federal funder mandates
DESCRIPTION
Federal Funder Mandates for Open Access Brown Bag UVa OA Week Presentation Library data management experts Sherry Lake and Andrea Denton will lead a discussion of current and upcoming mandates for making the results of federally-funded research open to the public. Bring your questions about NIH, NEH, NSF, DOE, and other funders.TRANSCRIPT
FEDERAL FUNDER MANDATES FOR OPEN ACCESS
Sherry Lake Data Management Consulting Group
Research Data Services University of Virginia Library
Andrea Horne Denton Research and Data Services Manager Claude Moore Health Sciences Library
Open Access Week October 22, 2014
Today We’ll Cover
• What brings us here: recent White House policy decisions
• What got us here: past efforts with manda=ng sharing of publica=ons and data
• What’s happening today • What’s next
Memo released February 22, 2013
To ensure that “…direct results of federally funded scien2fic research are made available… Federal agencies inves2ng in research and development (more than $100M in annual expenditures) must develop plans to support increased public access to the results of research …”
hBp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf
Increasing the Access to the Results of Federally Funded ScienAfic Research
Public Access Plan Components 1. Leverage exis=ng archives; partner w/ journals (where
appropriate) 2. Improve the public’s ability to locate and access digital
data 3. Approach to op=mize search, archival, and dissemina=on
features that encourage innova=on in accessibility & interoperability and ensure long-‐term stewardship
4. A plan to no=fy awardees & researchers of their obliga=ons
5. Strategy for measuring and enforcing compliance with the plan
Public Access to Scien=fic Publica=ons
… “the results of unclassified research that are published in peer-‐reviewed publica2ons …should be stored for long-‐term preserva7on and publicly accessible to search, retrieve, and analyze in ways that maximize the impact and accountability …” • 12-‐month post-‐publica=on embargo
• Ensure aZribu=on is maintained • No charge for access
Public Access to Scien=fic Data in Digital Formats
… “digitally formaBed scien2fic data resul2ng from unclassified research supported wholly or in part… should be stored and publicly accessible to search, retrieve, and analyze.”
• Protect confiden=ality & personal privacy • Ensure appropriate aZribu=on • No charge for access • Require Data Management Plans
Data Management Plan Requirements
Researchers to include: • Descrip=on for long-‐term preserva=on and access • Appropriate costs for data management and access
Funders ensure: • Evalua=on criteria for DMP • Mechanisms for compliance with DMP and policies
• Support of training related to data management
History of US Funding Agencies Requirements • The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-‐110 provides the federal administra=ve requirements for grants and agreements with ins=tu=ons of higher educa=on, hospitals and other non-‐profit organiza=ons.
• In1999, revised to provide public access under some circumstances to research data through the Freedom of Informa=on Act (FOIA).
• Funding agencies have implemented the OMB requirement in various ways.
1999
Harold Varmus, NIH Director Public comment on crea=on of a pre-‐print and publica=on archive of biomedical papers Controversial…
Federal mandates around publica=on sharing
Early 2000’s
Open access biomedical journals BioMedCentral founded in 2000
Increased publisher access to their online ar=cles
Federal mandates around publica=on sharing
2004
New NIH Policy proposed in Sept: NOT-‐OD-‐04-‐064 “Enhanced Public Access to NIH Research Informa=on”
– Elias Zerhouni, NIH Director (encouraged by Congress)
– Much discussion and concern
Federal mandates around publica=on sharing
2005
Policy enacted reques=ng deposit of eligible (NIH-‐funded) papers into PubMed Central
– Very low compliance (5%)
Federal mandates around publica=on sharing
2008
NIH Public Access Policy implements Division F Sec=on 217 of PL 111-‐8 (Omnibus Appropria=ons Act, 2009). Require vs. request
Federal mandates around publica=on sharing
2008 The Director of the Na2onal Ins2tutes of Health ("NIH") shall require in the current fiscal year and thereaUer that all inves2gators funded by the NIH submit or have submiBed for them to the Na2onal Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-‐reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publica2on, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months aUer the official date of publica2on: Provided, that the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.
Federal mandates around publica=on sharing
2013 Changes to Public Access Policy Compliance Efforts
– NIH will delay processing of an award if publica=ons arising from it are not in compliance with the NIH public access policy
– Compliance s=ll only around 86%
Federal mandates around publica=on sharing
NSF Data Archiving and Sharing Policy Prior to 2011
To advance science by encouraging data sharing among researchers:
• Data obtained with federal funds be accessible to the general public
• Grantees must develop and submit specific plans to share materials collected with NSF support, except where this is inappropriate or impossible
NSF Dissemina=on & Sharing of Research Results “Inves=gators are expected to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable =me, the primary data, samples, physical collec=ons and other suppor=ng materials created or gathered in the course of work under NSF grants. Grantees are expected to encourage and facilitate such sharing.”
NaAonal Science FoundaAon: Award & Administra2on Guide (AAG) Chapter VI.D.4
NSF Plan for Data Management & Sharing of the Products of Research
As of January 18, 2011:
“Proposals must include a supplementary document of no more than two pages labeled Data Management Plan. This supplement should describe how the proposal will conform to NSF policy on the disseminaAon and sharing of research results, and may include…...”
NSF: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Chapter II.C.2.j
Parts of a (Generic) NSF Data Management Plan I. Products of the Research: The types of data, samples, physical
collec=ons, sonware, curriculum materials, and other materials to be produced in the course of the project.
II. Data Formats: The standards to be used for data and metadata format and content (where exis=ng standards are absent or deemed inadequate, this should be documented along with any proposed solu=ons or remedies).
