An Analysis and Characterization of DMPs in NSF Proposals from the University of Illinois William H. Mischo, Mary C. Schlembach, & Megan N. O’Donnell University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Iowa State University RDAP14 Research Data Access & Preservation Summit March 26, 2014 NSF Data Management Plans • Data Management Plans (DMPs): required element in NSF proposals, January 2011 • July 2011: the Library, working with the campus Office of Sponsored Programs and Research Administration (OSPRA) began an analysis of DMPs in submitted NSF grant proposals • Currently, looked at 1,600 grants with 1,260 in the analysis. Reasons for Analysis • What storage venues and mechanisms for sharing and reuse are being used? • Are the PI’s using local templates and local campus resources such as the IDEALS? Follow-on • Develop campus-wide infrastructure (Research Data Service - RDS) • Assist in compliance with federal agencies • Develop important partnerships with campus units (CITES, NCSA, Colleges) and national entities • Develop best practices and standard approaches Analysis • Analysis attempts to characterize and classify DMPs into categories • DMPs assigned multiple categories • 1,260 DMPs from July 2011 to November 2013 Categories • PI Server – Servers and workstations that the PIs (and their students/staff) use to store project data. laboratory server/workstations, external hard drives, group computer • PI Website – Websites edited or administered by the PI or a group they belong to. Examples: lab website, project website, wiki, PI’s website Categories • Campus – Services located, operated by, run by or endorsed by Illinois. IDEALS, Netfiles and Box.net, NCSA, and Beckman Institute. • Department – Used when a department was specifically mentioned as providing a storage or hosting resource. Departmental website, departmental server, departmental backup service or a web address traced back to an academic department (also given the “campus” label) Categories • Remote – Services and sites not located on the Illinois campus. NASA, other campuses, collaborative projects, non-Illinois institutes • Disciplinary – Disciplinary repositories. GenBank, arXiv, ICPSR, SEAD, Nanohub, and Dryad • Cloud – Storage services using cloud technology. Google Drive, Google Code, Box.net, Amazon, Microsoft, Dropbox Categories • Publication - Scholarly outputs. Journal articles, workshops, and conference presentations/posters. • Analog - Physical records/data. Lab notebooks, photographs, files • Specimens - Physical specimens. Usually biological or artifacts Categories • Optical Disc - DVD, CD, and Blu-ray discs. • Not specified – the DMP was not specific enough for us to categorize further. • No Data – Indicated the proposal will produce no data products. • Local Template Used – used a library authored template. ALL DMPs (n=1,260) Category PI Server PI Website Campus Department Remote Disciplinary Publication Cloud Optical Disc Analog Specimens Not Specified Collaborative No Data Number Percent 503 529 667 142 353 275 556 63 56 131 111 66 164 103 39.9% 41.9% 52.9% 11.2% 28% 21.8% 44.1% 5% 4% 10.4% 8.8% 5.2% 13% 8.2% Data Venue and Risk Submitted Proposals Data Location Funded Proposals Risk of Loss/Corruption/ Breach n=298 n=1260 PI Server/Website Departmental Server/Website Campus-Wide Resource IDEALS (Institutional Repos.) NCSA Disciplinary Repository/Cloud Remote Repository Optical Disk, Specimens, Analog 64% High 61% High 11.2% Medium to High 7% Medium to High 52.9% 21.9% 45% Low 4.3% 19.8% Low 16.4% 25.8% Medium to Low 21.4% Medium to Low 28% Medium to High 22.8% Medium to High 19.4% Out of Scope 11% Out of Scope Notables • Funded: 298 • IDEALS: 275 • Used local template: 254 • NCSA/XSEDE: 55 • Only 87 DMPS contained information about file types • ICPSR: 17 • Dryad: 22 • GenBank: 55 • ArX: 61 Analysis • Any differences in storage venue or technologies between the unfunded proposals and the funded proposals? • Any differences between the proposals from the first year and the more current proposals? • Other differences in proposal categories between funded and unfunded • 734 active NSF awards, $861.8 million Analysis: Funded vs. Not-funded • IDEALS institutional repository: frequencies: 62 funded, 197 not funded: chi-square: 0.17. need chi-square >= 3.84 to be significant • Storing data on PI server or website: 183 funded, 569 not funded: chi-square: 0.7 • Disciplinary or Cloud: 67 funded, 241 not funded: chi-square: 0.85 • Remote storage: 68 funded, 267 not funded: chi-square: 3.01 Analysis • Use of IDEALS before August 2012 = 108 after (thru November 2013) = 166 chi-square: 4.59, p < .05 • Use of Disciplinary or Cloud before August 2012 = 121 after = 182 chi-square: 4.33, p < .05 Implications and Conclusions 1. No significant differences between funded/unfunded proposals in storage venues no funding advantage in IDEALS, Disciplinary. 2. But, more recent proposals suggest IDEALS and disciplinary repositories included at a significantly higher level. Why? • What is the role of the library? The campus? The subject discipline? • Connecting data to the literature important