ARL Comments on Draft NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing – Association of Research Libraries

“On November 6, 2019, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a request for public comments on a DRAFT NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing and supplemental DRAFT guidance. NIH has a long history of promoting public access to the research it funds, including policies for sharing scientific data generated from large awards, genomic data, and data from clinical trials.

The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) welcomes the opportunity to comment on these new draft policies, expanding the guidance on data sharing to all extramural awards, contracts, intramural research projects, and other funding agreements. ARL offers these comments in consultation with member representatives, experts in the data librarian community, and through consultation with a wider group of institutional stakeholders who recently met to draft implementation guidelines for effective data practices recommended by the US National Science Foundation….”

The Beijing Declaration on Research Data

Grand challenges related to the environment, human health, and sustainability confront science and society. Understanding and mitigating these challenges in a rapidly changing environment require data[1] to be FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and as open as possible on a global basis. Scientific discovery must not be impeded unnecessarily by fragmented and closed systems, and the stewardship of research data should avoid defaulting to the traditional, proprietary approach of scholarly publishing. Therefore, the adoption of new policies and principles, coordinated and implemented globally, is necessary for research data and the associated infrastructures, tools, services, and practices. The time to act on the basis of solid policies for research data is now.

The Beijing Declaration on Research Data

Grand challenges related to the environment, human health, and sustainability confront science and society. Understanding and mitigating these challenges in a rapidly changing environment require data[1] to be FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) and as open as possible on a global basis. Scientific discovery must not be impeded unnecessarily by fragmented and closed systems, and the stewardship of research data should avoid defaulting to the traditional, proprietary approach of scholarly publishing. Therefore, the adoption of new policies and principles, coordinated and implemented globally, is necessary for research data and the associated infrastructures, tools, services, and practices. The time to act on the basis of solid policies for research data is now.

NIH to Host Informational Webinar on the Draft NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing and Supplemental Draft Guidance on Dec. 16 | Data Science at NIH

“NIH will be hosting an informational public webinar on the Draft NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing and Supplemental Draft Guidance on Monday, Dec. 16, 2019, from 12:30 – 2 p.m. ET. The purpose of this webinar is to provide information on the draft policy and answer any clarifying questions about the public comment process. Public comments will not be accepted via the webinar but must instead be sent through the link provided below….”

NIH to Host Informational Webinar on the Draft NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing and Supplemental Draft Guidance

“NIH will be hosting an informational public webinar on the Draft NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing and supplemental draft guidance on Monday, December 16, 2019 from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. ET. The purpose of this webinar is to provide information on the draft policy and answer any clarifying questions about the public comment process. Public comments will NOT be accepted via the webinar but must instead be sent through the comment form. Comments on the draft Policy and draft supplemental guidance can be submitted here https://osp.od.nih.gov/draft-data-sharing-and-management/ electronically through Friday, January 10, 2020….”

U.S. GAO – FEDERAL RESEARCH: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Public Access to Research Results

“Public access to the results of federally funded research can accelerate scientific breakthroughs. In 2013, certain federal agencies were directed to create plans for increasing access to publications and data they funded.

The 19 agencies we reviewed made progress, but some have not fully implemented their plans. For example:

7 agencies have not taken steps to make data findable, such as creating a single web access point

4 don’t require all researchers to submit a plan to provide access to data

11 don’t fully ensure that researchers comply with access requirements

We made 37 recommendations to 16 agencies to address these and other issues….”

Data sharing from clinical trials: lessons from the YODA Project – STAT

“This week, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine are convening the workshop “Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Challenges and a Way Forward” just shy of five years after the Institute of Medicine released its seminal report, “Sharing Clinical Trial Data: Maximizing Benefits, Minimizing Risk.”

During this time, the scientific culture regarding data sharing has shifted. Just last week, the National Institutes of Health requested public comments on its draft “Policy for Data Management and Sharing.” In 2018, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors began requiring data-sharing plans for clinical trials as a condition for publication in member journals. And platforms such as ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, Project Data Sphere, and BioLINCC have emerged or grown. These platforms use a variety of different governance structures and models for data access, developed both with and without the support of industry or government….

The Yale Open Data Access (YODA) Project, which two of us (J.S.R. and H.M.K.) co-direct, launched in 2011 and formed a partnership with Johnson & Johnson in 2014. This five-year partnership offers an opportunity to reflect on some of the questions about sharing clinical trial data that may inform ongoing and future efforts….”

“Research Data Management Among Life Sciences Faculty” by Kelly A. Johnson and Vicky Steeves

Abstract:  Objective: This paper aims to inform on opportunities for librarians to assist faculty with research data management by examining practices and attitudes among life sciences faculty at a tier one research university.

Methods: The authors issued a survey to estimate actual and perceived research data management needs of New York University (NYU) life sciences faculty in order to understand how the library could best contribute to the research life cycle.

Results: Survey responses indicate that over half of the respondents were aware of publisher and funder mandates, and most are willing to share their data, but many indicated they do not utilize data repositories. Respondents were largely unaware of data services available through the library, but the majority were open to considering such services. Survey results largely mimic those of similar studies, in that storing data (and the subsequent ability to share it) is the most easily recognized barrier to sound data management practices.

Conclusions: At NYU, as with other institutions, the library is not immediately recognized as a valuable partner in managing research output. This study suggests that faculty are largely unaware of, but are open to, existent library services, indicating that immediate outreach efforts should be aimed at promoting them.

“Research Data Management Among Life Sciences Faculty” by Kelly A. Johnson and Vicky Steeves

Abstract:  Objective: This paper aims to inform on opportunities for librarians to assist faculty with research data management by examining practices and attitudes among life sciences faculty at a tier one research university.

Methods: The authors issued a survey to estimate actual and perceived research data management needs of New York University (NYU) life sciences faculty in order to understand how the library could best contribute to the research life cycle.

Results: Survey responses indicate that over half of the respondents were aware of publisher and funder mandates, and most are willing to share their data, but many indicated they do not utilize data repositories. Respondents were largely unaware of data services available through the library, but the majority were open to considering such services. Survey results largely mimic those of similar studies, in that storing data (and the subsequent ability to share it) is the most easily recognized barrier to sound data management practices.

Conclusions: At NYU, as with other institutions, the library is not immediately recognized as a valuable partner in managing research output. This study suggests that faculty are largely unaware of, but are open to, existent library services, indicating that immediate outreach efforts should be aimed at promoting them.