Papers by Jane H S Anders
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015
The conclusions of research articles generally depend on bodies of data that cannot be included i... more The conclusions of research articles generally depend on bodies of data that cannot be included in the articles themselves. The sharing of this data is important for reasons of both transparency and possible reuse. Science, Technology and Medicine journals have an obvious role in facilitating sharing, but how they might do that is not yet clear. The Journal Research Data (JoRD) Project was a JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee) funded feasibility study on the possible shape of a central service on journal research data policies. The objectives of the study included, amongst other considerations: to identify the current state of journal data sharing policies and to investigate the views and practices of stakeholders to data sharing. The project confirmed that a large percentage of journals do not have a policy on data sharing, and that there are inconsistencies between the traceable journal data sharing policies. Such a state leaves authors unsure of whether they should deposit data relating to articles and where and how to share that data. In the absence of a consolidated infrastructure for the easy sharing of data, a journal data sharing model policy was developed. The model policy was developed from comparing the quantitative information gathered from analysing existing journal data policies with qualitative data collected from the stakeholders concerned. This article summarises the information gathered, outlines the process by which the model was developed and presents the model journal data sharing policy in full.
The sharing of the data generated by research projects is increasingly being recognised as an aca... more The sharing of the data generated by research projects is increasingly being recognised as an academic priority by funders, researchers and STM publishers. The topic has been discussed by national and international organisations, for example, ICSU (the International Council for Science), [1] the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) [2] and the UK’s Royal Society [3]. The public statements that emerge from these scientific bodies call for both research transparency and freely available access to research data created with public funding for possible re-use. The issue of the policies on sharing set out by academic journals has been raised by scientific organisations, such as the US National Academy of Sciences, which urges journals to make clear statements of their sharing policies. On the other hand, the publishing community whilst broadly supporting the principle of open and accessible research data expresses concerns over the intellectual property implicati...
Funding agencies, researchers and publishers increasingly recognise that open access to research ... more Funding agencies, researchers and publishers increasingly recognise that open access to research data is an academic priority. Journals have an important role to play in any system for data access, but at present there is little clarity over how they may contribute to a better sharing climate. The UK JISC funded JoRD Project was a feasibility study for a central service on journal research data policies. JoRD used mixed methods to examine the scope and form of a sustainable, international service to collate and summarise journal policies on research data for the use of researchers, managers of research data and other stakeholders. The objectives of the study were: to identify the current state of journal data sharing policies; investigate views, practices and requirements of stakeholders; develop service specifications; explore the market base for a JoRD Policy Bank Service; and investigate and recommend sustainable business models for the development of a service. JoRD confirmed th...
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014
This paper reviews the worldwide growth of open-access (OA) repositories, 2005-2012, using data c... more This paper reviews the worldwide growth of open-access (OA) repositories, 2005-2012, using data collected by the OpenDOAR project. Initial repository development was focused on North America, Western Europe and Australasia, particularly the USA, UK, Germany and Australia, followed by Japan. Since 2010, there has been repository growth in East Asia, South America and Eastern Europe, especially in Taiwan, Brazil and Poland. During the period, some countries, including France, Italy and Spain have maintained steady growth, whereas other countries, notably China and Russia, have experienced limited growth. Globally, repositories are predominantly institutional, multidisciplinary and English-language-based. They typically use open-source OAI-compliant software but only have immature licensing arrangements. Whilst the size of repositories is difficult to assess accurately, available data indicate that a small number of large repositories and a large number of small repositories make up the repository landscape. These trends are analyzed using Innovation Diffusion Theory, which is shown to provide a useful explanatory framework for repository adoption at global, national, organizational and individual levels. Major factors affecting both the initial development of repositories and their take-up include IT infrastructure, cultural factors, policy initiatives, awarenessraising activity and usage mandates. Mandates are likely to be crucial in determining future repository development. Libre OA is free of charge and also free of some copyright and licensing restrictions. Users have permission to exceed fair use, at least in certain ways…Libre OA removes price barriers and at least some permission barriers." (Suber, 2012, 66) The repositories recorded in OpenDOAR and included in this study comply in general terms with the definitions of open access provided by Pinfield and Suber, including both Gratis and Libre OA, although formerly-embargoed content is also permitted (see below) if it is made available on an OA repository. The definition of 'repository' used here follows Pinfield (2009): "A repository may be defined as a set of systems and services which facilitates the ingest, storage, management, retrieval, display, and reuse of digital objects. Repositories may be set up by institutions, subject communities, research funders, or other groups. They may provide access to a variety of digital objects, including peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, theses, datasets, learning objects, or rich media files." (Pinfield, 2009, 165) The key distinction often drawn in the literature in relation to academic and research repositories is between disciplinary repositories and institutional repositories (IRs) (Nicholas, Rowlands, Watkinson, Brown, & Jamali, 2012; Xia, 2008). The former contain the outputs of a particular subject community; well-known examples include arXiv for high-energy physics, RePEc for economics, and PubMed Central for biomedical and life sciences. The latter house the outputs of researchers and other research materials from a particular institution; early examples include Caltech in the USA and the University of Southampton in the UK. To these, Nicholas et al. (2012) also add 'format' repositories which contain particular types of files, such as e-theses, data sets or learning objects. There are also a small number of 'governmental' repositories managed by national governments and governmentsponsored agencies, and 'aggregating' repositories which present content harvested from other sources. All of these categories of repositories are recorded in OpenDOAR: disciplinary, institutional, aggregating and governmental as 'repository types', with formats being recorded as different 'content types'. Research context Academic and research OA repositories have existed in various forms for more than two decades and have featured in the research and practitioner literature since then. As well as formally-published works, discussion around policy and practice in this area has taken place in email discussion lists, blogs and other more informal venues. Increasingly, the latest thinking (at least in provisional form) first appears in those places (as is increasingly the case in a variety of fields) and so it is important to take them into account in examining the research context.
Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences, 2014
There is a growing consensus in the broader research community, including libraries and other inf... more There is a growing consensus in the broader research community, including libraries and other information repositories, that sharing of research data is vital both for transparency and possible reuse. Logically the sharing should be in the form of data held in suitable repositories which is linked to effective access points such as library catalogues. The journals in which the research appears have a central role in this process. The JoRD Project at Nottingham University investigated the current state of journal data sharing policies through a survey of sample titles, and explored the views and practices of stakeholders including the research community and its funders, publishers and editors. The project identified that although a percentage of journals did have a policy on data sharing, they were in a minority, and policies generally encouraged good practice rather than made it a firm requirement. Many of the policies examined had little to say on standardised formats for data, metadata, or the use of data repositories. If there is to be genuine data sharing, initiatives to encourage journals to set out policies that mandate sharing in well-specified and appropriate forms are essential.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014
ABSTRACT This paper reviews the worldwide growth of open-access (OA) repositories, 2005 to 2012, ... more ABSTRACT This paper reviews the worldwide growth of open-access (OA) repositories, 2005 to 2012, using data collected by the OpenDOAR project. Initial repository development was focused on North America, Western Europe, and Australasia, particularly the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia, followed by Japan. Since 2010, there has been repository growth in East Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe, especially in Taiwan, Brazil, and Poland. During the period, some countries, including France, Italy, and Spain, have maintained steady growth, whereas other countries, notably China and Russia, have experienced limited growth. Globally, repositories are predominantly institutional, multidisciplinary and English-language based. They typically use open-source OAI-compliant software but have immature licensing arrangements. Although the size of repositories is difficult to assess accurately, available data indicate that a small number of large repositories and a large number of small repositories make up the repository landscape. These trends are analyzed using innovation diffusion theory, which is shown to provide a useful explanatory framework for repository adoption at global, national, organizational, and individual levels. Major factors affecting both the initial development of repositories and their take-up include IT infrastructure, cultural factors, policy initiatives, awareness-raising activity, and usage mandates. Mandates are likely to be crucial in determining future repository development.
66: 12, Dec 1, 2015
Conclusions of research articles depend on bodies of data that cannot be included in articles the... more Conclusions of research articles depend on bodies of data that cannot be included in articles themselves. To share this data is important for reasons of both transparency and reuse. Science, Technology, and Medicine journals have a role in facilitating sharing, but by what mechanism is not yet clear. The Journal Research Data (JoRD) Project was a JISC (Joint Information Systems Committee)-funded feasibility study on the potential for a central service on journal research data policies. The objectives of the study included identifying the current state of journal data sharing policies and investigating stakeholders’ views and practices. The project confirmed that a large percentage of journals have no data sharing policy and that there are inconsistencies between those that are traceable. This state leaves authors unsure of whether they should share article related data and where and how to deposit those data. In the absence of a consolidated infrastructure to share data easily, a model journal data sharing policy was developed by comparing quantitative information from analyzing existing journal data policies with qualitative data collected from stakeholders. This article summarizes and outlines the process by which the model was developed and presents the model journal data sharing policy.
Conference Presentations by Jane H S Anders
Funding agencies, researchers and publishers increasingly recognise that open access to research ... more Funding agencies, researchers and publishers increasingly recognise that open access to research data is an academic priority. Journals have an important role to play in any system for data access, but at present there is little clarity over how they may contribute to a better sharing climate. The UK JISC funded JoRD Project was a feasibility study for a central service on journal research data policies. JoRD used mixed methods to examine the scope and form of a sustainable, international service to collate and summarise journal policies on research data for the use of researchers, managers of research data and other stakeholders. The objectives of the study were: to identify the current state of journal data sharing policies; investigate views, practices and requirements of stakeholders; develop service specifications; explore the market base for a JoRD Policy Bank Service; and investigate and recommend sustainable business models for the development of a service.
