Day 1, Seventh RDMF, University of WarwickPosted: November 9, 2011
The 7th Research Data Management Forum last week was really useful, so even though there are other blog posts available, it seemed necessary to add to them!
Mark Thorley, NERC, suggested that datasets can be seen as ‘golden eggs’ with the citation of datasets as a reward for making them available. This could be supported if journals would only publish articles when they had a DOI for supporting data.
The resulting discussion brought up several questions, including ‘how do we define long term value of research data?’ NERC are working on a data value checklist to support their Data Policy:
“develop criteria to help identify data of long‐term value”
NERC Data Policy – Guidance Notes (PDF) Thorley, 2011 (p.5)
Other issues that were discussed included: ‘cost effectiveness’, meaning the time taken by researchers to complete a task as well as being value for money; what do we mean by ‘open’? i.e. open to everybody or just openness within the research community; and changing the way researchers regard data, but this depends on the subject area.
Thorley talked about the need to work with each research data actor and understand the different roles. Publishers were not represented in the four actors diagram, and there was also discussion about whether the general public should have a role.
Simon Hodson, JISC MRD Programme Manager suggested that some possible work would be to “break down, enunciate and list the various examples of ‘what’s in it for me’, for the various stakeholders”. This is an approach we have been looking at with the stakeholders for Kaptur – we hope to have a better idea of ‘what’s in it for visual arts researchers?’ after the environmental assessment interviews are completed. We are also gathering examples of information from other sources, for example Laura Molloy’s presentation at a Kultivate workshop on ‘Archiving and Curation’, 23rd March 2011, about the UK performance practitioner survey (PDF).