Interest Group Title: Active Data Management Plans
Proposers: David Giaretta, Helen Glaves, David Baker
Date Received by TAB: Passed to TAB after conclusion of Community Review on 29 April 2015
Date Review Completed: 8 June (AT). Merged review created 11 June.
TAB Reviewers: Andrew Treloar, Peter Wittenburg
Summary:
Third revision is here; TAB reviewers have accepted this version and have recommended it go to Council as of Feb 21. [ksf]
TAB recommends that this group redo the Charter to (i) use the recommended template (https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/vocabulary-services-interest-group/cas... is a good example of what is required) and (ii) provide the information necessary on which to make a decision - the current text does not do this. In addition, please see the specific comments below.
Revised charter posted on July 21 at https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/active-data-management-plans/case-stat... [ksf]
Focus and Fit:
(Are the Interest Group objectives aligned with the RDA mission ? Is the scope too large for effective progress, too small for an RDA effort, or not appropriate for the RDA? Overall, is this a worthwhile effort for the RDA to take on? Is this an effort that adds value over and above what is currently being done within the community?)
It is difficult to make an adequate assessment of this based on the information provided. The question of data management per se is a precondition to reducing the barriers to data interoperability and re-use. That is, having the data managed is a necessary but not sufficient condition. It is also the case that Data *Management* Plans alone are probably not going to be enough - the Mission of RDA requires Data Sharing Plans (which may well involve a management element). In this respect, the comment of one of the community reviewers about the relationship with Data Lifecycles is particularly apposite.
In addition, there is anecdotal evidence that many researchers have problems with understanding DMPs and making useful statements. Therefore they see them as overhead at the beginning of the project knowing that things will change, and thus that whatever they write is without consequences. On the other hand, engaging with a DMP can raise awareness about data issues. Given these issues we first need to make DMPs more useful and practical. The idea of having active DMPs would add in principle a necessary dimension to cope with the changes that will occur. But it may also create even more unproductive (or perceived unproductive) overhead. Therefore some work is required first to make DMPs understandable, useful and productive, before starting a new enterprise based on the current concept of DMPs.
Capacity:
(Does the initial membership list include sufficient expertise, and disciplinary and international representation? Are the people involved in the Interest Group sufficient to make tangible progress? What individuals or organizations are missing?)
It is difficult to make an adequate assessment of this based on the information provided. The proposers for the group certainly have the right capacity, but as no organisations are listed it is not possible to assess whether these are appropriate. The proposers should demonstrate that there is a mix of people on board that have broad experience with DMPs from various perspectives. The revised document needs to be explicit about who is contributing. In addition, the group should ensure that researchers who will need to make use of the resulting output should be part of the work, whether via interivews or direct engagement or some other approach.
Impact and Engagement:
(Is it likely that the Interest Group will engage the intended community? Is there evidence that the research community wants this? Will the outcome(s) of the Interest Group foster data sharing and/or exchange?)
It is not clear that the outputs of this IG (or the outputs of WGs that might spin out of it) will on their own reduce barriers to data interoperability. The link between this IG and Mission of RDA needs to be made explicit, and not assumed. Given the issues with researcher engagement it is not clear whether an extension of the current Data Management concept will create a greater willingness to share data.
Recommendation:
Charter is Sufficient __; Charter Requires Revision X Charter is Rejected __
Comments:
<if conditional, state revisions … e.g., TAB recommends that the IG charter be conditionally approved subject to the following change to the IG charter:>
Author: Peter Wittenburg
Date: 08 May, 2015
Dear all,
I had a look at ADMP texts - also at the Bof notes and I widely share Andrew's concerns. Let me add that at our 2nd Science Workshop several of these leading researchers clearly expressed that they do not find DMPs very intuitive to fill in etc. We had an explicit discussion about this with an urgent request to RDA to help. And after discussions with funders some of us created two documents which you can find here and are may be of interest to you. The second is about the difficulties with DMPs.
http://hdl.handle.net/11304/1aab3df4-f3ce-11e4-ac7e-860aa0063d1f
http://hdl.handle.net/11304/ea286e5a-f3d1-11e4-ac7e-860aa0063d1f
Author: Andrew Treloar
Date: 11 Jun, 2015
The updated text for the review should now include Peter's comments in a way that allows us to go back to the group. You can see the earlier text by clicking on the Revisions button.
Author: Andrew Treloar
Date: 03 Aug, 2015
I've now looked at the revised text of the Charter posted at ADMP-IG-Case_v2.docx
This text now has two sections titled Relationship to other RDA interest- and working-groups with (confusingly) overlapping but different groups listed. That is, this isn't just a straight duplication. I'd like to see this clarified before we accept (I realise this means going back to them another time, but it isn't clear at the moment what groups they plan to work with).
With respect to Peter's comments via email, I agree that we should strongly encourage the group to review existing practices (and funder requirements!) to be clear whether this group is tackling something that is needed or is just pushing a particular agenda.
With respect to one of the comments in the public review discussion, I like the idea that the group should be asked to think about the data lifecycle aspects of their work. I've never been that excited about Active Data Management Plans as a group title (although I can see that the group might feel strongly about this). How about Lifecycle Data Management Plans as an alternative? Perhaps this could be suggested to them?
Author: Peter Wittenburg
Date: 04 Aug, 2015
I agree with Andrew's points - just to add that my major concern is that we are risking to just create additional burocracy for the researchers if there is no reflection of the current situation with DMPs. When we listened to the leading scientists in Europe the messages were simply:
So I would like to encourage our ADMP colleagues to look into documents that are around on DMP practices and perhaps do own inquiries to assess current practices.
Peter