Beagrie.com

We are starting up and partnering in a number of new and interesting consultancy projects which run into 2010 as follows:

Dryad is an emerging digital repository for supplementary data underlying published works in ecology, evolution, and related fields being developed by a consortium of the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NESCent) in the US and relevant scientific societies and academic journals. Its goals are to:

• – preserve all the underlying data reported in a paper at the time of publication, when there is the greatest incentive and ability for authors to share their data. This is particularly important in the case of data for which a specialized repository does not exist.

• – lower the burden of data sharing by providing one-stop data-deposition via handshaking with specialized repositories.

• – assign globally unique identifiers to datasets, thus enabling data citations.

• – allow end-users to perform sophisticated searches over data (not only by publication, but also by taxon, geography, geological age, biological concept, etc).

• – allow journals and societies to pool their resources for one shared repository.

• – enable bidirectional search and retrieval with data repositories from related disciplines.

The strategic priorities for Dryad emerged from a May 2007 workshop on “Data Preservation, Sharing, and Discovery: Challenges for Small Science in the Digital Era“, at which a variety of stakeholder journals and societies were represented.

I am pleased to announce that Charles Beagrie Limited will be working with the Dryad project team to develop a business plan and sustainability for the Dryad repository. Neil Beagrie and Julia Chruszcz will lead the consultancy with research support from Peter Williams. Further information on Dryad, the partners and the latest developments can be found on the Dryad website.

I2S2 – The  Infrastructure for Integration in Structural Sciences (I2S2) Project  is funded under the Research Data Management Infrastructure strand of the JISC’s Managing Research Data Programme, with a duration of 18 months (Oct 2009 to March 2011). It will identify requirements for a data-driven research infrastructure in “Structural Science”, focussing on the domain of Chemistry, but with a view towards inter-disciplinary application.

Two research data management pilots  will examine the business processes of research, and highlight the benefits of an integrated approach. Both pilots will address traversing administrative boundaries between institutions to national facilities in addition to issues of scale (local laboratory to national facilities, DIAMOND synchrotron and ISIS respectively).

A key component of the infrastructure will be a harmonised Integrated Information Model to include all stages of the Data Life Cycle. A “before and after” cost-benefit analysis will be performed using the Keeping Research Data Safe (KRDS2) model, which will be extended to address specific requirements in I2S2. We are looking forward to working with UKOLN (University of Bath and DCC), The Universities of Southampton and Cambridge, and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) in the project.

The latest Volume of Ariadne (issue 60 July 2009) publishes an article based on recent work by Charles Beagrie Limited and Serco Consulting for the UK Research Data Service (UKRDS) Feasibility Study. It should be of interest to an international as well as UK audience as may of the issues addressed apply to research and research data  issues in any national context.

Research Data Preservation and Access: The Views of Researchers present findings from a UKRDS survey of researchers’ views on and practices for preservation and dissemination of research data in four UK universities (Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, and Oxford) and place them in the wider UK and international context.

A preliminary report from the Survey was included in the UKRDS Interim Report . Elements of the Survey and its findings were also incorporated in the Final Report of the UKRDS Feasibility Study submitted to HEFCE . However space constraints precluded presentation of all the data and findings in full in these reports and they were mainly included in a separate unpublished appendix. This article therefore aims to publish more of this material and set it in its context  with updates from more recent published studies.

The project plan and project webpage for the JISC-funded Keeping Research Data Safe 2 project (KRDS2) are now available on the Charles Beagrie website. The webpage has been set-up to support dissemination of information on the project and provide the background to the work, details of the project partners, and the project plan.

The first Keeping Research Data Safe study funded by JISC made a major contribution to the study of preservation costs by developing a cost model and indentifying cost variables for preserving research data in UK universities.

KRDS2 aims to extend this previous work on digital preservation costs. It is identifying long-lived datasets for the purpose of cost analysis and building on the work of the first “Keeping Research Data Safe” study completed in 2008.

The KRDS2 project commenced on 31 March 2009 and will complete in December 2009. For further information see  the project plan.

160 people gathered today at the Royal Society at the one day international conference on the UK Research Data Service (UKRDS) Feasibility Study.

The eight page management summary from the final report has been made available on the UKRDS website to co-incide with the conference. This recommends to HEFCE that the UKRDS is feasible and should be funded over a period of at least 5 years. In the first instance it recommends a 2-year Pathfinder phase should be funded at a cost of £5.31m.  It estimates overall savings delivered by a scaled-up UKRDS service to be the financial equivalent of 63.5 FTEs over a period of five years.
You can also find the presentations from the day available online.

HEFCE is still considering the report but it said to regard it favourably. A final decision is awaited.

A potentially important development in digital curation is the creation of a new International Society for Biocuration.

