Community Engagement Maryann E. Martone, Ph. D. President, FORCE11

Community Engagement Community engagement is a key feature of DDICC approach, and the DDICC will be expected to foster the wide-scale collaborations and partnerships between and among key stakeholders to demonstrate feasibility of the concept.

What is FORCE11? Future of Research Communications and E-Scholarship: A grass roots effort to accelerate the pace and nature of scholarly communications and e- scholarship through technology, education and community Why 11? We were born in 2011 in Dagstuhl, Germany Principles laid out in the FORCE11 ManifestoFORCE11 Manifesto FORCE11 launched in July 2012

Who is FORCE11? Anyone who has a stake in moving scholarly communication into the 21 st century Publishers Library and Information scientists Policy makers Tool builders Funders Scholars Science Humanities Social Sciences

FORCE11 Vision Modern technologies enable vastly improve knowledge transfer and far wider impact; freed from the restrictions of paper, numerous advantages appear We see a future in which scientific information and scholarly communication more generally become part of a global, universal and explicit network of knowledge To enable this vision, we need to create and use new forms of scholarly publication that work with reusable scholarly artifacts To obtain the benefits that networked knowledge promises, we have to put in place reward systems that encourage scholars and researchers to participate and contribute To ensure that this exciting future can develop and be sustained, we have to support the rich, variegated, integrated and disparate knowledge offerings that new technologies enable

FORCE11.org Community platform – Meetings – Discussions – Tools and resources – Blogs – Event calendar – Community projects – Working groups Promote interoperability – Data Citation – Resource identification initiative >800 members from diverse stakeholder groups

A place to come together: Data citation principles Resulted from a 1K challenge 35 individuals representing > 20 organizations concerned with data citation Libraries Government Data repositories Computer scientists Conducted a review of current data citation recommendations from 4 different organizations Arrived at a sense of consensus principles covering 8 themes Easy to understand-examples Endorsed > 80 organizations tation 1.Importance 2.Credit and attribution 3.Evidence 4.Unique Identification 5.Access 6.Persistence 7.Specificity and verifiability 8.Interoperability and flexibility

Working groups are underway in FORCE11 and in Research Data Alliance and elsewhere that have goals and expertise relevant to the work of the DDIC; need to leverage these efforts  Revised NISO/JATS to support direct data citation

FORCE11 Working Group Strategy Fixed time period Regular meeting schedule Clear declaration of what is in scope and what is out of scope Specified deliverable Flexible platform: FORCE11 + Google Groups Facilitation: – Ms. Stephanie Hagstrom: agenda, organization of materials, minutes – Good facilitator Keep members on task Provide synthesis of discussions Prepare initial report

Resource Identification Initiative The majority of research resources used to produce results in scientific studies are not uniquely identifiable Have authors supply appropriate identifiers for key resources used within a study such that they are: – Machine processible (i.e., unique identifier that resolves to a single resource) – Outside of the paywall – Uniform across journals and publishers Launched February 2014: > 30 journals participating

Resource Identification Initiative Two pre-meetings with editors and publishers – Society for Neuroscience, 2012 – NIH: June, 2013 – Society for Neuroscience, 2013 Designed pilot project – Entities – Procedure – Infrastructure Established working group through FORCE11 Signed up partners Led by: Anita Bandrowski, Matt Brush, Nicole Vasievsky, Melissa Haendel and more

Resource Identification Pilot Project Authors to identify 3 types of research resources: – Software/databases – Antibodies – Model organisms Include RRID in methods section – RRID:Accession# Voluntary for authors Journals did not have to modify their submission system Journals have flexibility in implementation and more…

Resource IDs are aggregated from databases A single portal for authors >10 databases One search interface Simple directions Prominent “Cite This” button Uniform format for citation across publishers Help desk for authors RII Portal