JoRD confirmed that a high percentage of journals have no data sharing policy and that there are inconsistencies between current data sharing policies. Policies were examined for statements on: what, when and where to deposit data; data accessibility; data types; data compliance and consequences of non-compliance. Nearly 75% of policies could be seen as weak. Significantly, strong policies were commonly associated with high impact journals. All aspects of our investigation suggested that although the idea of making scientific data openly accessible is widely accepted in the scientific community, the practice confronts serious obstacles, the major one being the lack of a consolidated infrastructure for data sharing. In consequence, researchers simply do not know how to share data. The case for strong, clearly articulated journal policies seems unchallengeable. Also, STM publishers are not convinced that existing infrastructure and financial models for sharing are sufficiently robust to guarantee a high quality sharing environment. Some evidence emerged that they may be willing to provide financial support for a service that would make the sharing process transparent and consequently simplify their own engagement with sharing. On this basis, an exploratory two-phase implementation of a service is proposed, primarily to develop a database of data sharing policies, engage with stakeholders, and third party API development and, secondly, to implement a self-sustaining model.
cover Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Electronic Publishing
The sharing of the data generated by research projects is increasingly being recognised as an aca... more The sharing of the data generated by research projects is increasingly being recognised as an academic priority by funders and researchers. For example, out of 110 listed funders on the JULIET 2 service, 32 have data policies of some form. The topic has been discussed by national and international organisations, for example, ICSU (the International Council for Science), the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and the UK's Royal Society. The public statements that emerge from these scientific bodies call for both research transparency and freely available access to research data created with public funding for possible reuse. The rights associated with the sharing of data and the environment in which it can be done is also of interest to publishers. This interest can be attributed to two motivating factors: to support the academic function of data such as the corroboration of research findings and the facilitation of the re-use of data; and to respond to a strategic, commercial development, for instance, an engagement with the rights, process and environment of data sharing. Currently some publishers are introducing contractual policies on the archiving and sharing of data in addition to policies governing the deposit and sharing of research articles through repositories. The issue of policies on sharing set out by academic journals has been raised by scientific organisations, such as the US National Academy of Sciences, which urges journals to make clear statements of their sharing policies. On the other hand, the publishing community whilst broadly supporting the principle of open and accessible research data expresses concerns over the intellectual property implications of archiving shared data.
Talks by Jane H S Anders
Uploads
Papers by Jane H S Anders
Conference Presentations by Jane H S Anders
JoRD confirmed that a high percentage of journals have no data sharing policy and that there are inconsistencies between current data sharing policies. Policies were examined for statements on: what, when and where to deposit data; data accessibility; data types; data compliance and consequences of non-compliance. Nearly 75% of policies could be seen as weak. Significantly, strong policies were commonly associated with high impact journals. All aspects of our investigation suggested that although the idea of making scientific data openly accessible is widely accepted in the scientific community, the practice confronts serious obstacles, the major one being the lack of a consolidated infrastructure for data sharing. In consequence, researchers simply do not know how to share data. The case for strong, clearly articulated journal policies seems unchallengeable. Also, STM publishers are not convinced that existing infrastructure and financial models for sharing are sufficiently robust to guarantee a high quality sharing environment. Some evidence emerged that they may be willing to provide financial support for a service that would make the sharing process transparent and consequently simplify their own engagement with sharing. On this basis, an exploratory two-phase implementation of a service is proposed, primarily to develop a database of data sharing policies, engage with stakeholders, and third party API development and, secondly, to implement a self-sustaining model.
Talks by Jane H S Anders
JoRD confirmed that a high percentage of journals have no data sharing policy and that there are inconsistencies between current data sharing policies. Policies were examined for statements on: what, when and where to deposit data; data accessibility; data types; data compliance and consequences of non-compliance. Nearly 75% of policies could be seen as weak. Significantly, strong policies were commonly associated with high impact journals. All aspects of our investigation suggested that although the idea of making scientific data openly accessible is widely accepted in the scientific community, the practice confronts serious obstacles, the major one being the lack of a consolidated infrastructure for data sharing. In consequence, researchers simply do not know how to share data. The case for strong, clearly articulated journal policies seems unchallengeable. Also, STM publishers are not convinced that existing infrastructure and financial models for sharing are sufficiently robust to guarantee a high quality sharing environment. Some evidence emerged that they may be willing to provide financial support for a service that would make the sharing process transparent and consequently simplify their own engagement with sharing. On this basis, an exploratory two-phase implementation of a service is proposed, primarily to develop a database of data sharing policies, engage with stakeholders, and third party API development and, secondly, to implement a self-sustaining model.