Data Infrastructure for a Virtual Ecosystem (ESS-DIVE) > is a new digital library for Earth and environmental science data. > ESS-DIVE will store diverse datasets from various environmental > sciences including hydrology, geology, ecology, geochemistry, biology, > climate and geophysics. > > Defining and adopting the right digital preservation practices and > standards for this data are active research topics, involving an > interdisciplinary community of data scientists, digital librarians and > environmental scientists. The project will involve working with the > digital libraries community and DOE?s Environmental System Science > (ESS) community to select or develop best practices for description, > curation, and archiving of the diverse data types. We seek talented > individuals with training in library and information science and a > strong aptitude for and interest in computational/data science. > > You will join the research and development team working on building > the ESS-DIVE digital library. The candidate will be expected to > address challenges such as the following: > > Develop an understanding of the evolving Digital Object Identifier > (DOI) space and other unique identifier assignment and versioning > schemes. > > Development of approaches for unique identifiers in ESS-DIVE. > > Understanding the space of data asset definition and implementation of > hierarchical data package and file approaches. > > Recommendation of metadata standards for data package and file metadata. > > Advancements in data and metadata search. > > The successful candidate will join a dynamic interdisciplinary team > based at LBNL and will work closely with data scientists, and a > diverse set of environmental researchers including field scientists, > modelers and experimentalists. > > What You Will Do: > > Research and provide recommendations on the application of digital > preservation standards to content in ESS-DIVE and help to advance the > standards to fit environmental data. > > Work with the community to define digital library processes and interfaces. > > Perform research and participate in curation of submitted environmental > data. > > Develop structured metadata to enable integration of diverse data by > location or sample information and use by the terrestrial and > subsurface ecosystem community. > > Research advanced search and visualization for data. > > Help integrate best practices in DOI, and other unique identifier > assignment and versioning schemes with ESS-DIVE. > > Create recommendations for managing hierarchical datasets and > fine-grained file and package metadata. > > Collaborate with ESS projects and cyberinfrastructure working groups > to enable implementation of standards. > > Work in a multidisciplinary team environment, including staff with > backgrounds in earth and environmental sciences, digital library > tools, techniques, and practices, computer science, etc. > > Author peer-reviewed journal articles and contribute to grant proposals. > > > What is Required: > > Ph.D. or equivalent experience in library and information science or > data science related fields. > > Demonstrated experience with information organization and access in > the context of digital libraries. > > Familiarity with programming languages such as Python, C++, Java, or > scripting languages. > > Excellent written and oral communication skills. > > Established record of peer reviewed publications. > > > Additional Desired Qualifications: > > Knowledge of current digital preservation and metadata standards. > > Knowledge of data indexing, sorting, and retrieval techniques. > > Knowledge of linked data and semantic web development and technologies. > > Experience working with large digital collections and datasets. > > Experience gathering requirements and developing use cases. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From skarcher at maxwell.syr.edu Thu Sep 6 20:33:38 2018 From: skarcher at maxwell.syr.edu (Sebastian Karcher) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 00:33:38 +0000 Subject: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5722005b8f114e3a9f3c7233019ca1ea@maxwell.syr.edu> Hi Kate and others, I think it?s important to remember that ?The NSF? doesn?t really exist for this purpose. While yes, NSF has one overarching data policy (though directorates have slightly differing versions), in effect this is determined by a) the program officer and b) the (anonymous) selection committee Assessing whether there is enough data sharing is basically a three stage process: 1) We have seen a number of occasions now where program officers have actually sent the DMP back to the researcher and asked them to include more data sharing before sending the proposal out for review. Typically this happens with relatively short deadlines and is stressful, but it doesn?t, afaik, harm the proposal. It?s pretty clear that how much individual program officers push applicants on this varies a lot. 2) The grant selection committee does have access to the DMP and is actually required, by NSF rules, to comment on it in their recommendation. In many cases, they?ll just glance at it and sign off, but these are, typically peers, perhaps even competitors of the grant applicant and I cannot imagine them looking kindly on obvious attempts to withhold data ?to maintain a competitive edge?. I.e. not sharing ?enough? data in the eyes of their fellow scientists can absolutely sink a grant application. 