Many thanks to everyone who attended the workshops in Glasgow and London and contributed to the lively exchange. It was great to see so many colleagues travelling from near and far to take part and share their experiences.
A summary of the feedback from those who returned a form can be viewed here:
Overall feedback was very positive. In fact I noticed that the most negative comments came from the project team members ourselves!
An informal ammalgamated summary of the discussion notes is available now:
The key issues raised included:
1) Clarifying the specification for research data management
2) Getting Senior Management committment
3) Setting up suitable systems and processes
4) Getting staff to engage with Research Data Management
5) Quantifying costs and getting budget
6) Integration of services across organisational boundaries
As well as including key points in our final report to Jisc we will be following up on some of these issues e.g. for item 1 we will speak to ARMA about co-ordinating work on clarifying data management requirements. More blog posts may result and there may be email requests and updates to workshop attendees.
UK Data Archive This team provide lots of freely available training & other resources
If we have any comments on the report, please don’t hesitate to get in touch using the comment button below or by email to firstname.lastname@example.org
Any other ideas or comments not covered at the workshop are most welcome and will be considered for the project manager’s final report which I plan to post on this blog by the end of September.
Anna and I are both away on holiday next week but I will follow up on any comments or feedback on my return week commencing 12th August.
Once again, thanks to everyone who helped to make the workshops a success.
The project is due to end 31st July. We met yesterday.
Summary of Work in progress:
CERIF specification – preparing update including relationship to other initiatives in the UK, Europe and beyond
Work on PURE data registry specification and demo system
Work on ePrints registry at Glasgow – adding Datacite (not sure if will have much actually in place by end of July), working with other ePrints sites to standardise offerings from ePrints
On-going work at both sites on storage requirements, policy development and advocacy
Re-visiting draft guidance for researchers and considering this in context of other offerings
Workshops – two broadly similar content – one booked for 12th July, second planned for London or other location possibly 25 or 26 July TBC. London event will be advertised soon.
You can access and book the Glasgow Event now:
Budget – awaiting award letter. Most of the funds are allocated to hardware and software, staffing, and travel and consumables for workshops and events
In the last week or so:
I attended a meeting at the University of St.Andrews mainly attended by DSpace users. I gave an overview of the C4D project and activity at the University of Glasgow and we had a discussion around our registry fields. Some organisations had made more progress that us in terms of training and policy but few had reached decisions on Datacite or equivalent or ORCID as we have done at Glasgow. This reminded us to try harder to find out what others have been doing and there was a great spirit of sharing in the room. Now to contact Edinburgh to ask about the citation suggestions that they have ‘pop up’ on their data repository……
We’ve been screening all the new publications lodged with our open access process – encouraging mention of dataset where this is not included, and looking for examples. Things were slow but then I got an email from our repository team showing a good example which we are comparing with our registry metadata.
Requirements gathering and analysis for longer term data management support is on-going at the University of Glasgow. This includes meetings with groups of staff, staff interviews, and a survey which closes on 17th May – yes we can share a summary of this – do feel free to ask if I forget!
Recently the research computing team at St Andrews asked academic staff how much research data they had, where they kept it and how much they expected to produce going forward. For the results of the survey so far see the blog at http://research-computing.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/2013/03/18/how-much-research-data-do-we-have-and-where-do-we-store-it/
As with the other two project Sunderland is involved in, C4D will be presented at EuroCRIS 2012 in Prague. C4D will be represented by both a paper and a poster.
The final draft of both the paper and the poster can be accessed below.
The C4D project held its first quarterly project meeting (after the kick-off) at the University of Glasgow on 29th February 2012. The meeting was a joint consortium meeting with the IRIOS-2 project. We posed on the steps outside at lunchtime for a group photo.
L to R: Kevin Ginty, Ryan Henderson, Anna Clements, Katie Nurowski, Scott Brander, Valerie McCutcheon, Martin Finlayson, David McElroy
Using the benefits analysis toolkit from Charles Beagrie, we spent the morning session at Nottingham identifying key benefits and metrics for C4D.
We had to choose three key benefits (from quite a large list) for the research community which we agreed were as follows:-
- Integrated thinking around research data management
- Enhanced finding and organising of data
- Greater consistency and standards between projects to enable data re-use
These benefits can be assessed using the following metrics:-
Enhanced finding and organising of data:-
- number of research dataset publications generated
- increased visibility of research through data citation
- number of data deposits within repository
- number of downloads of datasets from repository
- number of citations to datasets in research articles
Integrated thinking around research data management:-
- Average time saved in research data management and grant proposal activities
- Results of user feedback forms
Greater consistency and standards between projects to enable data re-use
- Number of datasets deposited with enhanced metadata
Some of the metrics are more difficult to measure than others, and that will be one of the challenges for C4D.