III. Access to Data and Data Sharing PracAces and Policies: Policies for access and sharing including provisions for appropriate protec=on of privacy, confiden=ality, security, intellectual property, or other rights or requirements.
IV. Policies for Re-‐Use, Re-‐DistribuAon, and ProducAon of DerivaAves. V. Archiving of Data: Plans for archiving data, samples, and other research
products, and for preserva=on of access to them.
NSF: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Chapter II.C.2.j
NIH Requirement
“Inves2gators seeking $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year should include a descrip7on of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data sharing is not possible. It is expected that the data sharing discussion will be provided primarily in the form of a brief paragraph…”
NIH Data Sharing Policy & Implementa=on Guidance hZp://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm#inc
NIH: What to Include (in your paragraph)
• Schedule for data sharing • Format of final dataset • Documenta=on to be provided • Analy=cal tools to be provided, if any • Need for data sharing agreement • Mode of data sharing
NIH Data Sharing Repositories
hZp://www.nlm.nih.gov/NIHbmic/nih_data_sharing_repositories.html
data accessible for reuse
Who’s Requiring Data Sharing or Data Management? Require a Data Management Plan (DMP)
Require Sharing of Results – per a Data Policy
• Na=onal Science Founda=on • Na=onal Ins=tutes of Health • Na=onal Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Research (NOAA) • Ins=tute of Museum and Library
Services (IMLS) • Na=onal Endowment of Humani=es
– office of digital humani=es (NEH)
• NASA • NEH – Preserva=on & Access • IES – Ins=tute of Educa=on
Sciences
This list is not inclusive
Memo released February 22, 2013
To ensure that “…direct results of federally funded scien2fic research are made available… Federal agencies inves2ng in research and development (more than $100M in annual expenditures) must develop plans to support increased public access to the results of research …”
hBp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf
Increasing the Access to the Results of Federally Funded ScienAfic Research
Update March 2014
• All required agencies have submiZed plans • OMB & OSTP reviewed and commented on plans • Agencies working to iden=fy infrastructure solu=ons to support their plans
• Interagency mee=ngs soon to discuss solu=ons and strategies
hBp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/OpenAccess_March-‐2014.pdf
Publishers’ Response
CHORUS Clearing House for the Open Research of the United States
“...gives the public access to publicly funded scien2fic findings via embargoed access to publishers’ final approved, edited, and formaBed papers.”
www.chorusaccess.org
• Partnerships with mul=ple publishers -‐ uses their exis=ng publica=on infrastructure
• Collects publica=on metadata and makes it available to the agencies to aid discovery
• Other research outputs (e.g. datasets) are not directly included
Higher Educa=on Response
• SHARE (SHared Access Research Ecosystem)
• Joint proposal (AAU, ARL, APLU) • Relates to core mission of academic libraries
– curate and provide access to scholarly outputs • Four components
– No=fica=on service – Registry – Discovery – Mining and Reuse
hZp://www.arl.org/focus-‐areas/shared-‐access-‐research-‐ecosystem-‐share
SHARE • Basic approach is to provide a network of ins=tu=onal repositories – Both publica=ons and data
• Funding – Sloan Founda=on (planning grant and now no=fica=on system)
– IMLS (no=fica=on system) • Currently working on the no=fica=on system – Track “research release events” = preprints, ar=cles, datasets, figures, etc
• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
• HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR)
• HHS Centers for Disease Control and Preven=on (CDC)
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
• Department of Defense (DoD) • Department of Energy (DOE) • Department of the Interior (DOI) • Department of Transporta=on (DOT) • Department of Educa=on (ED) • Environmental Protec=on Agency
(EPA) • HHS Food and Drug Administra=on
(FDA)
• Na=onal Aeronau=cs and Space
Administra=on (NASA) • HHS Na=onal Ins=tutes of Health (NIH) • Department of Commerce (DOC) • Na=onal Ins=tute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) • DOC Na=onal Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administra=on (NOAA) • Na=onal Science Founda=on (NSF) • Office of the Director of Na=onal
Intelligence (ODNI) • Smithsonian Ins=tu=on (SI) • United States Agency for Interna=onal
Development (USAID) • United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) • United States Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA)
The Agencies
Where are we today?
• All 23 agencies have submiZed dran plans (some 2nd drans)
• DOE was the first to publicize their plan – Implementa=on October 2014
• Public announcements once approved by OBM and OSTP – 14 in pipeline that have been approved
DOE Public Access Plan • Scien=fic Publica=ons
– Version of Record hosted by publisher – Access through DOE repository if no other public available version
– PAGES: portal and search interface for discoverability
• Scien=fic Data in Digital Formats – All research proposals include a DMP – DMPs will be evaluated – Encourage deposit in community repositories
Possible Issues
• Will we see clusters – number of agencies going with NIH and PubMed Central, some with CHORUS, some on their own
• Key issues; what is full reuse rights? -‐ in the context of data and text mining, key aspects of DMP
• Different policies, different requirements for each agency
Thoughts
• How would these requirements affect how you do your research?
• Would you ask for funds for data management?
• Would having other research accessible enhance your research? Benefit you?
More Links
• OMB: Circular A-‐110 www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a110
• NSF: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Chapter II.C.2.j www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#dmp
• CHORUS www.chorusaccess.org/
• SHARE www.arl.org/focus-‐areas/shared-‐access-‐research-‐ecosystem-‐share
• DOE Public Access Plan www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/08/f18/DOE_Public_Access%20Plan_FINAL.pdf