3) Finally, the program officer reviews and has to sign off on the grant reports. We have strong anecdotal evidence that there is currently very little follow through on promises to share data, but there is, of course, no guarantee that is going to stay that well, and obviously, not having your grant report accepted is a big problem. (Needless to say, it?s also deeply unethical to make promises to share data that one does not intend to keep). I obviously have a bias against researchers who want to share as little data as possible, so take this with a grain of salt, but I do think that the above makes clear that trying to skirt by with a minimum of data sharing for an NSF grant is a risky strategy. I?d try to discourage it best I could even I didn?t believe it was also an ethically questionable strategy. All best Sebastian From: rdap-bounces at kunverj.com [mailto:rdap-bounces at kunverj.com] On Behalf Of Kate Barron Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 4:01 PM To: rdap at mail.kunverj.com Subject: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? Hi RDAP, When a project is funded by a federal grant, how much raw data are researchers expected to make accessible? Must they truly make everything and anything publicly available, or are brief extracts and/or summary statistics acceptable (in other words, what is the minimum sharing requirement)? What practices have you noticed among your colleagues/constituents? I am specifically looking at NSF grants, for which guidelines are (intentionally?) vague. I am working with a faculty member who is hesitant to share all of their data, as they want to maintain a competitive edge. Thanks for your input, Kate -- Kate Barron Data Services Librarian Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library San Jos? State University kate.barron at sjsu.edu 408-808-2038 Explore Data Services at SJSU King Library! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jpetters at vt.edu Fri Sep 7 08:46:01 2018 From: jpetters at vt.edu (Jonathan Petters) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 08:46:01 -0400 Subject: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? In-Reply-To: <5722005b8f114e3a9f3c7233019ca1ea@maxwell.syr.edu> References: <5722005b8f114e3a9f3c7233019ca1ea@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: I'll add that I usually tell NSF proposal writers to say in their DMP that they publicly share what data they're willing and able to. In many cases I can get them to agree that at least sharing the data displayed in figures/plots would be useful to their colleagues, and some are willing to go further in sharing raw data and processing scripts. To follow NSF's policy, I agree with Sebastian that if - the peer reviewers of your proposal are alright with your DMP (and what you say you will share), - the program officer is alright with your DMP, and - you eventually share what you say you will, You're currently good with NSF. And really, the third bullet is a maybe at this time; it's not clear NSF is really checking DMP compliance at present. But they may in the future, and all the funding agencies say that non-compliance with a DMP may count against a prospective PI in future funding proposals. -Jon On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Sebastian Karcher wrote: > Hi Kate and others, > > > > I think it?s important to remember that ?The NSF? doesn?t really exist for > this purpose. While yes, NSF has one overarching data policy (though > directorates have slightly differing versions), in effect this is > determined by a) the program officer and b) the (anonymous) selection > committee > > Assessing whether there is enough data sharing is basically a three stage > process: > 1) We have seen a number of occasions now where program officers have > actually sent the DMP back to the researcher and asked them to include more > data sharing before sending the proposal out for review. Typically this > happens with relatively short deadlines and is stressful, but it doesn?t, > afaik, harm the proposal. It?s pretty clear that how much individual > program officers push applicants on this varies a lot. > > 2) The grant selection committee does have access to the DMP and is > actually required, by NSF rules, to comment on it in their recommendation. > In many cases, they?ll just glance at it and sign off, but these are, > typically peers, perhaps even competitors of the grant applicant and I > cannot imagine them looking kindly on obvious attempts to withhold data ?to > maintain a competitive edge?. I.e. not sharing ?enough? data in the eyes of > their fellow scientists can absolutely sink a grant application. > > 3) Finally, the program officer reviews and has to sign off on the grant > reports. We have strong anecdotal evidence that there is currently very > little follow through on promises to share data, but there is, of course, > no guarantee that is going to stay that well, and obviously, not having > your grant report accepted is a big problem. (Needless to say, it?s also > deeply unethical to make promises to share data that one does not intend to > keep). > > > > I obviously have a bias against researchers who want to share as little > data as possible, so take this with a grain of salt, but I do think that > the above makes clear that trying to skirt by with a minimum of data > sharing for an NSF grant is a risky strategy. I?d try to discourage it best > I could even I didn?t believe it was *also *an ethically questionable > strategy. > > > > All best > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > *From:* rdap-bounces at kunverj.com [mailto:rdap-bounces at kunverj.com] *On > Behalf Of *Kate Barron > *Sent:* Thursday, September 6, 2018 4:01 PM > *To:* rdap at mail.kunverj.com > *Subject:* [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* > publicly deposit? > > > > Hi RDAP, > > > > When a project is funded by a federal grant, how much raw data are > researchers expected to make accessible? Must they truly make everything > and anything publicly available, or are brief extracts and/or summary > statistics acceptable (in other words, what is the minimum sharing > requirement)? What practices have you noticed among your > colleagues/constituents? > > > > I am specifically looking at NSF grants, for which guidelines are > (intentionally?) vague. I am working with a faculty member who is hesitant > to share all of their data, as they want to maintain a competitive edge. > > > > Thanks for your input, > > Kate > > -- > > Kate Barron > > Data Services Librarian > > Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library > > San Jos? State University > kate.barron at sjsu.edu > 408-808-2038 <(408)%20808-2038> > > > > Explore Data Services at SJSU > King Library! > > _______________________________________________ > RDAP mailing list > RDAP at mail.kunverj.com > http://mail.kunverj.com/mailman/listinfo/rdap > > -- Jonathan Petters Ph.D. Data Management Consultant and Curation Services Coordinator Data Services, University Libraries Virginia Tech (540) 232-8682 https://www.lib.vt.edu/research-learning/ResearchDataManagementAndCuration.html ORCID: 0000-0002-0853-5814 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From inkouper at indiana.edu Fri Sep 7 10:34:34 2018 From: inkouper at indiana.edu (Inna Kouper) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 10:34:34 -0400 Subject: [Rdap] Call for applications: Joint Whole Tale - RDA/US Early Career Fellows Program Message-ID: A fellowship for early career researchers and professionals interested in all things data... The Whole Tale (WT) project, in cooperation with the US region of the Research Data Alliance (RDA/US) and its early career fellowship program RDA/US Data Share , invites applications for the joint WT-RDA/US Early Career fellowship program. Fellows will engage with both the WT and RDA communities and, depending on commitment, receive $5,000 for self-directed projects and/or travel support to attend the RDA Thirteenth Plenary. For more details, deadlines and the application form, please visit https://wholetale.org/2018/09/06/wt-rdaus-ecf-fellows.html Inna Kouper -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thalassa at stanford.edu Fri Sep 7 12:00:49 2018 From: thalassa at stanford.edu (Amanda L Whitmire) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 16:00:49 +0000 Subject: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? In-Reply-To: References: <5722005b8f114e3a9f3c7233019ca1ea@maxwell.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20BC465E-3867-443F-ABD5-F273377F2939@stanford.edu> Hi all, Sebastian makes a really important point: NSF culture and enforcement around data is ad hoc, and intentionally so. The higher levels of NSF administration recognize the slow progress toward open data, but remain committed to supporting communities of practice. They maintain a pragmatic approach that recognizes that what works for researchers will vary across disciplines. It?s not convenient for us, but it makes sense. Anyhow - what I really came here to share is an example of how attitudes toward enforcement are changing in one corner of the NSF. In the new BIO DEB (Division of Environmental Biology) solicitation, there is a section on data dissemination & accessibility https://debblog.nsfbio.com/2018/08/23/the-new-deb-core-programs-solicitation-is-here/. It reads: "DEB is ratcheting up expectations of data archiving and accessibility, as is generally the case across NSF. Our new solicitation makes clear that PIs who have had prior support within the last five years must provide details on how data have been permanently archived and made publicly available. This information should go in the ?Results from Prior NSF? section, following the format described in the PAPPG (II.C.2.d.iii). Likewise, when submitting Annual and Final Reports, BIO PIs will be required to ?include information about progress made in data management and sharing of research products (e.g., identifier or accession numbers for data sets?and other types of data sharing and dissemination).? It will be increasingly important to craft thoughtful and thorough Data Management Plans when submitting new proposals. Reviewers and Program Officers will pay particular attention to how data and specimens are stored and when and how they will become publicly assessable. For context and guidance, see http://www.nsf.gov/bio/biodmp.jsp.? A sign of some progress! Best, amanda <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< Amanda L. Whitmire, Ph.D. Head Librarian & Bibliographer, Harold A. Miller Library Assistant to the Director, Hopkins Marine Station 120 Ocean View Blvd, Pacific Grove, CA 93950 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2429-8879 thalassa at stanford.edu 831.655.6228 | @AWhitTwit -- I observe email-free evenings and weekends. On Sep 7, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Jonathan Petters > wrote: I'll add that I usually tell NSF proposal writers to say in their