1. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Popping TUMs: Opportunities in the Age of Mandates Rebecca Kennison CESSE Mid-Winter Meeting March 3, 2010

2. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU The Internet has irrevocably changed scholarly communication – Access (global, 24/7) – Distribution (comparatively inexpensive) – Expectations (free)

3. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Which also leads to … TUMs = Tedious Unfunded Mandates

4. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU NIH’s Public Access Mandate Went into effect April 7, 2008 Applies to all NIH-funded research published after May 25, 2008 Makes mandatory deposit in PMC accepted peer-reviewed manuscripts from research supported by NIH Compliance (evidenced by PMCIDs) required to receive further funding

5. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Lessons Learned NIH (oddly) ill-prepared to implement policy Compliance officers ill-equipped to ensure grantees were fulfilling terms Journal policies and workflows often needed modification PIs for most part initially ill-informed but then resigned

6. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Federal Research Public Access Act (S.1373) Introduced in June 2009 Applies to federal agencies with budgets of $100MM+ Requires public online access be provided within 6 months of publication Deposit repository not designated but must be open to public, interoperable, committed to long-term archiving

7. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU FRPAA Agencies Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Education Department of Energy Department of Health and Human Services Department of Homeland Security Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Science Foundation

8. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Others Funders Affected? Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of State Department of Treasury Department of Veterans Affairs Institute of Museum and Library Services National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Humanities

9. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU What Can We Expect from More TUMs Compliance will be even more difficult to ensure, so enhanced technology will be required Trend toward public access/repositories will continue as funding agencies and institutions fight for shrinking $$ Push will be for more and better – Search and discovery – Interoperability – Long-term archiving

10. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU And then there’s data … Next possible NIH mandate: strengthening of current data- sharing requirement to require public data sharing – Confidentiality concerns – Local or discipline repository possibilities – Role for societies, journals, publishers, institutions? NSF also investigating data mandate

11. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Investment in Research Output Publication snapshot in time of ongoing research Cost of publication small part of total cost of research (e.g., data collection and data analysis) — perhaps as little as 1% Much of intellectual and financial investment of institution not in publications, but in other research outputs Data retention policy enforcement increasingly important to institutions

12. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Examples of Research Data Retention Policies Columbia, Stanford, Chicago, etc.: Minimum 3 years after final project conclusion, including raw data Pittsburgh: Minimum of 7 years after final report of project Kansas: 6 years for non-human, 15 years for human, 25 years for pediatric

13. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Research Data Covered by Retention Policies Material, originally recorded by or for PI, commonly accepted as necessary to validate research findings Include laboratory notebooks and any other records that are necessary for the reconstruction and evaluation of reported results of research, the events and processes leading to those results All forms or media

14. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Examples of Research Output Archival materials (e.g., e- mail correspondence) Computer executable code (e.g., simulations) Databases Datasets, spreadsheets Electronic portfolios Electronic theses, dissertations Lab notebooks Multimedia (e.g., audio, video, graphics, animations, CAD) Online media (e.g., blogs, wikis, Web sites) Photographs, images, slides Presentations, podcasts, pubcasts, postercasts Software, tutorials, documentation Teaching materials, learning objects Text files (e.g., document files, LaTeX, RTFs, PDFs) Visualizations

15. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU What Is Value of Research Repository? Collocation Curation Interoperability – Consistent content models – Harvestable metadata for inclusion in domain- or region-oriented repositories Archiving and ongoing access (even when soft money dries up)

16. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Faculty Perception of Institutional Repositories More value for user or institution than for depositor Lack of control over content – Limitations on content types – Access to that content determined by someone else – Reuse of the content determined by someone else Allen, J. (2005) Interdisciplinary differences in attitudes towards deposit in institutional repositories. Masters, Department of Information and Communications, Manchester Metropolitan University (UK). Foster, N. F. & Gibbons, S. (2005) Understanding faculty to improve content recruitment for institutional repositories. D-Lib Magazine 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.ht ml

17. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Why This Perception? Focus of institutional policies and scholarly communication discussions (e.g., Green OA) has been on deposit of traditional publications, rather than materials researchers are most concerned with sharing and preserving

18. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Proper Focus of Repository Reflect needs of research community (collaboration, data security and confidentiality, access, priority claims, visibility and impact, quality certification, archiving and preservation) Advance scholarship through accumulation of content important to that community Not be seen as merely solving problems of libraries or institutions or being trendy Be part of cooperative partnerships in open and interoperable manner

19. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Benefits of Research Repository Choice of what to deposit and determination of access and reuse determined by researcher Research data made available alongside published outputs based on that data Publication (as in making public) may include negative results, incremental findings Value of research can be based on quality of databases, datasets, and other outputs, not on publications alone Data required by funders and journals to be made available or shared can be deposited in repository Interoperable research repositories can provide for unexpected use and novel reuse Impact can be tracked through robust metrics

20. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Challenges for Research Repository What counts as research output varies from discipline to discipline Research data are much more difficult to ingest, to make accessible, to regularize, and to preserve for the long-term than traditional publications and thus require much more infrastructure Interoperability and dynamic cross-linking of data with publications or related data are not yet well- developed technologies (e.g., resource maps) Cooperation is needed among government agencies, publishers, societies, universities, and researchers

21. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Some Predictions Funders requiring mandates will increasingly pay for publication costs, data management solutions Research communities become even more diverse, more interdisciplinary, more geographically dispersed What counts for tenure and promotion will change Blurring of lines between traditional and new forms of communication continues Roles in and workflows for scholarly communication are transformed Search engines become increasingly better at indexing content of all types Semantic Web is leveraged in exciting new ways to integrate data and literature (e.g., BioLit)

22. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Golden Opportunity Don’t waste time and energy fighting changes and mandates; instead, use them to rethink business opportunities Get out ahead of the curve – Business model and strategy development – Technology investment – Enhanced author, membership services Leverage partners to create repositories, collaborate on technology enhancements – Institutions (universities, libraries, funding agencies) – Societies, publishers/presses – Others engaged in the discipline Think creatively

23. CDRS.COLUMBIA.EDU Questions and Comments