[Rdap] [RDAP] How much data should researchers *actually* publicly deposit?

[Sebastian Karcher]

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 José State University
kate.barron at sjsu.edu<mailto:kate.barron at sjsu.edu>
408-808-2038<tel:(408)%20808-2038>

Explore Data Services<https://libguides.sjsu.edu/dataservices> at SJSU King Library!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kunverj.com/pipermail/rdap/attachments/20180907/33a05e82/attachment.html>