DMP that they publicly share what data they're willing and able to. In many cases I can get them to agree that at least sharing the data displayed in figures/plots would be useful to their colleagues, and some are willing to go further in sharing raw data and processing scripts. To follow NSF's policy, I agree with Sebastian that if * the peer reviewers of your proposal are alright with your DMP (and what you say you will share), * the program officer is alright with your DMP, and * you eventually share what you say you will, You're currently good with NSF. And really, the third bullet is a maybe at this time; it's not clear NSF is really checking DMP compliance at present. But they may in the future, and all the funding agencies say that non-compliance with a DMP may count against a prospective PI in future funding proposals. -Jon On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Sebastian Karcher > wrote: Hi Kate and others, I think it?s important to remember that ?The NSF? doesn?t really exist for this purpose. While yes, NSF has one overarching data policy (though directorates have slightly differing versions), in effect this is determined by a) the program officer and b) the (anonymous) selection committee Assessing whether there is enough data sharing is basically a three stage process: 1) We have seen a number of occasions now where program officers have actually sent the DMP back to the researcher and asked them to include more data sharing before sending the proposal out for review. Typically this happens with relatively short deadlines and is stressful, but it doesn?t, afaik, harm the proposal. It?s pretty clear that how much individual program officers push applicants on this varies a lot. 2) The grant selection committee does have access to the DMP and is actually required, by NSF rules, to comment on it in their recommendation. In many cases, they?ll just glance at it and sign off, but these are, typically peers, perhaps even competitors of the grant applicant and I cannot imagine them looking kindly on obvious attempts to withhold data ?to maintain a competitive edge?. I.e. not sharing ?enough? data in the eyes of their fellow scientists can absolutely sink a grant application. 3) Finally, the program officer reviews and has to sign off on the grant reports. We have strong anecdotal evidence that there is currently very little follow through on promises to share data, but there is, of course, no guarantee that is going to stay that well, and obviously, not having your grant report accepted is a big problem. (Needless to say, it?s also deeply unethical to make promises to share data that one does not intend to keep). I obviously have a bias against researchers who want to share as little data as possible, so take this with a grain of salt, but I do think that the above makes clear that trying to skirt by with a minimum of data sharing for an NSF grant is a risky strategy. I?d try to discourage it best I could even I didn?t believe it was also an ethically questionable strategy. All best Sebastian From: rdap-bounces at kunverj.com [mailto:rdap-bounces at kunverj.com] On Behalf Of Kate Barron Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 4:01 PM To: rdap at mail.kunverj.com Subject: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? Hi RDAP, When a project is funded by a federal grant, how much raw data are researchers expected to make accessible? Must they truly make everything and anything publicly available, or are brief extracts and/or summary statistics acceptable (in other words, what is the minimum sharing requirement)? What practices have you noticed among your colleagues/constituents? I am specifically looking at NSF grants, for which guidelines are (intentionally?) vague. I am working with a faculty member who is hesitant to share all of their data, as they want to maintain a competitive edge. Thanks for your input, Kate -- Kate Barron Data Services Librarian Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library San Jos? State University kate.barron at sjsu.edu 408-808-2038 Explore Data Services at SJSU King Library! _______________________________________________ RDAP mailing list RDAP at mail.kunverj.com http://mail.kunverj.com/mailman/listinfo/rdap -- Jonathan Petters Ph.D. Data Management Consultant and Curation Services Coordinator Data Services, University Libraries Virginia Tech (540) 232-8682 https://www.lib.vt.edu/research-learning/ResearchDataManagementAndCuration.html ORCID: 0000-0002-0853-5814 _______________________________________________ RDAP mailing list RDAP at mail.kunverj.com http://mail.kunverj.com/mailman/listinfo/rdap -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daureen.nesdill at utah.edu Fri Sep 7 12:30:37 2018 From: daureen.nesdill at utah.edu (Daureen Nesdill) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 16:30:37 +0000 Subject: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? In-Reply-To: <20BC465E-3867-443F-ABD5-F273377F2939@stanford.edu> References: <5722005b8f114e3a9f3c7233019ca1ea@maxwell.syr.edu> <20BC465E-3867-443F-ABD5-F273377F2939@stanford.edu> Message-ID: <4BB8E3E08D34034DB9A7D4F285555FB1C5DD2816@X-MB3.xds.umail.utah.edu> I feel change is coming NSF is sponsoring a 2-day workshop in October, Workshop on Accelerating Public Access to Research Data Also sponsored by APLU and AAU. The workshop is by invitation only. Daureen Nesdill U of Utah From: rdap-bounces at kunverj.com [mailto:rdap-bounces at kunverj.com] On Behalf