1. Revisiting Self-Deposit of Scientific Data
Darren Hardy Stanford University
Open Repositories, 10 June 2015, Indianapolis, IN
Abstract: Sharing scientific data is increasingly valuable for reproducible science, furthering investigation, and innovation. To this end, repositories facilitate data sharing by making scholarly data available. We are at an impasse, however. Librarian-mediated approaches to self-deposit of scientific data are very resource-intensive, and the repository services provided to researchers are often limited. Self-deposit is quite a challenging use case as it encompasses data preparation, metadata description, upload, visualization, annotation, sharing, publication, access, rights, preservation, citation, and discovery services. This editorial suggests we revisit the value proposition we make for self-deposit and mitigate its resource-intensive workflows.

2. Why share? Sharing scientific data is increasingly valuable
Reproducible, open science
Furthering investigation, innovation
“share [data], and do so in such a way that the data are interpretable and reusable by others” (Borgman 2012)

3. Why repositories? Repositories in position to facilitate sharing
“The centerpiece of such data sharing [for reuse] is the digital repository, which acts as the foundation for surrounding value-added services supporting and promoting effective publication, discovery, and dissemination of research data” (Abrams et al. 2013)

4. But, when researchers self-deposit scholarly scientific data, what are their expectations for services?

5. ✔︎ Share Data Here’s my data… Email it! Preparation… not likely
Citation… “personal communication”
Access… only
Preservation… nope
Discovery… nope
Rights… nope

6. 😃 Self-Publish Data Here’s my data…
Personal or project website, maybe file sharing service like Dropbox
Preparation maybe
Citation… via URL
Access as long as website works…
Preservation… nope
Discovery… not assured, maybe Google works
Rights… maybe

7. Self-Deposit Data Here’s my data…
Deposited in institutional repository
Preparation… recommended with suggestions
Citation… persistent
Access… ensured, data & metadata
Preservation… long-term
Discovery… many indexes
Rights… explicit, multiple choices

8. Example Marine ecologist Malin Pinsky
Published research on Pacific salmon conservation
Article: Pinsky et al. 2009, Conservation Biology 23(3)
Visible: Used in testimony before the US Senate in 2010
Self-published GIS data on his personal website
Graduated from Stanford, went to Rutgers
Website taken down(!)… 404 Not Found
Then, self-deposited into Stanford repository
Now, discovery, access, and preservation services

9. Scientific data visualized as paper map in Pinsky et al. (2009)

10. Self-Deposit can provide direct data access Download the actual data!

11. …with auxiliary downloads

12. …with citation services

13. …with discovery services
Via SearchWorks, our library catalog
Via EarthWorks, our GIS data search engine
Via Google, etc. “pinsky salmon data”
Stanford self-deposit is first hit

14. (again) …with direct data access

15. Stanford Digital Repository (sdr.stanford.edu)
Self-deposit interface to a Hydra repository
2+ years in production
300+ depositors
2,000+ deposits
20,000+ deposited files
3+ TB preserved
Self-training via video, quickstart guide
But, no added services for scientific data

16. Barriers vs. Expectations
Participation
no extra work for depositors
Metadata creation
Data preparation
will this be a requirement of open science?
Resource limitations
who will write the code? shepherd deposits?

17. Are we at an impasse?
Librarian-mediated approaches are very resource-intensive
Software and services are often resource-limited

18. Closing the gap Mitigate workflows for librarians, curators
Improve the value proposition for depositors
Data preparation, metadata description, upload, visualization, annotation, sharing, publication, access, rights, preservation, citation, related work, ontology, discovery, social media