Approaches to Data Sharing: An Analysis of NSF Data Management Plans from a Large Research University

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Sharing digital research data is increasingly common, propelled by funding requirements, journal publishers, local campus policies, or community-driven expectations of more collaborative and interdisciplinary research environments. However, it is not well understood how researchers are addressing these expectations and whether they are transitioning from individualized practices to more thoughtful and potentially public approaches to data sharing that will enable reuse of their data. METHODS The University of Minnesota Libraries conducted a local opt-in study of data management plans (DMPs) included in funded National Science Foundation (NSF) grant proposals from January 2011 through June 2014. In order to understand the current data management and sharing practices of campus researchers, we solicited, coded, and analyzed 182 DMPs, accounting for 41% of the total number of plans available. RESULTS DMPs from seven colleges and academic units were included. The College of Science of Engineering accounted for 70% of the plans in our review. While 96% of DMPs mentioned data sharing, we found a variety of approaches for how PIs shared their data, where data was shared, the intended audiences for sharing, and practices for ensuring long-term reuse. CONCLUSION DMPs are useful tools to investigate researchers' current plans and philosophies for how research outputs might be shared. Plans and strategies for data sharing are inconsistent across this sample, and researchers need to better understand what kind of sharing constitutes public access. More intervention is needed to ensure that researchers implement the sharing provisions in their plans to the fullest extent possible. These findings will help academic libraries develop practical, targeted data services for researchers that aim to increase the impact of institutional research.

An Analysis of Federal Policy on Public Access to Scientific Research Data

“…Discussions such as these occur throughout the responses. While these are widely considered to be a positive step forward and have opened up the possibility of gaining deeper understanding of researcher behavior (Rolando et al, 2015), they have also been identified as inconsistent and not necessarily representative of any widespread change in researcher behavior around data (Bishoff and Johnston, 2015;Parham et al, 2016;Parham and Doty, 2012). While the impact of DMPs remains uncertain, they still function as a valuable tool to raise awareness about data management issues and will continue to evolve, reflecting changing understandings across the research community.…”

“…Berman & Cerf, 2013;Corneliussen, 2016;Franceschi-Bicchierai, 2013;Murphy, 2016;Van Noorden, 2013), but some cite the Holdren memo as inspiration or evidence of the importance of research data. In particular, the memo stimulated the examination of data sharing practices and open access policies (Bishoff and Johnston, 2015;Van Tuyl and Whitmire, 2016). Current published literature, however, has not presented an analysis and comparison of what the plans indicate the agencies will do to increase access to scientific data and literature.…”

Research Data Management Among Life Sciences Faculty: Implications for Library Service

“…While compliance is, at least in theory, relatively straightforward when considering manuscripts, the new and ill-defined standards associated with best data practices "place a burden on researchers to manage, preserve, and share digital data" (Buys & Shaw, 2015, p. 3). Many researchers lack the awareness, time, confidence, or skills (and in some cases the drive) to adequately manage their data, making true compliance unlikely (Bishoff & Johnston, 2015;Diekema et al, 2014).…”

“…Librarians at the University of Minnesota used a novel approach to evaluation by reviewing data management plans (DMP) submitted with NSF grant applications, and found variation in how researchers approach data sharing (Bishoff & Johnston, 2015). Herold (2015), also at the University of Minnesota, used recent faculty papers from three branches of the life sciences to track data accessibility, uncovering differences in rates and methods of data sharing.…”

“…However, inconsistencies extend further than a definition of terms. Previous studies evidence wide variation in practices surrounding research data: differences in how data are collected, stored, and shared (Bishoff & Johnston, 2015;Kennan & Markauskaite, 2015;Tenopir et al, 2011Tenopir et al, , 2015; among disciplines, institutions, departments, and individuals (Akers & Doty, 2013;Buys & Shaw, 2015;Weller & Monroe-Gulick, 2014); and in researchers' experience, knowledge, and perceptions (Akers & Doty, 2012;Jahnke & Asher, 2012;Scaramozzino, Ramírez, & McGaughey, 2012). When viewed collectively, it is evident that librarians must recognize and address those needs that are relevant to their specific users.…”