Of Amanda L Whitmire Sent: Friday, September 07, 2018 10:01 AM To: Research Data Access and Preservation Subject: Re: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? Hi all, Sebastian makes a really important point: NSF culture and enforcement around data is ad hoc, and intentionally so. The higher levels of NSF administration recognize the slow progress toward open data, but remain committed to supporting communities of practice. They maintain a pragmatic approach that recognizes that what works for researchers will vary across disciplines. It?s not convenient for us, but it makes sense. Anyhow - what I really came here to share is an example of how attitudes toward enforcement are changing in one corner of the NSF. In the new BIO DEB (Division of Environmental Biology) solicitation, there is a section on data dissemination & accessibility https://debblog.nsfbio.com/2018/08/23/the-new-deb-core-programs-solicitation-is-here/. It reads: "DEB is ratcheting up expectations of data archiving and accessibility, as is generally the case across NSF. Our new solicitation makes clear that PIs who have had prior support within the last five years must provide details on how data have been permanently archived and made publicly available. This information should go in the ?Results from Prior NSF? section, following the format described in the PAPPG (II.C.2.d.iii). Likewise, when submitting Annual and Final Reports, BIO PIs will be required to ?include information about progress made in data management and sharing of research products (e.g., identifier or accession numbers for data sets?and other types of data sharing and dissemination).? It will be increasingly important to craft thoughtful and thorough Data Management Plans when submitting new proposals. Reviewers and Program Officers will pay particular attention to how data and specimens are stored and when and how they will become publicly assessable. For context and guidance, see http://www.nsf.gov/bio/biodmp.jsp.? A sign of some progress! Best, amanda <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< Amanda L. Whitmire, Ph.D. Head Librarian & Bibliographer, Harold A. Miller Library Assistant to the Director, Hopkins Marine Station 120 Ocean View Blvd, Pacific Grove, CA 93950 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2429-8879 thalassa at stanford.edu 831.655.6228 | @AWhitTwit -- I observe email-free evenings and weekends. On Sep 7, 2018, at 5:46 AM, Jonathan Petters > wrote: I'll add that I usually tell NSF proposal writers to say in their DMP that they publicly share what data they're willing and able to. In many cases I can get them to agree that at least sharing the data displayed in figures/plots would be useful to their colleagues, and some are willing to go further in sharing raw data and processing scripts. To follow NSF's policy, I agree with Sebastian that if * the peer reviewers of your proposal are alright with your DMP (and what you say you will share), * the program officer is alright with your DMP, and * you eventually share what you say you will, You're currently good with NSF. And really, the third bullet is a maybe at this time; it's not clear NSF is really checking DMP compliance at present. But they may in the future, and all the funding agencies say that non-compliance with a DMP may count against a prospective PI in future funding proposals. -Jon On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Sebastian Karcher > wrote: Hi Kate and others, I think it?s important to remember that ?The NSF? doesn?t really exist for this purpose. While yes, NSF has one overarching data policy (though directorates have slightly differing versions), in effect this is determined by a) the program officer and b) the (anonymous) selection committee Assessing whether there is enough data sharing is basically a three stage process: 1) We have seen a number of occasions now where program officers have actually sent the DMP back to the researcher and asked them to include more data sharing before sending the proposal out for review. Typically this happens with relatively short deadlines and is stressful, but it doesn?t, afaik, harm the proposal. It?s pretty clear that how much individual program officers push applicants on this varies a lot. 2) The grant selection committee does have access to the DMP and is actually required, by NSF rules, to comment on it in their recommendation. In many cases, they?ll just glance at it and sign off, but these are, typically peers, perhaps even competitors of the grant applicant and I cannot imagine them looking kindly on obvious attempts to withhold data ?to maintain a competitive edge?. I.e. not sharing ?enough? data in the eyes of their fellow scientists can absolutely sink a grant application. 