Not sure if anyone else listened in to the recent webinar ‘Hybrid ECM – combining the agility of the cloud with the requirements of the enterprise’.
I thought there were a few interesting pieces of evidence to support data management infrastructure. The presenters included the following views many of which some of you will already be very familiar:
- Although cloud storage can offer economy of scale the community perceives security to be more controllable in-house and that any breaches are likely to have less impact
- If you are using the cloud you should have strong authentication, use encryption, and monitor access requests
- Using third party cloud storage is not that different to sending boxes of data offsite which has been done for many years
- Historic issues of lock in with high fees for removal of records now largely addressed – contractual negotiations important
- Recommended using the cloud only for content that needs to be on the cloud e.g. when fast collaboration is required
- There are still a lot of people moving business confidential information around in uncontrolled ways. There are often uncontrolled copies, versioning unclear.
- People often return to familar tools – email, memory sticks, consumer file sharing applications that they use for social networking – but may be less appropriate for corporate assets – e.g. Facebook, Dropbox.
- End users want simple collaboration tools and IT Services want to be sure that business assets are secure
- Some organisations use a private cloud. This can be synchronised with a public cloud with collaborators invited to share specific content. Synchronisation means updates done on the public version are updated to the private cloud and vice versa. This reduces time and effort and IT regain confidence in information security.
There are some interesting statistics in the slides which you can view via the following link if you are willing to register and perhaps get some marketing info from AIIM:
RCUK open access policy states:
‘….the policy requires all research papers, if applicable, to include a statement on how underlying research materials, such as data, samples or models, can be accessed. However, the policy does not require that the data must be made open. if there are considered to be compelling reasons to protect access to the data, for example commercial or legitimate sensitivities around data derived from potentially identifiable human participants, these should be included in the statement’
Is anyone recommending a standard format that can be used as guidance for researchers who want to comply with this?
Just to clarify I mean is there a UK standard we can all just refer to safe in the knowledge we are all referring to the same (in the same way as RCUK recommend Research Information Network format for quoting funder references). So I am not looking of a range of examples to explore – we’ve done lots of that – I’m looking for a definitive standard that is advertised to all.
A contact at the University of North Carolina suggests looking at the IASSIST guidance.
- Author: Name(s) of each individual or organizational entity responsible for the creation of the dataset.
- Date of Publication: Year the dataset was published or disseminated.
- Title: Complete title of the dataset, including the edition or version number, if applicable.
- Publisher and/or Distributor: Organizational entity that makes the dataset available by archiving, producing, publishing, and/or distributing the dataset.
- Electronic Location or Identifier: Web address or unique, persistent, global identifier used to locate the dataset (such as a DOI). Append the date retrieved if the title and locator are not specific to the exact instance of the data you used.
- Author: Smith, Tom W., Peter V. Marsden, and Michael Hout.
- Date of Publication: 2011
- Title: . General Social Survey, 1972-2010 Cumulative File
- Publisher and/or Distributor: Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center. Distributed by Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
- Electronic Location or Identifier: doi:10.3886/ICPSR31521.v1
At Glasgow we might add description of dataset to this – however perhaps this is not necessary since it will be clear from the paper itself?
Addition of advice about what to say re protected access for some datasets might also be helpful.
Another suggestion was the CrossCite citation formatter (currently in beta) which works with both CrossRef and DataCite DOIs:
This tool takes a DOI and a target citation style (default APA) and produces (in theory) a correctly-formatted citation.
But what is the definitive specification or can we safely just pick one?
I have emailed RCUK to ask if they have any guidance.
We are in the process of planning a couple of workshops about research data management. Details will be posted on this blog and circulated via various routes including Jisc mailing lists and ARMA.
In the meantime here is a screenshot of one of the screens in our University of Glasgow data registry.
A warts and all update of recent activity here:
- RCUK issued updated guidance on open access and our internal processes and guidance have been revised including a reminder that ‘Papers should also include a statement on how the underlying research materials – such as data, samples or models – can be accessed.’ More details on our web pages: http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/openaccess/howdoimakemypublicationsopenaccess/ With much excitement we have added a more definitive check of whether datasets were produced as part of the research into our open access process for publications. The first paper we received notification of acceptance of under the new guidance noted the author had re-used a data set held by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. It will be interesting to see how we get on with ensuring datasets are referenced and ensuring we get basic metadata for these so we can re-use it – for various purposes – including returns to RCUK.
- Support requirements gathering is on-going. My colleague is sitting next door right now interviewing a researcher.
Last week we had a stall at the annual University of Glasgow Research Staff Conference. There were about 120 attendees mostly post doctoral researchers, some new lecturers, and PhD students. We chatted to many of them and gave advice on a range of things including how to access research materials in the archives, how to register publications with Enlighten, and how to get help with a data management plan. Our VP for Research & Enteprise Steve Beaumont gave a clear summary of the open access environment and what the University is doing to support researchers in this area. Many pens were seen jotting down the email address email@example.com to which all enquiries about open access in the wider sense are invited.
Joy Davidson (Digital Curation Centre) and I popped in to ‘Navigating a complex landscape (research careers)’ led by Dr Gwyn Gould. The session dealt with collaborative working and there was a lot of focus on data management requirements. There was a workshop element and Joy and I got asked to put ourselves in the shoes of the aforementioned VP for Research & Enterprise and say what we would do to assist staff with collaborative working. We didn’t let on that Steve had actually tasked us with this…..cat’s out of the bag now……
- Yesterday I listened in to an AIIM webinar entitled ‘Time to Raise the Red Flag on Information Governance?’ wearing my FoI Coordinator and data management hats. There were some interesting statistics on consequences of non destruction of electronic records due to difficulty of locating all copies and an observation that a significant chunk of organisations are continuing to buy more storage as a short-term solution to data storage requriements.
- Representatives of Glasgow School of Art team who are looking at management of research outputs came to visit us to see what Glasgow are doing and we talked about a wide range of issues including storage of images and more unsual forms of data.
- Our server went down so the registry was unavailable for a few days. Well technically it is not ‘the’ data resgistry server as we are using space on a server in our College of Arts as a favour. We hope to be able to move to more robust server perhaps as part of the project extension.
- Sorting out finances for the extension is a bit messy and time consuming. I suppose we should have foreseen a lag as some time is required to confirm the final status at the original end date (31/03/13) and transfer funds before any of the transferred funds can be used. Hopefully tied up soon. I’ve drafted a more detailed plan of activities for the extension – which may run to around July and will be sending this off to Jisc for advice shortly.
To end on a cheery note – I’ve found the support from the programme manager constructive and clear and feel we can approach him with any concerns and have an open discussion.