A Review of the History, Advocacy and Efficacy of Data Management Plans | International Journal of Digital Curation

Abstract:  Data management plans (DMPs) have increasingly been encouraged as a key component of institutional and funding body policy. Although DMPs necessarily place administrative burden on researchers, proponents claim that DMPs have myriad benefits, including enhanced research data quality, increased rates of data sharing, and institutional planning and compliance benefits.

In this article, we explore the international history of DMPs and describe institutional and funding body DMP policy. We find that economic and societal benefits from presumed increased rates of data sharing was the original driver of mandating DMPs by funding bodies. Today, 86% of UK Research Councils and 63% of US funding bodies require submission of a DMP with funding applications. Given that no major Australian funding bodies require DMP submission, it is of note that 37% of Australian universities have taken the initiative to internally mandate DMPs. Institutions both within Australia and internationally frequently promote the professional benefits of DMP use, and endorse DMPs as ‘best practice’. We analyse one such typical DMP implementation at a major Australian institution, finding that DMPs have low levels of apparent translational value. Indeed, an extensive literature review suggests there is very limited published systematic evidence that DMP use has any tangible benefit for researchers, institutions or funding bodies.

We are therefore led to question why DMPs have become the go-to tool for research data professionals and advocates of good data practice. By delineating multiple use-cases and highlighting the need for DMPs to be fit for intended purpose, we question the view that a good DMP is necessarily that which encompasses the entire data lifecycle of a project. Finally, we summarise recent developments in the DMP landscape, and note a positive shift towards evidence-based research management through more researcher-centric, educative, and integrated DMP services.

160 Elsevier journals become Plan S aligned Transformative Journals | Plan S

“cOAlition S is pleased to announce that 160 journals published by Elsevier are now registered as Plan S aligned Transformative Journals. These titles, including many by Cell Press, have committed to transitioning to fully open access respecting the transformative journal criteria as described in the cOAlition S Guidance on the implementation of Plan S.

In their public statement, Elsevier reiterates their commitment “to ensure that any author who wants to publish open access in any one of our journals, across all disciplines of research, can do so while also meeting their funder’s requirements”.

You can consult this list of Elsevier’s Transformative Journals. The complete list of cOAlition S approved Transformative Journals is available here….”

2020 locked in shift to open access publishing, but Australia is lagging

In Australia the first challenge is to overcome the apathy about open access issues. The term “open access” has been too easy to ignore. Many consider it a low priority compared to achievements in research, obtaining grant funding, or university rankings glory.

How to ensure your journals are prepared for Plan S: A guide for publishers using Scholastica

“As Plan S officially gets underway, are you wondering what steps you may still need to take to prepare? Journal publishers that wish to comply with the initiative to make all research funded by cOAlition S members on or after the 1st of January 2021 fully and immediately open access have three routes to choose from: …”

DIGITAL.CSIC: monitor del Mandato de Acceso abierto del CSIC – Home

From Google’s English:  “The objective of this website is to periodically analyze the degree of compliance with the CSIC’s institutional open access mandate that came into effect on April 1, 2019. [CSIC = Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.]

This institutional mandate is part of the so-called “green route mandates” since it chooses the DIGITAL.CSIC repository as a channel for opening the research results of its research community.

The mandate affects a wide range of types of research results. On the one hand, the CSIC provides that the bibliographic references (metadata) of all peer-reviewed publications (articles, book chapters, books, conference communications) be made public and permanently in DIGITAL.CSIC from the moment of their publication. editorial acceptance and that their full texts are freely available on DIGITAL.CSIC as soon as publishers allow.

On the other hand, it provides that the bibliographic references (metadata) of the datasets associated with journal articles be made public permanently in DIGITAL.CSIC from the moment of the editorial acceptance of the associated articles and that such datasets are in open access in DIGITAL.CSIC as long as there are no legitimate reasons for confidentiality, intellectual property and / or security.

We inaugurate this website with the publication of the results of a first monitoring carried out by the Technical Office of DIGITAL.CSIC throughout the summer of 2020.

We hope that this website will be a useful and transparent instrument to monitor the degree of compliance with the institutional mandate at the CSIC institute level and as a basis for analytical studies of various kinds….”

Home | Chronos Hub

“ChronosHub supports authors to select suitable journals for their manuscript submissions by making funding policies and institutional agreements transparent. Through a collaborative approach, ChronosHub streamlines the workflow for publishers, funders and institutions for effective APC management, funding policy compliance and OA reporting….”

CHORUS now using GetFTR to support open research compliance for publicly funded research – CHORUS

“CHORUS (chorusaccess.org), the non-profit membership organization, is now using Get Full Text Research (GetFTR) technology to speed up and enhance their open research audit process.

CHORUS is applying the GetFTR API to further automate the gathering and checking of key data on journal articles and conference proceedings from multiple publishers, supporting the organization’s mission of advancing sustainable, cost-effective public access to content reporting on research funded by public organizations. For GetFTR, this means its technology is being used in increasingly innovative ways to support the discovery of research….

The GetFTR service is now being used by six publishers and eight integrating partners, including CHORUS, Dimensions, Figshare, Mendeley, Papers and the Researcher app.”

Unboxing the Journal Checker Tool | Plan S

“We are delighted that the cOAlition S funded Journal Checker Tool (JCT) is released today. Although it is in open testing mode, this is a big milestone for us: we’re releasing the tool now to give you, the Plan S community, an opportunity to road test it. 

The JCT is designed to support all researchers funded by a cOAlition S member in finding Plan S compliant “routes” through which to publish their research articles open access. …

The Journal Checker Tool (JCT) allows a researcher to enter the name of their funder, the institution they are affiliated with, and the journal to which they plan to submit an article. The tool then checks if this combination of funder, institution, and journal offers any route to compliance with Plan S. It simultaneously checks 4 options:


whether the journal is fully open access, in line with Plan S, 
whether it is included within a transformative agreement subscribed to by that particular institution, 
whether it is a transformative journal; or 
whether self-archiving is an available option, either via the publishers self-archiving policy or via the cOAlition S Rights Retention Strategy (RRS).  …

Where there are multiple routes to compliance available, it is for the researcher to choose which route to proceed by, although the JCT does visualise cOAlition S’s preference for routes that enable the Version of Record to be made open access….

The data used in the JCT calculation is large and distributed across the global network. The JCT relies upon data from the Directory of Open Access Journals, Shareyourpaper.org Permissions, the ESAC Transformative Agreement Registry, Crossref and the Research Organization Registry Community (ROR)



“DataSeer scans scientific texts for sentences describing data collection, then gives best-practice advice for sharing that type of data.

Researchers can use DataSeer to ensure that their data sharing is complete and follows best practice.

Funders, journals, and institutions can use DataSeer to find all of the data associated with a corpus of articles, or use it to promote compliance with their data sharing policies….”