Cameron Neylon, in this post on his Science in the Open blog, digs into some of the details about open access publishing and what Nature Publishing Group (NPG) is doing to produce a PLoS-like publication. I know, not too exciting…
But worth a read for faculty in the sciences.
The Australian National Data Service has released a guide titled: Creating a Data Management Framework
from announcement to Research Data Management list:
Creating a Data Management Framework is designed for institutions which
are committed to improving their research data management
infrastructure.
http://ands.org.au/guides/dmframework/data-management-framework.htmlThe Framework outlines four basic elements required within an
institutional context to support effective data management. These are:* Institutional policy and procedures (see http://ands.org.au/guides/dmframework/dmf-policies-and-procedures.html for further detail),
* IT Infrastructure: the hardware, software and other facilities which underpin data-related activities, (see http://ands.org.au/guides/dmf-it-infrastructure.html for further detail)
* Support services: people and other means of providing advice and
support, such as web-pages (further information forthcoming), and
* Metadata management: so that data records can be used for both
internal and external purposes (further information forthcoming).Metadata Storage Solutions provides details of various approaches being
taken by ANDS partners to provide effective metadata storage for their
institutions. See http://ands.org.au/guides/metadata-stores-solutions.htmlComing soon: ANDS Guide to What is Research Data?
With best wishes,
Margaret Henty
Program Leader, Skills Resources & Policy
Australian National Data Service
In a brief Wired column, Clive Thompson addresses the importance for all of us to hone our data “reading” skills, with statistics as the “grammar”. I think I need to break out my Biometry textbook.
These kinds of skills are one aspect of a recent proposal by several faculty to create a Program in Statistics, Informatics and Applied Mathematics (PSIAM) at the University of Oregon. I’ll post the outcome when I hear from the faculty.
The news of NSF’s impending requirement for data management plans has prompted a few more or less humorous responses.
For instance, see this data management plan from the Daily Life in an Ivory Basement blog. I’m not sure that I agree with the sentiment expressed toward the NSF, but some of the descriptions for the current data management practices are unfortunately pretty close to the norm.
From the May 10, 2010 NSF press announcement:
During the May 5th meeting of the National Science Board, National Science Foundation (NSF) officials announced a change in the implementation of the existing policy on sharing research data. In particular, on or around October, 2010, NSF is planning to require that all proposals include a data management plan in the form of a two-page supplementary document. The research community will be informed of the specifics of the anticipated changes and the agency’s expectations for the data management plans.
Seidel acknowledged that each discipline has its own culture about data-sharing, and said that NSF wants to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to the issue. But for all disciplines, the data management plans will be subject to peer review, and the new approach will allow flexibility at the directorate and division levels to tailor implementation as appropriate.
This is a change in the implementation of NSF’s long-standing policy that requires grantees to share their data within a reasonable length of time, so long as the cost is modest.
Seidel noted that requiring the data management plans was consistent with NSF’s mission and with the growing interest from U.S. policymakers in making sure that any data obtained with federal funds be accessible to the general public. Along with other federal agencies, NSF is subject to the Open Government Directive, an effort of the Obama administration to make government more transparent and more participatory.
Contact Brian Westra, Lorry I. Lokey Science Data Services Librarian, for help with your data management plan.
from the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI):
Liz Lyon’s presentation Codes, Clouds and Constellations: Open Science in the Data Decade can be accessed from:YouTubeor Vimeo
I attended the Science Commons Symposium a few weeks back, which gave me a chance to meet several chemists who use Open Notebook Science (ONS). This, along with the recent seminar by Jim Reichman, got me thinking about Open Science and what it might mean to researchers who are accustomed to a more traditional approach.
Let’s start off with defining Open Science, which has several aspects (and should not be confused with Open Source Science):
This list, and resources like Cameron Neylon’s Science in the Open blog are a good starting point, and there are many other resources on the web, as well as articles in the libraries’ research databases and journal subscriptions. Here’s a recent article in Science Careers: Scientists Embrace Openness
There are a wide range of options and degrees of participation available to the researcher. Whether someone is publishing in Open Access journals, or doing scientific collaboration, they are helping to facilitate open science.
One example of a broader effort under way is the Open Science Grid, which is active in a number of fields, including Physics, Biology, Chemistry, GIS, Materials Science, and nanotechnology.
I’ll follow up with more about Open Notebook Science in another post.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Subscribing signs you up for monthly newsletters.
This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
