Results of the Horizon 2020 DMP template survey

Results of the Horizon 2020
DMP template survey
Ellen Leenarts
DANS & OpenAIRE
OpenAIRE & FAIR Data Expert Group webinar, 11th January 2018,
https://www.openaire.eu/events/eventdetail/529
@dansknaw
@openaire_eu
Sarah Jones
DCC, OpenAIRE & FAIR
Data Expert Group
@sjDCC
@digitalcuration
#FAIRdata

Background to the survey
• Conducted by OpenAIRE & FAIR Data Expert Group between May-July 2017
• Survey intended to help iterate and improve EC approach to DMPs
• Asked about attitudes to DMPs and specifics on H2020 template and support needed
• Circulated by EUDAT, FOSTER & other projects, LIBER, the RDA, European
Commission project officers, YEAR network and EURODOC
• Received 289 responses
• Around 50% were researchers and 60% were (also) research support
OpenAIRE & FAIR Data Expert Group webinar, 11th January 2018, https://www.openaire.eu/events/eventdetail/529 2

Infographic
3
• Results at a glance
• Available via:
https://zenodo.org/record/1120245

Overall positive response to DMPs [Q3]
"Both positive and negative: it helped us reflect on potential issues and decide
how to address these as a project, and also it was frustrating and felt like an
administrative exercise that was very long and cumbersome; too specific in
some areas and too vague / unclear in others."
“Initially it looks as an administrative exercise,
but I find it very useful since, although I have an
idea of what data I will collect in my project, this
makes me reflect on the best format to present
them, where to make them available, etc.”

Good understanding of FAIR, but…
“We understand the basic principle of FAIR, but the terminology is often difficult
to grasp immediately. Things could be explained better in plain language”
“The term interoperable is quite confusing sometimes and mixed with re-use.”
“I could do with help understanding the section on Making data interoperable
as I don't understand a number of the terms and concepts.”
Table from Q4, comments from Q5
To what extent do the following statements represent your experience of using the H2020 template?
Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree
I don’t understand what FAIR means 10% 17 16% 28 74% 125

Language is a barrier [Q5]
Respondents mentioned
40 terms which were
unclear to them
“Researchers are not familiar with the following terms/phrases : Metadata, standards for
metadata/data, ontologies, mapping with ontologies, interoperability, ... . All the ICT jargon”
“With the help from Swedish National Data Service we could clarify many questions. Without
this help we would not be able to finish the DMP.”

Template structure is problematic [Q6 & 19]
“There is too much overlap between F, A, I, and R.
We have stopped talking about FAIR and removed
it from our replacement H2020 DMP template.”
“Questions about the Metadata appear under 2.1,
2.2 and 2.3”
“Having to explain how to make data findable
before talking of the repositories chosen to make
data open is difficult and forces you to anticipate
things to be detailed later.”
• Repetition
• Ordering not logical
• Too many precise questions
• Need more dropdown options
and examples

User priorities for support [Q11]

Our recommendations
1. Clarify EC requirements for DMPs
2. Revise the DMP template structure
3. Simplify the DMP content and terminology
4. Provide discipline-specific guidelines and example answers
5. Encourage the publishing of DMPs and collate examples
6. Facilitate the inclusion of RDM costs in grant applications
7. Improve DMP review practices and share guidelines

Experience with DMP template [Q4]

Guidance that could be improved [Q7]
• More subject- or field-
specific
• Less complicated,
technical or less vague,
generic
• Inclusion of examples
• DMPs
• Repositories
• Interoperability
• Cost estimation

Missing topics [Q8]
• Discipline-specific approach
• Access
• Data quality assurance
• Metadata and documentation
• Software
• Reproducibility
• Costs
• Storage
• Legal issues
• The format of the template
“I think this would probably
vary according to individual
projects. It is possible that a
'one-size-fits-all' approach is
not practical.”

Issues encountered [Q9]
“Processes around the assessment of the
content are unclear to me.”
“As stated before, clarification of what is
an eligible cost regarding RDM is urgently
needed, for researchers and also for the
RDM support teams at the universities.”

Suggestions [Q10]
“Which parts should be set up
already in the beginning and what
can be added later? Would be
helpful to indicate "needed" and
"nice to have" for the starting point
or for different stages.”

DMP publishing [Q12]
• Half of free text answers: ”Yes, if…”
• Depending on confidentiality of the
information in the DMP
• First reach a level of confidence in
publishing DMPs
• The project has finished
• No, because it might bring project
partners in danger

Suggestions to EC [Q14]
“Talk to researchers and ask them
whether the DMP requirements
are realistic. Involve researchers
when developing disciplinary
guidance.”
“Focus on technical exchange
format for these plans so they can
be shared between tools (i.e.
make the plans themselves FAIR)”

Providing feedback [Q15-16]
“In some cases I had to look together with researchers into their publications or WPs
description of a project in order to help them identify the type of data they are collecting in
order to include them in the DMP. This exercise also helped them to identify which data might
have a re-use potential and which ones were submitted to special policies/ regulations.”

