|
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 |
|
Beagrie, N., Chruszcz J., & Lavoie B.
(2008). Keeping Research Data Safe: A Cost Model and Guidance for UK Universities.
|
Investigated the medium to long term costs to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) of the preservation of research data and developed guidance on these issues, including a framework for determining costs |
Mapped the OAIS reference model against the LIFE cost model and NASA’s Cost Estimation Toolkit; evaluated transferable practice and relative strengths and weaknesses for each; aligned the resulting model with the TRAC model; researched literature on preservation costs and reports and documentation from UK data services and funders; conducted 12 interviews to supplement and validate researched information; conducted three case studies to validate the developed methodology and illustrate the variety of costs and community and service requirements for research data. |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
|
Beagrie, N., Semple N., Williams P., & Wright R.
(2008). Digital Preservation Study Policies.
|
Studied digital preservation policies to provide a model for policy development in Higher and Further Education Institutions; analyzed the role that digital preservation can play in supporting and delivering key strategies for these institutions |
Examined preservation policies, case studies, strategies and resources from a variety of sources; examined a sample of policies for research, teaching, and learning, and other relevant digital preservation literature and resources |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
|
Beile, P.
(2014). The UCF Research Data Management Survey: A report of faculty practices and needs.
|
Investigated faculty data management needs and practices at the University of Central Florida |
Conducted an online survey containing 33 questions. There were 534 valid recipients and 97 who partially or fully completed the survey. |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Bergin, M. Banach
(2013). Sabbatical Report: Summary of Survey Results on Digital Preservation Practices at 148 Institutions.
|
Investigate how digital preservation programs were implemented in institutions with established programs |
Conducted an online survey and follow-up interviews with 12 librarians and archivists from various institutions. The survey received 148 responses [from libraries and archives]. 100 people finished the survey.
"...I received responses from all types of institutions including national libraries, state libraries, academic libraries, public libraries, church and corporate archives, national parks archives, historical societies, research data centers, and presidential libraries. Roughly a third of the respondents were from large academic institutions with more than 20,000 students, another third were from smaller academic institutions with less than 20,000 students, and the remaining third were from non-academic institutions." |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Fry, J., Lockyer S.., Oppenheim C.., Houghton J.W.., & Rasmussen B..
(2008). Identifying benefits arising from the curation and open sharing of research data produced within UK Higher Education and research institutes: exploring costs and benefits.
|
Investigated the benefits of the curation and open sharing of research data and the development of a methodology and model for estimating the benefits of data curation and sharing in UK higher education |
Performed a literature review to provide illustrative examples of reuse and the views of stakeholders in various disciplines towards data curation and sharing; conducted two case studies to identify and illustrate benefits and costs in these areas |
Measurement, Metrics, Wider |
|
Horton, L., & DCC
(2014). Overview of UK Institution RDM Policies.
|
Compared policies across UK institutions of higher education according to criteria adapted from DCC 2014 and Erway 2013 |
With the exception of one, all policies were found online. |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
|
Jerrome, N., & Breeze J.
(2009). Imperial College Data Audit Framework Implementation: Final Report.
|
To pilot the Digital Asset Framework Methodology; evaluate the scale and scope of research data; and make recommendations accordingly |
Used a modified form of the Digital Asset Framework in multiple departments: used the audit framework in a first phase of investigation, then conducted an online survey and follow up interviews. |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Jones, S.
(2009). A report on the range of policies required for and related to digital curation.
|
Compared policies of funders in the UK according to policy coverage, curation stipulations, and support provided |
Policies were obtained through desk research |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
|
Jones, S.
(2012). Developments in Research Funder Data Policy.
International Journal of Digital Curation. 7(1), 114 - 125. |
Reviewed developments in funders’ data management and sharing policies, and explored the extent to which they have affected practice |
Policies are believed to have been obtained through desk research |
Measurement, Targeted |
|
Kroll, S., & Forsman R.
(2010). A Slice of Research Life: Information Support for Research in the United States.
|
Investigated use of tools and services that support of all stages of the research life cycle in institutions of higher education in the U.S. |
Conducted a literature review and interviews with researchers, research assistants, graduate students, grant and other research administration specialists, and university administrators at four prominent US research institutions |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Lavoie, B.
(2003). The Incentives to Preserve Digital Materials: Roles, Scenarios, and Economic Decision-Making.
|
Based on three key economic decision-makers, identifies five organizational models, or scenarios, under which digital preservation activities might take place |
|
Metrics, Targeted |
|
McCain, K. W.
(1995). Mandating Sharing Journal Policies in the Natural Sciences.
Science Communication. 16(4), 403 - 431. |
Created an initial characterization of “research-related information” (RRI) types* and journal policies in the natural sciences and engineering
* McCain includes physical research products and craft knowledge in this category, as well as raw data on which results are based. |
Examined 850 recent journals in the physical and biological sciences and developed a three-part categorization of RRI policies and practices, including regarding sharing and deposit of data, and penalties for non-compliance. |
Measurement, Metrics, Targeted |
|
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 |
|
Piwowar, H. A., & Chapman W. W.
(2008). A review of journal policies for sharing research data.
Conference on Electronic Publishing. |
Investigated the state of data sharing policies among journals, features of journals associated with strength in data policy, and whether the strength of the policy affected extent of data sharing |
Identified journals that most often publish studies about gene expression microarray data and classified their policies for data sharing as none, weak, or strong; conducted univariate and linear multivariate regressions to understand the relationship between the strength of data sharing policy and journal impact factor, journal sub discipline, journal publisher (academic societies vs. commercial), and publishing model (open vs. closed access); measured through queries of PubMed how many recently published articles submitted data to the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database |
Measurement, Targeted |
|
Sturges, P., Bamkin M., Anders J. H. S., Hubbard B., Hussain A., & Heeley M.
(2015). Research data sharing: developing a stakeholder-driven model for journal policies.
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. |
Investigated the state of journal data sharing policies the views and practices of stakeholders to data sharing in order to outline a model journal research data sharing policy |
Reviewed the web pages of 371 journals including the most and least cited journals internationally and nationally and extracted categories of policy based on Piwowar and Chapman 2008b definitions of strong and weak policies; conducted 13 interviews with key stakeholders selected on the basis of their expertise in data sharing issues |
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 |
|
Wynholds, L., Fearon, Jr. D. S., Borgman C. L., & Traweek S.
(2011). When Use Cases Are Not Useful: Data Practices, Astronomy, and Digital Libraries.
383 - 386. |
Sought to understand issues in developing the institutions and practices needed to provide access to research data |
Conducted interviews of users of the SDSS dataset covering their type of research, participation in sky survey projects, data challenges, conceptions of data, data sources, data analysis tools, walk-throughs, end of project curation, and funding structures for data |
Measurement, 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 |
|
Finn, R., Wadhwa K., Taylor M. J., Sveinsdottir T., Noorman M., & Sondervan J.
(2014). Legal and ethical barriers and good practice solutions.
|
Identify legal and ethical issues relevant to open access to research data in Europe, identify examples that illuminate these issues, and identify potential solutions currently being used to address these issues |
Conducted a literature review, five disciplinary case studies, and a validation workshop |
Measurement, Wider |
|
Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Guercio M., Helin H., Herterich P., Kaur K., Lavasa A., et al.
(2014). Exemplar Good Governance Structures and Data Policies.
|
Investigated the level of preparedness for interoperable governance and data policies for different groups (memory institutions, universities and research institutions, funders and policy-makers) in Europe "and beyond" |
Performed desktop research and conducted an online survey |
Measurement, Targeted |