The mission of the Society will be to:

1. Define the work of biocurators for the scientific community and the public funding agencies;
2. Propose a discussion forum for interested biocurators, developers, scientists and students.
3. Organize a regular meeting where biocurators will be able to present their work and discuss their projects.
4. Lobby to obtain increased and stable funding for biocuration resources that are essential to research;
5. Build a relationship with publishers and establish a link between researchers and databases through journal publishers
6. Organize a regular workshop where new biocurators, or interested students can be trained in the use of the common tools needed for their work.
7. Provide documentation on the use of common database and bioinformatics tools.
8. Provide ‘Gold Standards’ for databases, such as the use of unique, traceable identifiers, use of shared tools, etc.;
9. Share documentation on standards and annotation procedures with the aim of developing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
10. Foster connections with user communities to ensure that databases and accompanying tools meet specific user needs;
11. Maintain a biocurator job market forum.

The new Society will have its official launch at the 3rd International Biocuration Conference 16-19 April 2009 in Berlin.

Digital Preservation has been tipped as an emerging technology to watch by a leading IT magazine.

Yesterday’s ComputerWeekly has an  article in its IT Management section on How to beat the recession using underutilised technology by Michael Pincher. It focuses on how IT vendors can look at emerging technologies and customer requirements to innovate and begin to buck the recession.

Its an interesting article looking at overlooked areas of corporate innovation, key markets, “hype cycles”, and emerging technologies.

The emerging technologies section particularly caught my eye mentioning that digital preservation is a growth area in data management. In addition related issues such as regulatory compliance technologies, content management and repositories, infrastructure protection, storage management, and risk management are highlighted.

The list of emerging technologies is provided to give food for thought and help advise on business and innovation potential in the marketplace. The content of the article however should be of interest to a much wider readership and I highly recommend reading it.

Readers of the blog may be interested in the article Digital Archivists in Demand which appeared in the Fresh Starts column of business section of the New York Times on Saturday in both print and online editions. This is a monthly column covering emerging jobs and job trends.

The piece focusses on careers for digital asset managers, digital archivists and digital preservation officers and how demand for them is expanding. It features Jacob Nadal, the preservation officer at the University of California, Los Angeles and Victoria McCargar, a preservation consultant in Los Angeles and a lecturer at U.C.L.A. and San José State University.

Vicky McCargar estimates that 20,000 people work in the field today — plus others in related areas — and she expects that to triple over the next decade, assuming that economic conditions stabilise before long.

US rates of pay for Digital Archivists are also cited in the article. Digital asset managers at public facilities would do well to make $70,000 a year. Salaries for their corporate counterparts are generally higher. Consultants who can make recommendations on systems can make $150 an hour.Those who manage them in the commercial sector once they’re up and running make from the $70,000’s up to $100,000 a year.

Despite the higher pay in the corporate world Jacob Nadal outlines the case for working in the public sector: “Public-sector institutions just strike me as far, far cooler. They have better collections, obviously, and they are innovative, connected and challenging in ways that seem more substantial to me.”

It is good to see that mainstream newspapers are beginning to see digital archiving as an emerging career path. I have given short seminars on digital preservation and curation to students on the Information Studies courses at UCL over the last couple of years. I always emphasis to them that not only is it intellectually challenging field but a very good career option for those with a traditional archive or library training and an interest in electronic information.

I have previously blogged (see Research Data Canada) on work by The Canadian Research Data Strategy Working Group.

Its report “Stewardship of Research Data in Canada: A Gap Analysis” is now available. Using the data lifecycle as a framework, the report examines Canada’s current state versus an ‘ideal state’ based on existing international best practices across 10 indicators. The indicators include: policies, funding, roles and responsibilities, standards, data repositories, skills and training, accessibility, and preservation.

The analysis reveals significant barriers to the access and preservation of research data ’” barriers that could have a serious impact on the future of Canadian research and innovation if not addressed. For example, large amounts of data are being lost because of the woefully inadequate number of trusted data repositories in Canada.

The report summarises gaps for Canadian research data across the data lifecycle as follows:

Data Production

• Priority is on immediate use, rather than potential for long-term exploitation.
• Limited funding mechanisms to prepare data appropriately for later use.
• Few research institutions require data management plans.
• No national organization that can advise and assist with application of data standards.

Data Dissemination

• Lack of policies governing the standards applied to ensure data dissemination.
• Researchers unwilling to share data, because of lack of time and expertise required.
• Some policies require certain types of data be destroyed after a research project is over.

Long-term Management of Data

• Lack of coverage and capacity of data repositories.
• Preservation activities in repositories are not comprehensive.
• Limited funding for data repositories in Canada.
• Few incentives for researchers to deposit data into archives.

Discovery and Repurposing

• Most data rests on the hard drives of researchers and is inaccessible by others.
• Per per view and licensed access mechanisms are common where data are available.
• Many researchers are reluctant to enable access to their data because they feel it is their intellectual property.

