Research Data Access and Preservation Summit, 2015 Minneapolis, MN April 22-23, 2015 Laura Palumbo and Aletia Morgan

1. Navigating the Rocky Road to Research Data Acceptance
Laura Palumbo and Aletia Morgan, Rutgers University Libraries
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Environmental Scan of Data Repositories
The Task Force based their environmental scan on ACRL SPEC Kit 334, Research
Data Management Services. We developed 34 review criteria, divided into 5 categories:
Research Data Management Services (RDMS); Data Archiving Services; RDM Service
Staffing; Partnerships; and Research Data Policy. We scanned 35 data repositories,
shown below, using information available on their websites. Follow up conversations
were held with selected repository managers.
University of California at Berkeley
University of California at San Francisco
Columbia University
Cornell University - Digital Commons at IRL,
eCommons, Geospatial Information Repository
Dryad
University of Edinburgh
University of Guelph
Harvard University
University of Illinois at Chicago
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Indiana University
Inter-university Consortium for Political and
Social Research (ICPSR)
University of Iowa
John Hopkins University
University of Maryland
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
History of RUcore / RUresearch
2005-2010 RUcore, the Rutgers University Community Repository, was developed on a
Fedora infrastructure for the online preservation of NJ historical documents, as well as
images, maps and videos.
2009-2010 RUcore enhancements supported the ingest, preservation and sharing of
research data. A new service, branded RUresearch, began a pilot test with select
researchers.
2011-2012 The “RUresearch Data Team” began limited outreach to department faculty
with Data Management Plan assistance and to promote the deposit of research data into
RUcore.
2013 Questions arose about legal, copyright and curation details with research datasets.
RUcore digital collections were typically reviewed for quality, rights and ownership.
Researchers need to easily be able to determine whether that RUcore is suitable for their
data preservation and sharing requirements when they write their DMP.
2014 The Ruresearch Data Team limited services to DMP assistance and training on
data management. We have held back from soliciting datasets for RUcore deposit.
2015: How can RUL offer a responsive service for data preservation if we require a
meticulous copyright and privacy review before being referenced in a DMP? Who has
the authority to determine whether any data sets are suitable for preservation in RUcore?
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
Monash University
New York University
University of North Carolina
Odum Institute
Ohio State University
University of Oregon
Pennsylvania State University
University of Pittsburgh
Princeton University
Purdue University
Stanford University
Syracuse University- QDR
University of Texas
University of Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Proposed Data Team
RUL has many qualified personnel able to provide Data Management Services. We
proposed a data team consisting of two parts: a Core Data Team, responsible for
preliminary review of projects and who will also serve as project managers; and an
Expanded Data Team, who will act as Project Managers responsible for oversight and
creation of metadata for their data projects.
With the exception of the Research Data Manager, whose time would be 100%
attributable to Research Data Services, these personnel would be responsible for data
duties on a part-time basis. As RUL Research Data Services grow, additional staffing
and resources should be allocated to the Research Data Service. Job descriptions may
need to accommodate changes in time spent on data in the future.
Our proposed data team consists of:
Core Data Team Expanded Data Team, in addition to Core
Research Data Manager Data Librarians- 2
Chemistry & Physics Librarian/Science Data Specialist Digital Humanities Librarians- 2
Metadata Librarian for Continuing Resources, Health Sciences Librarians- 2
Scholarship, and Data Social Science Librarian
Digital Data Curator Physical Sciences Librarian, Newark
Digital Library Architect Life Sciences Librarian, Newark
Science Librarian, New Brunswick
Findings and Future Plans
 Information about repository storage capacity was limited. Restrictions to file
sizes and file types were more prevalent, with offerings ranging from 10 – 500
GB free of charge; and acceptance of most standard file types associated with
open source and widely used proprietary software was common.
• Funding models for storage and preservation of research data have not been
established for many repositories, although a few did provide information about
costs of services. Storage fees may be passed on to the researchers, but will not
become a significant source of income, due to the low cost of storage. If
Research Data Services were to become a core service, costs could be passed
on to the departments who benefit from them.
• Potential collaborators include the Office of Research and Economic
Development and the Institutional Review Boards, and also OIT for very large
data projects. The Research Offices and IRBs are eager for assistance in helping
to manage research data.
• Future development plans include an online self-deposit interface, which would
allow researchers to upload and describe their own data. Forms have been
developed which could be easily migrated to such an interface.
2014 Research Data Task Force Charge
• Review the administrative structure of other data repositories, and the evaluation
process for technical, legal, and confidential issues involving data deposit at other
institutions that might serve as models.
• Consult with appropriate major stakeholders to ensure that RUL workflows and
practices facilitate and do not conflict with policies and practices of those departments,
especially the office of the Vice President for Research, and Research and Sponsored
Programs.
• Establish principles for prioritization of data deposit projects based on RUL strategic
priorities. This should include a definition of various types of potential projects to ensure
that we have the resources both to host and to sustain projects, ie. federal grants, non-
grant funded research, etc.
• Develop a framework for evaluation for data deposit in RUcore that includes a
questionnaire or series of questionnaires to be used for each data deposit, covering
technical, legal, and confidential criteria (similar to the Digital Projects Evaluation
Process approved by Cabinet in March 2013).
• Develop a corresponding guide on evaluation criteria to provide clarity to subject
librarians.
• Recommend assignments for functional responsibility in the area of data deposit.
• Chart a workflow for the data deposit evaluation process.
• Determine the major stakeholders at Rutgers who need to be familiar with the RUL data
deposit process.
• Assess RUcore hardware and software infrastructure to support immediate, three year
and five year needs for data deposit.
RUL will be working with the General Counsel’s Office and the Office of
Research and Economic Development to finalize an institutional Research
Data Policy. That policy should:
• Clarify the ownership of data products generated through funded
research;
• Confirm the rights and obligations of any PI to act as data custodian and
adhere to funder and institutional requirements for data protection,
retention, preservation and sharing as appropriate;
• Preserve the privacy rights of research subjects;
• Maintain confidentiality to support potential commercialization of
research findings;
• Assert the institution’s right of access to research data products.
• Specify the terms and process by which research data may be destroyed or
removed from the institution.
Data Policies
Background Image: © Can Stock Photo Inc. / DeeBoldrick