Publications | Free Full-Text | Enhancing Institutional Publication Data Using Emergent Open Science Services | HTML

Authors: David Walters and Christopher Daley (Brunel University, London)

Notes: An interesting article looking at integrating data sources to assess OA status and location of OA copies for single UK university. Focusses on data derived from CORE and from Unpaywall and its combination with other information from university systems.

Abstract: The UK open access (OA) policy landscape simultaneously preferences Gold publishing models (Finch Report, RCUK, COAF) and Green OA through repository usage (HEFCE), creating the possibility of confusion and duplication of effort for academics and support staff. Alongside these policy developments, there has been an increase in open science services that aim to provide global data on OA. These services often exist separately to locally managed institutional systems for recording OA engagement and policy compliance. The aim of this study is to enhance Brunel University London’s local publication data using software which retrieves and processes information from the global open science services of Sherpa REF, CORE, and Unpaywall. The study draws on two classification schemes; a ‘best location’ hierarchy, which enables us to measure publishing trends and whether open access dissemination has taken place, and a relational ‘all locations’ dataset to examine whether individual publications appear across multiple OA dissemination models. Sherpa REF data is also used to indicate possible OA locations from serial policies. Our results find that there is an average of 4.767 permissible open access options available to the authors in our sample each time they publish and that Gold OA publications are replicated, on average, in 3 separate locations. A total of 40% of OA works in the sample are available in both Gold and Green locations. The study considers whether this tendency for duplication is a result of localised manual workflows which are necessarily focused on institutional compliance to meet the Research Excellence Framework 2021 requirements, and suggests that greater interoperability between OA systems and services would facilitate a more efficient transformation to open scholarship.

Source: Publications | Free Full-Text | Enhancing Institutional Publication Data Using Emergent Open Science Services | HTML

Over 80% of research outputs meet requirements of REF 2021 open access policy – Research England

Author: Research England (neé HEFCE)

Notes: An important national survey of progress towards Open Access in the context of a strong policy and compliance requirement. Interesting both for the claims it makes about the levels of OA as well as the language and nature of the process by which it is being achieved. Lots of important detail on how metadata is and is not being collected an processed.

Abstract: Sixty one per cent of research outputs known to be in scope for the REF 2021 are meeting open access deposit, discovery and access requirements, with a further twenty per cent reporting a known exception, a report published today shows.The report details the findings of a survey by the former Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Wellcome Trust, the former Research Councils UK (RCUK) and Jisc. The survey sought to assess how the sector is delivering funders’ open access (OA) policies and to understand some of the challenges the sector faces. The four project partners were also interested in understanding the methods and tools being used across the sector to ensure policy compliance.

Source: Over 80% of research outputs meet requirements of REF 2021 open access policy – Research England

It’s Time to Make Your Data Count!

Author: Daniella Lowenburg

Notes: The Making Data Count project is a Sloan funded effort to develop standardised metrics for data usage across data repositories. It represents the most general effort to track usage for generic research data to date. Here they report progress within two repositories (California Digital Library and DataONE) and are seeking to get engagement from other repositories to expand the program.

Summary: One year into our Sloan funded Make Data Count project, we are proud to release Version 1 of standardized data usage and citation metrics!

As a community that values research data it is important for us to have a standard and fair way to compare metrics for data sharing. We know of and are involved in a variety of initiatives around data citation infrastructure and best practices; including Scholix, Crossref and DataCite Event Data. But, data usage metrics are tricky and before now there had not been a group focused on processes for evaluating and standardizing data usage. Last June, members from the MDC team and COUNTER began talking through what a recommended standard could look like for research data.

Since the development of our COUNTER Code of Practice for Research Data we have implemented comparable, standardized data usage and citation metrics at Dash (CDL) and DataONE.

Source: It’s Time to Make Your Data Count!

The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015: A re3data Analysis

TiTle: The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015: A re3data Analysis

Authors: Maxi Kindling et al

https://doi.org/10.1045/march2017-kindling

Summary: Analysis of data repositories in re3data shows a range of access, software, APIs, PIDs used as well as content, owners and countries. Limited standard compliance was noted.

re3data now provides much of this info on its metrics page https://www.re3data.org/metrics

D-Lib Magazine March/April 2017
Volume 23, Number 3/4

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive descriptive and statistical analysis of metadata information on 1,381 research data repositories worldwide and across all research disciplines. The analyzed metadata is derived from the re3data database, enabling search and browse functionalities for the global registry of research data repositories. The analysis focuses mainly on institutions that operate research data repositories, types and subjects of research data repositories (RDR), access conditions as well as services provided by the research data repositories. RDR differ in terms of the service levels they offer, languages they support or standards they comply with. These statements are commonly acknowledged by saying the RDR landscape is heterogeneous. As expected, we found a heterogeneous RDR landscape that is mostly influenced by the repositories’ disciplinary background for which they offer services.

Keywords: Research Data Repositories, RDR, Statistical Analysis, Metadata, re3data, Open Science, Open Access, Research Data, Persistent Identifier, Digital Object Identifier, Licenses

Source: The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015: A re3data Analysis

open-research-data-report.pdf

TItle: Open Research Data: Report to the Australian National Data Service (ANDS)

Authors:John Houghton. Nicolas Gruen

Summary:
An interesting  2014 report assessing the value of data in Australia’s public research. Estimates for Australia extrapolated and scaled from UK studies. Staffing makes up more than 50% and up to 90% of the cost.

Main points:

Research data are an asset we have been building for decades, through billions of dollars of bublic investment in research annually. The information and communication technology (ICT) revolution presents an unprecedented opportunity to ‘leverage’ that asset. Given this, there is
increasing awareness around the world that there are benefits to be gained from curating and openly sharing research data (Kvalheim and Kvamme 2014).
Conservatively, we estimate that the value of data in Australia’s public research to be at least $1.9 billion and possibly up to $6 billion a year at current levels of expenditure and activity. Research data curation and sharing might be worth at least $1.8 billion and possibly up to $5.5 billion a year of which perhaps $1.4 billion to $4.9 billion annually is yet to be realized. Hence, any policy around public funded research data should aim to realise as much of this unrealised value as practicable.

http://www.ands.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/393022/open-research-data-report.pdf

Source: open-research-data-report.pdf

The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

 

Summary:

The IPEDS integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (US) provides data from more than 7,500 US institutions that receive federal student aid, including:
Student enrolment data: race/ethnicity; gender; enrollment status; student retention, graduation; Information on collections, expenditures, and services for libraries; revenues, expenses, 

Enables comparison of institutions, trend graphs, individual institutional data and more.

 

https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data

 

 

 

Source: The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

Filling in missing data: books

Author: Christina Pikas
Notes: Christina is an experienced information services librarian trying to get a set of information for a project. Here she encounters the “book problem” i.e. no central index that is usable and resorts to data from Harvard. This is probably a strong recommendation for using it as a source.

Snippet: Current project I’m obsessing on (it’s actually really cool and interesting and fun) spans political science, history, philosophy, and even some sociology and criminal justice. So I played all my reindeer games on the journal articles, but when it comes to analyzing the abstracts, a lot were missing. I wanted to ignore these, but they were whole collections from extremely relevant journals and also nearly all of the books. The journals I filled in what i could from Microsoft Academic (no endorsement intended).

Books though…

Source: Filling in missing data: books – Christina’s LIS Rant