Current Progress: RRID’s in the wild! >170 articles have appeared to date 29 journals >650 RRID’s 3 removed by typesetting 95% correct RRIDs drove population of the Registries RRID’s provide stability for volatile resource providers Chemicon – out of business, >8 yr Millipore – just joined Merck, URL still works Millipore / Chemicon not a company Millipore / Chemicon not a company Database available at:

AntibodiesOrganismsTools Increased identifiability of resources after the Resource Identification Initiative Pilot

Why was the RRI a good pilot project? Identified a clear problem and proposed a possible solution Engaged the stakeholders in a set of pre-meetings and requirements gathering Gained consensus on a path forward Launched broadly across multiple resource types and journals Engaged the practicing research community in its execution Produced an open data set that can be independently evaluated for successes and failures – Would authors provide RRID’s? – Could authors provide RRID’s? – Can publishers implement this scheme? – What infrastructure is necessary?

AlejandraGonzalez-BeltranUniversity of Oxford AmarnathGuptaUniversity of Clifornia, San Diego Anitade WaardElsevier Research Data Services CarolBeanStanford University ChrisMungallLBNL DavidEichmannUniversity of Iowa EduardHovyCarnetie Mellon University, Language Technologies Institute HarryHochheiserUniversity of Pittsburgh IanForeUS National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health JeffreyGretheUniversity of Clifornia, San Diego MarkMusenMark Musen, Stanford University MaryannMartoneUniversity of California, San Diego MelissaHaendelOregon Health & Science University MerceCrosasIQSS, Harvard University MichelDumontierStanford University PaoloCiccareseMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School PhilippeRocca-SerraOxford e-Research Centre, University of Oxford PuneetKishorCreative Commons SatrajitGhoshMIT StephanieHagstromUniversity of California, San Diego Susanna-AssuntaSansoneUniversity of Oxford and Nature Publishing Group TimClarkMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School WilliamGunnMendeley FORCE11 BioCADDIE Community Outreach Group Join us:

Questions for community input What are possible models for a DDI? What are existing efforts, both national and international, that can be used to inform the creation of a DDI? How can we work with them? How much curation is needed and by whom? What are the use cases? Who needs a DDI? – Researchers – Funders – Administrators – Industry What are the issues surrounding access to data? If PubMed had been built after the internet and search engines matured, how would it have been built?

Opportunities for engagement – Task forces and pilot projects Announcements and recruitment: FORCE11 interfaces with many national and international efforts across disciplines Smaller pilot projects – Website Discussion forum Working space for Task Forces Pilot Project RFA’s Webinars and blogs Social media: Twitter, Google Plus, Facebook – Meetings, workshops FORCE2015 Hackathons – Challenge prizes 1K challenge prize BioCreative #biocaddie Under construction

Beyond the PDF Conference/unconferenc e where all stakeholders come together as equals to discuss issues – Publishers – Technologists – Scholars – Library scientists San Diego, Jan Amsterdam, March Oxford, January 2015FORCE2015

BioCADDIE-FORCE2015 workshop Sunday, Jan 11 th Theme: – Research Objects Writ Large What systems of identification, containers and citation are needed for identifying and tracking research objects across the different stages of the research data lifecycle – Suggestions? Based on this workshop, what would be the best use of FORCE2015? Models for a DDI Defining a biomedical data ecosystem – Domain Analysis – What is already working/not working – Gap analysis

Challenge Prizes To remain nimble and take advantage of skills and opportunities within the wider community, we will offer a series of open challenges for which we will award prizes to incentivize participation. These will take the form of small ($1K) and large ($10K) challenge prizes to be awarded to members outside of the consortium. FORCE2015; where else? BD2K collaborations?

Moving forward What are our priorities for the coming year? – Which mechanism is best for gaining community contribution for each? How would you like us to gather use cases? – Existing repositories – Hackathons – User sessions – Monitoring existing forums: Biostars, Research Gate, Google Plus How will interactions with the other BD2K centers be handled? Do we want to target other meetings for engagement?