Supplementary Data and Publishers Neil Beagrie, Julia Chruszcz, and Peter Williams Charles Beagrie Ltd Dryad UK April 2010

Overview Consultancy for Dryad Sustainability: covered areas of draft business plan and sustainability for Dryad Presenting one of the contributions(publishers) to section on Comparators and Costs Outcomes from desk research and 12 interviews with publishers/data publishers + some additional input drawn from Keeping Research Data Safe Very brief presentation – article in preparation for Learned Publishing Oct 2010 issue….KRDS2 available from JISC shortly (or me now )

Interviewees Journal of Clinical Investigation Journal of the American Medical Association Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (Elsevier) Journal of Heredity (OUP) Ecological Society of America Wiley-Blackwell + Ecology Letters Royal Society Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology OECD Publishing Internet Archaeology and Archaeology Data Service Pangaea: Publishing Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data Dataverse Network (Social Sciences, Harvard)

Some Findings: growth Many interviewees stated that supplementary data and materials are showings rapid growth 3 gave figures: from 32 articles in 2000, to 251 in 2009 – an increase of 784%; from 6% in 2005 to 38% in 2009; from 2% a decade ago to 87% in 2009.

Some Findings: workflow supplementary data have grown organically at the various journals investigated (author driven); Both the work and the costs being absorbed into the daily running of journals; in 4 cases minimal impact on work duties; in 5 others there was a significant but often unquantified impact (two of these might be considered data publications with a focus on publishing data papers or datasets); and in 3 cases the information was not available or unknown; can be explained in terms of level of effort or importance applied : the greatest levels of effort are associated with copy editing, format migration, addition of metadata, etc, whilst the least effort is required for simply hosting the material; and/or high-levels of automation in the workflow.

Some Findings: costs These were in most cases unknown or only partially known; Costs mentioned but usually not quantified include: digital storage costs, salary costs of journal staff; and long term preservation costs; detailed cost information was really only available from Internet Archaeology via Archaeology Data Service which had participated in an activity based costing study (KRDS2); Internet Archaeology archiving costs reflect those for a “dataset publisher” so only a comparator for part of Dryad’s content – large datasets.

Some Findings: revenue only author fees and journal subscription fees were mentioned as current revenue sources for the supplementary materials in journals; 3 journals interviewed have author charges for supplementary materials (see next slide); The data archiving and sharing organisations interviewed relied primarily on (uncertain) research grants and temporary or re-current core funding, but one had access to a small endowment and another has a charging policy for some depositors.

Some Findings: author charges Journal of Clinical Investigation - authors are charged $300 for supplemental data to appear online with accepted articles; Ecological Archives - submission of ‘appendices and supplements’ is free up to 10MB. Above this, there is a fee of $250 for the first 1 GB and $50 for each subsequent GB. The fee for publication of a data paper is $250 for publication of the abstract in the relevant journal plus publication of up to 10 MB in Ecological Archives. An additional $250 is charged for data sets between 10MB and 1GB, and for larger datasets there is an additional $50 per GB fee; The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) charges $100 for each Supplemental file.

Summary KRDS Activity Model Pre-Archive Phase Outreach Initiation Creation Archive Phase Acquisition Disposal Ingest Archival Storage Preservation Planning First Mover Innovation Data Management Access Support ServicesAdministration Common Services Estates

KRDS: what did we learn? Whole of Service costing/Seeing the“Big Picture” Selection of 2009 Allocation of UKDA Activity Costs Acquisition5.8% Ingest21.5% A. Storage +Pres. Planning3.1% Access16.9%

KRDS:Implications Changing view of digital preservation costs: –“getting stuff in and out” costs much higher than “keeping it (bit preservation + migration)”; –Staff costs c.70% of total costs; –Importance of economies of scale and automation.

Further Information “Keeping Research Data Safe” (KRDS1)Final report and Executive Summary at ns/keepingresearchdatasafe.aspx ns/keepingresearchdatasafe.aspx Keeping Research Data Safe2 (KRDS2) webpage at KRDS2 report available from JISC website early May 2010 or