|
Atkins, D. E., Droegemeier K. K., Feldman S. I., Garcia-molina H., Klein M. L., Messerschmitt D. G., et al.
(2003). Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure : Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on.
|
Evaluated major investments in cyberinfrastructure; recommended new areas of emphasis relevant to cyberinfrastructure; proposed an implementation plan for pursuing these new areas of emphasis |
Conducted 62 presentations at invitational public testimony sessions and a community-wide survey receiving 700 responses; reviewed prior relevant reports; received written critique from 60 reviewers of the draft report; attended conferences and workshops; conducted numerous unsolicited conversations by email and phone and extensive deliberation among report panel members. |
Measurement, Targeted |
|
Averkamp, S., Gu X., & Rogers B.
(2014). Data Management at the University of Iowa: A University Libraries Report on Campus Research Data Needs.
|
This data management report was commissioned by the University of Iowa Libraries with the intention of performing a survey of the campus landscape and identifying gaps in data management services |
The first stage of data collection consisted of a survey conducted during summer 2012 to which 784 responses were received. The second phase of data collection consisted of approximately 40 in-depth interviews with individuals from the campus and were completed during summer 2013. The individuals engaged during the data collection phase spanned a diverse set of campus programs but should not be considered comprehensive. Information Technology Services was invited to participate in the interview process and has also contributed to this report. |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Fearon, D., Gunia B., Pralle B., Lake S., & Sallans A.
(2013). ARL Spec Kit 334: Research data management services.
|
To assess early endeavors in research data services and benchmark future growth in ARL member libraries. |
Conducted a survey of ARL member libraries. 73 of 125 responded. |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Gibbs, H.
(2009). Southampton Data Survey: Our Experience and Lessons Learned.
|
To pilot the Digital Asset Framework (or Digital Audit Framework) methodology |
Used a modified version of the Digital Asset Framework; modified mainly due to time considerations; distributed an online questionnaire and follow-up interviews with researchers at the University of Southampton |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Open Exeter Project Team
(2012). Summary Findings of the Open Exeter Data Asset Framework Survey.
|
Investigated how researchers at the University of Exeter created data, where they stored their data, whether they backed up their data and what happened to their data when the project was finished |
Adapted from the Data Curation Centre’s Data Asset Framework methodology, an online survey was created and follow up interviews were conducted with respondents. |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Scaramozzino, J., Ramírez M., & McGaughey K.
(2012). A Study of Faculty Data Curation Behaviors and Attitudes at a Teaching-Centered University.
College & Research Libraries. 73(4), 349 - 365. |
Investigated science researchers’ data curation awareness, behaviors, and attitudes, as well as what needs they exhibited for services and education regarding maintenance and management of data |
Distributed survey via email to 331 College of Science and Mathematics faculty at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), a master’s-granting, teaching-centered institution. Filtered results to include only science faculty from the Biology, Chemistry, Kinesiology, Mathematics, Physics, and Statistics departments who engaged in data collection in the course of their research (131 tenure-track faculty; 82 responded (62.6%) |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Science Staff
(2011). Challenges and Opportunities.
Science. 331(6018), 692 - 693. |
Investigated issues surrounding the growing amounts of research data that exist |
Performed a survey of Science peer reviewers, receiving 1,700 responses; asked about frequency of use of datasets from published literature and archival databases, the size of the largest dataset used or generated, where most of the data they generate is archived, whether they have asked colleagues for research data, whether the data were provided, whether there is adequate expertise in their lab or group to analyze their data in the way desired, and whether there is sufficient funding for data curation in their group |
Measurement, Targeted |
|
UNC-CH
(2012). Research Data Stewardship at UNC: Recommendations for Scholarly Practice and Leadership.
|
Sought to identify policy options for digital research data stewardship at UNC; further understanding of the full-breadth of activities, concerns, and opinions surrounding research data stewardship among researchers at UNC-CH |
Conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 faculty researchers representing several disciplines at UNC-CH; conducted an online survey of all faculty members, graduate students, and staff assigned to departments that engage in research |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Waller, M., & Sharpe R.
(2006). Mind the Gap: Assessing Digital Preservation Needs in the UK.
|
A study carried out for the Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC) to reveal the extent of the risk of loss or degradation to digital material held in the UK's public and private sectors |
Surveyed 900 individuals from a wide range of organisations in different sectors. The selected individuals all had an assumed interest in digital preservation as part of their professional responsibilities, and included a range of roles including records managers, archivists, librarians, but also IT managers and data producers. 104 responses were received, giving a good response rate of over 10%. These included respondents from education, libraries, archives, museums, local and central government bodies, scientific research institutions, and from organisations in the pharmaceutical, financial, manufacturing and engineering, media, energy and chemical, and publishing sectors.
Note: Discusses duration for keeping data.
|
Measurement, Wider |
|
Bigagli, L., Sveinsdottir T., Wessels B., Smallwood R., Linde P., Tsoukala V., et al.
(2014). Infrastructural and technological challenges and potential solutions.
|
Investigated infrastructural and technological barriers to Open Access and preservation of research data in Europe. This work was conducted within the EU FP7 funded project RECODE, which focuses on developing policy recommendations for Open Access to Research Data in Europe. In particular, this work is coordinated by RECODE Work Package 2 (WP2), Infrastructure and technology. It distinguishes between different categories of stakeholders in terms of how the experience and respond to these challenges |
Conducted desk research, an online survey, interviews, and a validation workshop |
Measurement, Metrics, Wider |
|
Noorman, M., Kalaitzi V., Angelaki M., Tsoukala V., Linde P., Sveinsdottir T., et al.
(2014). Institutional barriers and good practice solutions.
|
Investigated challenges faced by institutions, such as archives, libraries, universities, data centres and funding bodies, in making open access to research data possible. This work was conducted within the EU FP7 funded project RECODE, which focuses on developing policy recommendations for Open Access to Research Data in Europe. |
Conducted desk research, case study interviews, and a validation workshop |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Sveinsdottir, T., Wessels B., Smallwood R., Linde P., Kala V., Tsoukala V., et al.
(2013). Stakeholder values and relationships within open access and data dissemination and preservation ecosystems.
|
Identify and map the diverse range of stakeholder values in Open Access data and data dissemination and preservation; map stakeholder values on to research ecosystems using case studies from different disciplinary perspectives; conduct a workshop to evaluate and identify good practice in addressing conflicting value chains and stakeholder fragmentation. This work was conducted within the EU FP7 funded project RECODE, which focuses on developing policy recommendations for Open Access to Research Data in Europe. |
Conducted desk research, case study interviews, and a validation workshop |
Measurement, Metrics, Wider |