3) Finally, the program officer reviews and has to sign off on the grant reports. We have strong anecdotal evidence that there is currently very little follow through on promises to share data, but there is, of course, no guarantee that is going to stay that well, and obviously, not having your grant report accepted is a big problem. (Needless to say, it?s also deeply unethical to make promises to share data that one does not intend to keep). I obviously have a bias against researchers who want to share as little data as possible, so take this with a grain of salt, but I do think that the above makes clear that trying to skirt by with a minimum of data sharing for an NSF grant is a risky strategy. I?d try to discourage it best I could even I didn?t believe it was also an ethically questionable strategy. All best Sebastian From: rdap-bounces at kunverj.com [mailto:rdap-bounces at kunverj.com] On Behalf Of Kate Barron Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2018 4:01 PM To: rdap at mail.kunverj.com Subject: [Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit? Hi RDAP, When a project is funded by a federal grant, how much raw data are researchers expected to make accessible? Must they truly make everything and anything publicly available, or are brief extracts and/or summary statistics acceptable (in other words, what is the minimum sharing requirement)? What practices have you noticed among your colleagues/constituents? I am specifically looking at NSF grants, for which guidelines are (intentionally?) vague. I am working with a faculty member who is hesitant to share all of their data, as they want to maintain a competitive edge. Thanks for your input, Kate -- Kate Barron Data Services Librarian Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library San Jos? State University kate.barron at sjsu.edu 408-808-2038 Explore Data Services at SJSU King Library! _______________________________________________ RDAP mailing list RDAP at mail.kunverj.com http://mail.kunverj.com/mailman/listinfo/rdap -- Jonathan Petters Ph.D. Data Management Consultant and Curation Services Coordinator Data Services, University Libraries Virginia Tech (540) 232-8682 https://www.lib.vt.edu/research-learning/ResearchDataManagementAndCuration.html ORCID: 0000-0002-0853-5814 _______________________________________________ RDAP mailing list RDAP at mail.kunverj.com http://mail.kunverj.com/mailman/listinfo/rdap -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilik.violeta at gmail.com Fri Sep 7 13:37:27 2018 From: ilik.violeta at gmail.com (Violeta Ilik) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 13:37:27 -0400 Subject: [Rdap] Share your ideas at the #FORCE2018 poster session Message-ID: *** Cross posted to multiple lists *** Ideas are only great when they're shared. If you?ve got an interesting project in research communication, or if you?ve got an idea and want to get some feedback, submit a poster and join us for FORCE2018 in Montreal this October. Posters are a good way to connect with the community and talk through what you?re working on. We?re looking for poster submissions that address any aspect of research communication and engagement, such as: - Research techniques - Publishing - Data publishing - Global perspectives - Research and policy - General scholarly communication To submit your poster for consideration by the program committee, write a short paragraph describing your project and send it in by September 21. SUBMIT NOW Posters will be on display throughout the two-day conference. There are four dedicated Poster Sessions listed on the conference schedule when presenters should plan to stand by their posters. All posters are eligible to be highlighted in the Power Pitch Poster Presentation session after Thursday's lunch. More information on that will be sent to accepted submission after September 21. Poster presenters must also register to attend the conference. Already been invited to present a poster? Great! If you have any questions, please DM @force11rescomm, join the public FORCE11 Slack , or email FORCE2018-INFO at force11.org What is FORCE2018? FORCE2018 is a different conference. It promotes open discussions on an open future for scholarly communications. It looks beyond the publication to the needs of all involved in the research enterprise, including the producers and the users of research. The wide variety of this year?s talks cover many themes, including - Open Data, Open Source and Open Scholarship - Research classification and interdisciplinary research - New ways to share research results - Reproducibility - Community outreach and impact Sometimes controversial. Often different. Always inspiring. Why else should you attend? What makes the FORCE2018 conference special, and unmissable, is the opportunity to connect and collaborate with committed people from across sectors. We may approach things from different perspectives, but we all care about research. We all want to realise the benefits of enhanced access to the world?s knowledge. So, please join us for three days in fabulous Montreal, Canada and engage in great conversation. The FORCE2018 Conference will be held in Montreal, Canada on October 11 & 12, 2018 at the New Residence Conference Center at McGill University. Pre-conference workshops held on October 10 at Concordia University's Webster Library. You can check out the full schedule here . Thanks! We'll look forward to seeing you there. JB, John and Carly On behalf of the Lead Organizing Team On behalf of the Lead Organizing Team Violeta Ilik Force11 Sponsorship Committee Lead -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mno at iastate.edu Mon Sep 10 14:55:20 2018 From: mno at iastate.edu (O'Donnell, Megan N [LIB]) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 18:55:20 +0000 Subject: [Rdap] MDLS18 Program + Reminders In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There's still time to register for MDLS18. Registration is $30 for professionals and free for students. The program has been posted and the discounted hotel rate ends on Monday 09/17. MDLS18 will take place in Ames, IA on October 8-9 at the Gateway Hotel and Conference Center. Now in its fourth year, the