The gap analysis will be extremely familar to many – reflecting difficulties recognised and responded to in many different countries such as the USA (Datanets), Australia (ANDS), and the UK (UKRDS feasibility study). It is pleasing to see the report cite the UK and USA as two countries that are seen internationally to be leading responses to these challenges.

It is reported that in the last several months, the Canadian Research Data Strategy Working Group has also made progress on a number of other fronts. Three Task Groups have been established to support efforts in addressing the gaps identified in the analysis. The Task Groups are:

1. Policies, funding and research;

2. Infrastructure and services; and

3. Capacity (skills, training, and reward systems). The Capacity Task Group is currently developing a workshop on data management for researchers, which it hopes to begin offering in 2009.

The next steps for the Working Group are to develop an action plan and an engagement strategy to involve senior leaders from the various institutions represented on the Working Group.

The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has just received the annual grant letter on higher education funding for 2009-10 from the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills.

HEFCE Chair, Tim Melville-Ross, said on the HEFCE website:

“‘This represents a continuing substantial investment in higher education during a period of severe economic challenges. We shall be considering the implications of the letter at the Board meetings on 22 January and 26 February in preparation for the announcement of the recurrent grant to universities and colleges on 5 March.”

The grant letter sets out funding allocations and priorities the Government has for English universities (all bar one of whom are public rather than privatly funded institutions). The broad priority areas are:

• Supporting the economy through recession and wider engagement with business [no surprises there];
• Widening participation and fair access;
• Quality and oversight;
• Promoting excellence in research, science and innovation;
• Tackling climate change;
• Student numbers and finance.

A couple of things caught my eye in the grant letter given our company’s interests and work in the sector and my own involvement with University Schools of Information Studies:

• a strong emphasis on promotion of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics);
• implications for RAE 2008 and HEFCE ‘s distribution of £1.5 billion research funding to universities;
• the Research Excellence Framework (REF) and work between academia and the private sector;
• and “value for money”.

To quote from the grant letter to illustrate these points:

Promotion of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics)

“I would like you to work with the sector as it finds innovative ways to support business. Promotion of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines should be a factor in all of your activities, since these are subjects that employers consistently tell us they will need in the long term…”

RAE 2008 and Research Funding distribution

“The coming academic year is the first in which research funding will be allocated by reference to the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise. In allocating your research funding, I expect you to continue to recognise and respond to the high cost and national importance of STEM subjects. I also expect the Council to continue to recognise and reward the highest levels of research excellence wherever it is found. I know that you will need to maintain high levels of funding for those institutions with the largest volumes of world-class research whilst rewarding and nurturing pockets of excellence elsewhere. It is also important that you seek to remove barriers to research partnerships between universities and both charities and businesses.”

and “Looking further into the future, I would ask you to work with the sector to explore ways to encourage collaboration between institutions with the largest volumes of world-class research and those with smaller pockets of excellence…”

Research Excellence Framework (REF) and work between academia and the private/public service sectors

“The Council is already working on the Research Excellence Framework, and has initiated the pilots exercise for bibliometric indicators of excellence. This should reduce the burden on institutions and take better account of the impact research makes on the economy and society. The REF should continue to incentivise research excellence, but also reflect the quality of researchers contribution to public policy making and to public engagement, and not create disincentives to researchers moving between academia and the private sector. You are also considering wider aspects of assessment, including user-focused research and subjects where bibliometrics have not yet been fully developed. I look forward to seeing your proposals on the REF by summer 2009.”

Value for money

“I am grateful for the savings the Council is helping HEIs to achieve across this CSR period, in areas including shared services, procurement, and from rationalising some special funding streams. The Council and the sector have improved value for money (VFM) in recent years and over the CSR07 period, including in areas covered by the Governments Operational Efficiency Programme (OEP). In the coming years all agencies in the public sector will need to achieve the greatest possible VFM. So I would like you, working with the sector, to examine further options and develop plans to deliver additional improvements in VFM in 2010-11 and beyond with a particular focus on those areas identified by the OEP.”

Most of these quotes are self-explanatory in terms of partnerships and shared services etc. However it may be useful for some to see the discussion on research funding (made before the funding letter was available) in The Times Higher Education Supplement this week and the related stories it cites from previous editions for the broader context and implications of HEFCE research funding, RAE 2008 and REF.

Early in 2008 there was a lot of excitement around the announcement that Google was about to launch a free service for hosting research datasets as noted in our blog posting Google to host research datasets twelve months ago.

Less widely reported so far – and I had missed it until I saw it in the Open Access News – was the report by Wired that Google has withdrawn the proposed service first known as Palimpsest (and later re-named Google Research Datasets).

Unfortunately the proposed service seems to have fallen prey to the credit crunch. The issue of sustainable funding for long-term services for datasets and the challenges of doing this in the current commercial environment are thrown into stark relief. For further information and comment see the Wired blog Google shutters its Science Data Service.