Data & Publication Submission Processes;
Carrots & Sticks; Incentives & Coercion
• Why important?
–
–
–
–
legacy
International exchange of information
Scientist-to-scientist collaboration
Scaling up to pan-Arctic
• What’s involved?
–
–
–
–
Egos
Multidisciplinary data/info
Huge volumes
Education & outreach
• Need: active & accessible data & info system
Issues
• Data delivery-- to PI, center to center, out to public
• Phasing—preparation before field phase, during field
phase, and after field work completed
• Pre-field phase
– identifying data up front
– PIs submit plans for data collection
Strategy: make it easy to submit vs. provide incentives
Recommendation: data subcommittee to implement a IPY
philosophy or paradigm (as well as data policy) that is
different from standard operating procedures
Elevate production of dataset to level of
research
•
•
•
•
•
•
Growing awareness of importance of data in research
Link to access/barrier list from access wg
Data publications – reports, section of journal, new journal
IPY archive/acknowledgement policies
Institutional, cultural, and educational change needed
Examples:
– dataset citation index? In oceanography
– WDC system in Germany cited in German national library
– Digital object identifier an element in this
•
•
How to integrate data publication in with larger IPY research publication
strategy (e.g., allow data pubs as part of IPY pubs)
What are alternate approaches?
– Genomic journals required that PIs submit data in advance of publication
– (but not copyright submitted data!)
•
Is there a proper e-journal? Review will still take time
Data management issues
•
•
•
•
•
•
What about short-term access? Trust issue; how to build trust into system,
and mutual benefits. Or self benefit of establishing first production of
particular data
In IPY social science, forming of intl consortia; basis for change in science
Data management leads to benefit of improved data access
Use of creative commons licensing to promote access but enforce rights
related to attribution, non-commercial use
Need to add separate project data into collective whole
Examples in EU of projects that successfully work together and have data
management strategies
– EU has business and dissemination plan for its research now
– Projects are rated based on different parts of project
•
LBA example, where data management was there, but success limited
– One issue is follow up of funding to period when data are being cleaned up and
submitted
•
•
Willingness of funding agencies to carry out and enforce funding
Can be very dependent on program manager’s attitude
Overall Recommendation
• 3 parts to incentives/coercion strategy
– Mutual benefit of sharing to research
– Acknowledgement/publication
– Funding
• Statement of JC to funding bodies to highlight importance of data
management and follow-through (time critical since RFPs are out or
coming out soon)
• Guidance to PIs – in short term?
Pre-project phase
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pre-negotiation with journals
PIs provide data collection plans by end of 2006 (high-level metadata)
Establish a data management prize/award
Identify effective tools, examples of good practice
PI-Data manager interactions, e.g., regional basis
Help desk for PIs on data management (e.g., working with eGY?)
Work on funding agencies to support data management efforts
Regional user workshops (e.g., for N. America)
But regional approach not enough…need to reach PIs in other ways
– E.g., WOCE successful because data node/center managers established who
pursued data from PIs
•
•
•
Funders should support IPY team involvement in data management
activities, training, etc.
Data issues need to be prominent in IPY scientific meetings
Funding issues need to be raised NOW! In order to influence RFPs
Field Phase