Midwest Data Librarian Symposium (MDLS) is intended to provide Midwest-located library professionals who support research data services the chance to network and expand their data-related knowledge base and skill sets. The symposium is open to all who wish to attend, including those from the Midwest and beyond as well as librarians in training. MDLS 2018 is sponsored by the Iowa State University Library. Contact us at mwdatalibsym at gmail.com or on Twitter at @MW_DataLibSym if you have any questions about registration or other event details. Hope to see you there! Megan O'Donnell (2018 MDLS Chair) Megan O'Donnell Data Services Librarian Entomology, EEOB, NREM, and Environment Librarian Make an Appointment Iowa State University Library mno at iastate.edu (515) 294-1670 Personal pronouns: she/her -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Sara.Mannheimer at montana.edu Mon Sep 17 13:37:51 2018 From: Sara.Mannheimer at montana.edu (Mannheimer, Sara) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 17:37:51 +0000 Subject: [Rdap] Job Opportunity: Digital Technology Developer at Montana State University In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Job Opportunity: Digital Technology Developer at Montana State University The Digital Technologies Developer (DTD) works as an active member of a service-oriented team that advances digital library initiatives via software development and data analysis. The DTD assists with creation and maintenance of a diverse portfolio of digital products and services that foster new forms of scholarship and provide users with enhanced digital library access. The DTD creates strategies and provides technical guidance for integrating Montana State University Library?s digital collections into classroom environments, research initiatives, and the community. The DTD is a non-tenure track faculty member. MSU Library is an Equal Opportunity Employer, Veterans/Disabled Full ad: https://jobs.montana.edu/postings/13653 ? Sara Mannheimer Assistant Professor, Data Librarian Montana State University https://saramannheimer.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wgao5 at Central.UH.EDU Mon Sep 17 11:40:28 2018 From: wgao5 at Central.UH.EDU (Gao, Wenli) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 15:40:28 +0000 Subject: [Rdap] Position Announcement: Research Data Management Librarian @ University of Houston Message-ID: Position Announcement Research Data Management Librarian University of Houston Libraries The University of Houston is committed to advancing its research priorities and transforming ideas into innovations. We seek a dynamic leader to build library research data management services that are responsive to these emerging research needs. The Research Data Management Librarian will lead the planning, implementation, and assessment of research data management services. Such services may include instruction, consultations, and partnerships with faculty and researchers on data management plans, data management tools and strategies, and metadata standards. The position reports to the Head of Liaison Services within the University Libraries. Salary: $62,000 to $64,000 expected hiring range, depending on qualifications Application Deadline: Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. Applications should be submitted at: https://libraries.uh.edu/about/employment/research-data-management-librarian/. Please also visit the University of Houston Libraries Employment page for more information: http://libraries.uh.edu/about/employment/. We welcome candidates whose experience has prepared them to contribute to our commitment to diversity and excellence. THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER. MINORITIES, WOMEN, VETERANS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ARE ENCOURAGED TO APPLY. Wenli Gao, Data Services Librarian University of Houston A Carnegie-designated Tier One public research university wgao5 at uh.edu 713-743-8370 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8474-7248 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tisha.mentnech at utah.edu Tue Sep 18 11:37:20 2018 From: tisha.mentnech at utah.edu (Tisha Mentnech) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:37:20 +0000 Subject: [Rdap] Applications Open: Biomedical and Health Research Data Management Training for Librarians Message-ID: Hello all! If you know anyone interested in this training or want to share this please feel free! Applications Open: Biomedical and Health Research Data Management Training for Librarians Health sciences librarians are invited to apply for the online course, Biomedical and Health Research Data Management Training for Librarians, offered by the NNLM Training Office (NTO). The course is a free, 7-week online class with engaging lessons, practical activities and a final project. The course runs October 15 ? December 14, 2018. The goal of this course is to provide an introduction to data issues and policies in support of developing and implementing or enhancing research data management training and services at your institution. This material is essential for decision-making and implementation of these programs, particularly instructional and reference services. Course topics include an overview of data management, choosing appropriate metadata descriptors or taxonomies for a dataset, addressing privacy and security issues with data, and creating data management plans. Applications are due September 20, 2018. Additional