Time to review H2020 DMPs [Q18]
27% said the H2020 process took much longer and was more complicated*
*based on 45 responses

19
Recommendations….
Image CC-BY-NC by Thomas Hawk
https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/15634502093

1. Clarify EC requirements for DMPs
• Collate all data-related and DMP guidelines in a single document
• Provide public announcements and alerts to key groups when guidelines change
• Be more explicit about when a DMP is and isn’t required
• Clarify exactly what set of questions should be answered in DMPs
• Provide a docx or rtf template to use, as well as supporting online tools
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/
h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf

2. Revise the DMP template structure
• Regroup questions according to key activities and order in a more logical fashion
• Identify which questions should be answered when
• Where possible, indicate secondary questions that can be skipped if not relevant
• Include more yes/no questions, dropdown options or API integrations
• Identify questions that will support evaluation and formulate them in a structured
way to enable automated compliance checks in future

3. Simplify DMP content & terminology
• Simplify the terminology used where possible
• Provide a glossary of terms to assist researchers
• Offer example answers, particularly for questions with more technical terms
• Seek to shorten the number of questions being asked
• Provide some hierarchy or routing to the structuring of the questions

4. Discipline guidelines & example answers
• Provide discipline-specific guidelines
• Offer example answers based on good practice in each domain
• Give dropdown options or ranges pertinent to each field
We suggest that the EC builds on existing work and
collaborates with domain data centres and discipline-
specific groups such as learned societies

5. Publish DMPs and collate examples
• Encourage projects to publish their DMPs
• Offer a DMP registry service
• Provide a library of ‘approved’ DMPs representing
the range of funded research
Build on projects’ existing willingness to publish and
work with external reviewers, e-Infrastructure projects
and other groups e.g. LIBER to help approve examples

6. Include RDM costs in grant applications
• Raise a few RDM questions / alerts at the grant proposal stage
• Provide worked examples that demonstrate what to include as RDM costs and how
• Brief reviewers on eligible and expected costs
Clarification of what is an eligible cost regarding RDM is urgently needed, for researchers
and also for the RDM support teams at the universities. For example:
• If a project needs to buy extra storage from the own institution, is that cost eligible?
Or only external storage systems are eligible?
• Database curators/admins could be financed by EC projects?
• Are licenses for Electronic lab Notebooks (ELNs) for experimental data documentation
eligible costs?
• Are there differences in RDM eligible costs between consortium projects and IF or
ERC, for example? If there are differences, it would be best if the EC provide examples
for all the type of calls.

7. Explain DMP review practices
• Endorse the internal assessment framework to ensure consistent use
• Continue to provide internal training on reviewing DMPs in collaboration with
FOSTER Plus and other relevant groups
• Develop / circulate review guidelines and FAQs on practical implementation
• Make a public statement on how DMPs are being reviewed, ideally releasing the
assessment framework at the same time

Activities that may help
• Science Europe Domain Data Protocols (DDPs)
• Collections of example DMPs e.g. DCC, RIOjournal, Zenodo, OpenAIRE
• Existing costs guides e.g. LCRDM resource & Wellcome guidance
• Integrating registries into tools like DMPonline
• RDA Working Group on Common standards for DMPs
• Further support from FAIR Data EG, OpenAIRE and others

What can you do?
• Share your DMP!
– Publish in RIO - https://riojournal.com
– Deposit in Zenodo - https://zenodo.org
– Add to DCC list - www.dcc.ac.uk/share-DMPs
• Continue to provide feedback on the pilot and what works for you (or not!)
• Collaboration across research and support communities to develop your approach
• Work with wider initiatives e.g. NOADs and international groups like RDA

Conclusions
Although there are several recommendations to the EC, feedback was positive
• Many found the process of developing a DMP a positive experience
• Over half agree that the template was very useful
• 19 of 68 stated they encountered no issues in following the EC guidelines
The EC has already iterated its open data guidelines and actively seeks input to
inform future policy developments.
Further updates are likely. The FAIR Data EG is to advise on future revisions of the
DMP template, including the development of additional discipline specific guidance

Where to find out more
All the survey materials are on Zenodo
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.1120245
https://zenodo.org/record/1120245
• Survey report
• Raw data
• Analysed dataset
• Infographic
Acknowledgments:
Marjan Grootveld, DANS
Emilie Hermans, UGent
Eliane Fankhauser, DANS

Results of the Horizon 2020 DMP template survey

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (15)

Ähnlich wie Results of the Horizon 2020 DMP template survey

Ähnlich wie Results of the Horizon 2020 DMP template survey (20)

Mehr von Sarah Jones

Mehr von Sarah Jones (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Results of the Horizon 2020 DMP template survey