details and the online application are available here. For questions, please contact the NTO: nto at utah.edu ?Tisha Mentnech, MSLIS Research and Data Services Librarian? Pronouns: she/her Schedule an appointment with me Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library 10 N 1900 E, Bld 589 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5890 | 801.587.9247 [UofU_HSLibrary_Horizontal_RedCMY] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 15083 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From shirley.zhao at utah.edu Tue Sep 18 11:49:48 2018 From: shirley.zhao at utah.edu (Shirley Zhao) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:49:48 +0000 Subject: [Rdap] Reminder: Applications for RDM Course due 9/20 Message-ID: Applications for the next round of Biomedical and Health Research Data Management Training for Librarians are due Thursday! Health sciences librarians are invited to apply for the online course, Biomedical and Health Research Data Management Training for Librarians, offered by the NNLM Training Office (NTO). The course is a free, 7-week online class with engaging lessons, practical activities and a final project. The course runs October 15 - December 14, 2018. The goal of this course is to provide an introduction to data issues and policies in support of developing and implementing or enhancing research data management training and services at your institution. This material is essential for decision-making and implementation of these programs, particularly instructional and reference services. Course topics include an overview of data management, choosing appropriate metadata descriptors or taxonomies for a dataset, addressing privacy and security issues with data, and creating data management plans. Applications are due September 20, 2018. Additional details and the online application are available here. For questions, please contact the NTO: nto at utah.edu Shirley Zhao, MSLIS, MS (Mathematics) Data Science Librarian | Assistant Librarian Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library 10 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 shirley.zhao at utah.edu http://shirl0207.wordpress.com [u_health_email] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 9220 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From jqin at syr.edu Thu Sep 20 14:46:11 2018 From: jqin at syr.edu (Jian Qin) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 18:46:11 +0000 Subject: [Rdap] Big Metadata Analytics workshop program @ASIST Message-ID: <2A7D8FD2-CF8B-4546-B442-0E96B5BF1430@syr.edu> ------------------Please excuse cross distribution to multiple lists--------------------- Big Metadata Analytics: Setting an Agenda for Data-Intensive Future (BMA2018) Post-Conference workshop at ASIST Annual Meeting (Early bird rate for registration ends on 10/1) http://metadataetc.org/BMA2018/bma2018.html When: November 14, 2018 Where: Hyatt Regency Vancouver, Vancouver, Canada Workshop Program 9:00-9:15 Welcome and introduction (Jian Qin) * Welcome * Self-introduction around the room * A brief introduction to the goal and title of workshop * Logistics 9:15-10:00 Keynote Moderator: Jeff Hemsley Title: The pitfalls and promises of big metadata analytics Jevin West, University of Washington Abstract: Over the last two decades, we have seen improved access to large-scale, bibliographic data and research data repositories. This improved access has attracted researchers from across the disciplinary landscape. This has sparked new questions, methods and analysis. It has even led to the naming of new fields, such as the Science of Science and big metadata analytics. In this presentation, I will survey this excitement, while noting some of the challenges, and use this survey as a catalyst for sparking further conversations in the workshop about next steps for this emerging field. 10:00-11:00 Big metadata analytics in disciplinary domains Moderator: Jeff Hemsley The Role of Uncertainties of Scientific Claims. Chaomei Chen Discovering Bias in Peer Review: How Open Peer Review and its Associated Metadata Can Help. Peiling Wang and Dietmar Wolfram Supporting Data Analytics through Data Dictionaries at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) Jane Greenberg, Alex Pool, Sam Grabus, Joan Boone, Marianne Chilutti, Spencer Lamm, and Jeffrey Pennington 11:00-11:20 Coffee break 11:20-12:00 Big metadata analytics and library linked data Moderator: Chaomei Chen Library Linked Data Models: Multinational Library Data in the Semantic Web Hyoungjoo Park and Margaret Kipp Analytics for Digging Into the Knowledge Graph Richard Smiraglia and Rick Szostak 12:20-1:30 Lunch 1:30- 2:30 Big metadata analytics methods and workflows Moderator: Dietmar Wolfram Latent semantic analysis for discovering topics in collaboration networks Kwan Yi Real World Examples: Twitter?s Big Metadata for Research Jeff Hemsley Navigating Multi-Level Big Metadata for Scientific Collaboration Network Analysis Sarah Bratt, Jeff Hemsley, Jian Qin 2:30 ? 3:45 Group discussion 3:45 ? 4:15 Coffee break 4:15 ? 5:00 Report and summary of group discussion (Jane Greenberg) Closing (Jian Qin) Jian Qin Professor, Ph.D. School of Information Studies | Syracuse University 311 Hinds Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244 | http://jianqin.metadataetc.org/ (315) 443-5642 | jqin at syr.edu | ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7094-2867 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: