Play the webinar
Play the webinar
Register for the webinar
May 16, 2022
Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Matt Cannon, Annie Hill
Come along to hear Figshare Founder and CEO, Mark Hahnel, in conversation with Public Library of Science’s (PLOS) Director of Open Research Solutions Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Taylor & Francis’ Head of Open Research Matt Cannon, and APA Journals’ Editorial Director Annie Hill on all things data availability policies, best practices for making data easily findable and reusable, and services for authors to help adhere to these policies. There will be time to ask questions on how to implement similar strategies at your organization, the challenges and opportunities each organization faced when implementing their data availability policies, and more.
Please note that the transcript was generated with software and may not be entirely correct.
Everyone, welcome to today's webinar which is a fireside chat on publisher data availability policies.
My name is Megan Hardeman and the Product Marketing Manager at Figshare. Before I hand it over to my colleague Mark to introduce our panelists and to sort of set the scene for the conversation today. I just wanted to share a few pieces of information for you and so the first is that this webinar is being recorded. And we will share the recording around with all the attendees and all the registrants afterwards.
And, and the second is if you have any questions rather than going through the Q and A at the end of the webinar and we're going to try and answer your questions throughout. So if there is a particular question you have at certain point in the conversation, please feel free to put it in the chat. There should be a chat functionality and GoToWebinar.
Please put it there and we will try and ask them interspersed throughout the conversation. But we'll save some time at the end in case something pops into your head that you want to ask.
You still have a chance to have your question answered, and I think that's in my head over to you.
Yeah, perfect, thank you very much Megan. So my name is Mark Hahnel, Attempting to moderate, it's a, it's a slightly different format So hopefully you hear less for me and more from our guest speakers today. Just a little bit on why I think it's a, it's a good topic of conversation in a timely topic of conversation. So my name is Mark Hahnel, founder and CEO Figshare.
We do the state of open data every year, report Every year, we try and find out what is happening for researchers and understanding how they should be making data available.
And so, post covert, obviously, there's a big interest in more transparency around research, we also see things like the National Institutes of Health are coming around to say, as of January 2023, if we fund you when you publish your papers, you need to make the data openly available.
And so, it seems like there's another crest of a wave, but I think the other thing we see in the State of Open Data is, consistently, the researchers say, you know, if it's about dissemination of research, we go to the publishers for help.
And the publishers, obviously, have been driving a lot of this focus for a long time now. Over a third of researchers say they look to the publishers for help.
So hopefully, we can hear from some of our guest speakers today about where they think it's going, why they thought it's important, and the role that publishers have played.
So just to introduce our panel today, oh, We have Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, who is the director of Open Research solutions at the Public Library of Science Plus, and was previously the head of data publishing at Spring in Nature, where he developed and implemented research, data policies and services. We have Annie Hill, who is the Editorial Director of the of Journal Publishing at the American Psychological Association. And she is responsible for overseeing the Strategic Direction, editorial policy and business operations, the APA.
And we have Matt Cannon, who is the Head of Open Research for Taylor and Francis Journals in the UK, where he implements policies in a range of open research areas, including sharing of data, code, methods, and software, registered reports, pre-prints, and open peer review. So as you can see, we have a stellar lineup.
Nobody knows more about this space than the panel that we have.
So, we're going to kick off by just setting the scene and hearing a little bit about what is going on at the different publishes that we have represented today.
So we're going to start with and then to Annie and then to Matt with just a couple of minutes about what's happening with data availability policies and your publications, implores, what motivated the organization to do it, and what do you think is the importance of doing it?
Over to you.
Thanks Mark, thanks Fixture for hosting this and hello internet. So in terms of.
Plus is approach and what motivated it, I mean, plus has been around for more than 20 years, but it is a relatively young publisher. And to be clear, we've always had research data policies across our journals. We now published 12 of them, by the way. So relatively small number of journals, Of course, one of them is quite large, general, So, we've always had policies that intend to ensure the research, data and materials that support published papers are available to support research. In 20 14, we updated our policy to make it clear and easy to understand where and how you can get hold of that data that support the articles that we publish.
We wanted to make it easier to access data underlying publications and increase the value of the published research and in doing that, and to accelerate open science. Ultimately.
The particular tool, if you like that we introduced in 20 14 with the updated the policy, was to request also provide a consistent statement of data availability in the published articles.
While we weren't the first publisher to request those statements, we were probably among the first to do so in a mandatory fashion and to do it across a really broad range of disciplines that are published in plos Journals in particular plus one.
In terms of what's, what's still motivates us now, what motivated us then, I mean, research data sharing, continues to be a really important issue. Not just for publishers, but for funders, researchers, themselves, and institutions, and is one of several important areas of enabling open science.
So we continue to look at our policies, and workflows, and tools, and how we can make to sharing more effective, more rewarding and more efficient. You know, we know more about researchers' needs in this space as well. We know that more than half of researchers do need to re-use data in their own research. Supporting data availability also helps researchers were a lot of researchers, do their jobs, but also helps funders and society derive more benefit from the work that they're funding.
But, there's still lots of disciplinary differences to consider, and while past has had a strong policies, so, some time, we certainly, don't view data policy is the job done. I think it's just that we have different problems, to solve, different problems to focus on as well. So, I think, for example, perhaps get into this later in the discussion. We're focusing more, I suppose, on how we increase quality of data sharing and best practice, rather than simply data sharing.
But I'll, I'll stop there and hand over, someone else to to give them. Thanks, and that's, that's a great scene setting. And I remember the policy in 2014.
You know, and then I remember the blog post, having revisions because of the pushback from oath is thinking more stuff to do, and it was a very strong statement at the time, but it's crazy to think that was eight years ago. So, yeah, we'll come back to some of those points in a moment. But, Annie, if same question to you.
Could you tell us a little bit about, um, the policies at APA, how they came about, and your own personal Thoughts?
Yeah, sure. So, one relevant bit of context, here, is that APA is both a society and a publisher.
We published 89 journals, 30 of which are APA Own Titles and Core Areas of Psychology.
So, we really build consensus for policies and initiatives via governance committees and with our editors and all of our constituents.
But in general, our approach is to improve equity through open science. And key, of course, to those open science efforts, are accessible tools for transparency.
So when we think about Open science as a publisher, we think about its benefits for researchers, funders, and the public and we also look at real or perceived challenges like time, money, and increased scrutiny.
All of which, of course, disproportionately affect members of historically excluded groups.
So we've really tried to focus on how we can make it easier to engage in open science practices, and how to institute those practices that are consistent and stable, and that reduce conflict for researchers, funders, librarians, and either even other punish publishers by trying to be consistent.
I'm really interested in how to move toward open science practices in ways that are equitable and that move science itself toward equity.
I know that we that we hear from researchers who are often, you know, rightfully concerned that asking researchers for more transparency, not only increase or increases barriers, but can open them up to targeting by others.
But I wanna look at ways in which transparency can not only protect researchers from accusations of not being rigorous. But, ways in which it can reveal bias and work that is already afforded a lot of trust and attention.
So, we have seen at APA, I move toward encouraging data sharing for years, But we really took a step toward requiring, at least, disclosure in 20 20, when APA signed on to the transparency and openness guidelines, which were, of course, introduced in response to publicly reported reproducibility issues in science, especially in psychology, in 20 15.
So those are a set of eight standards for transparency around design and analysis. Data code and materials sharing, pre-registration, citation, and replication.
So for data at APA, what this means for our core titles is that authors are now required to at least include a data availability statement in their articles.
And for about half of the titles that are now adhering to those top guidelines, authors who don't point to openly available data, must provide legal or ethical reasons for not sharing that that has been a real move for us.
And essentially, now that this has all been incorporated, we've set some goals for increasing participation, participation, and data sharing at the journal level, but also at the article level.
And I think we'll be auditing what's happening at the end of the year to see what improvements we can make and how we can encourage better integrity around that.
Yeah, And again, it's a, you know, it's, it's, it's interesting to see the different angles, that, what you would perceive.
Typically, we're all talking about academic publishing, right?
But, you know, you have the plaza is relatively new and had strong statements in the beginning.
Obviously, the psychology world had some probably negative press around reproducibility, as you say, that, let that lead to the principles being developed. And so that whole different angle with the society publishing as well.
So, yeah, lots of different things to think about already.
And then Matt, I guess, covering open research, there's a lot of things to think about, but what's what's the status of everything at Taylor and Francis today?
What, what's your opinion on, Sorry? How did it get to the states, and what's your opinion on it?
Thanks, Mark. And so of saint Francis, are probably the largest publisher that we have on the panel today. So we've got over 2.5 thousand journals. And so definitely the, the, the angle that we have to take care cannot be, like, a one size fits all approach. So in 20 18, we released five level data sharing policy framework, almost. So we have five levels of data sharing that each journal to come.
For that journal and for authors, they're on the X axis question.
To be spectators needed to submit, and to go ahead and publish, imagine.
Some data to be hosted in a repository, and citation about data with an article. In the Journal of the Stoics, what we call our basic policy, which encourages others to share, but doesn't require them to do anything. I would agree with, what ... and ..., in terms of Open Science, and seeing the benefits, in terms of increasing the quality research, speeding up research outcomes, all sorts of things. Another angle being.
It hasn't been mentioned yet?
Kind of a conventional science linked to research integrity. And basically, we're seeing things like Paper Mills, and researchers doing kind of widespread policies, required to be tackled some of these, some of these efforts from some type of applications.
So, yeah, I think there's definitely for us, potential, We see benefits and linking this, put some of the research integrity initiatives that we're working on as well.
Thank you, Matt. We were losing you are at least I was losing you a little bit, but for moments there. But luckily, the audio is coming through pretty strong. So hopefully the signal improves a little bit on your things. But otherwise, we'll keep going and I'll let you know if there's any problems.
So that, that's a great scene setting and, as I say, come different angles from different publishers.
I think one of the one of the big things I've seen over the years is, you know, not everybody is on board with open data because a, you know, I might get scooped, B I only want to do it. I think this is the important thing of the fund, this side of it. If everybody does it, then I'm happy to do it, but I don't want to do it. if the person I'm going up against Grantsville doesn't do it as well.
And when we look at these data availability policies, what gaps are you trying to fill as a publisher?
For the authors that, maybe if we start with Annie, what, what?
Where do you see the publisher role in, in assisting researchers and helping them with their data availability policies, which for the, for the most part, it's a whole new world.
So I think first I identify as one of the challenges, the reality that some of this needs to be planned before the research take place, right?
So we do try to think about that workflow as a life cycle.
We've already put in some guidance for authors who might be new to this, about, for example, what is data sharing? How do you do this? Where my to share data, Most of our authors do share data via the open science framework.
So we created an APA area there, a page on which you can deposit your data so that we can just direct authors there.
They can put it there, and then that's kind of a first step that's not giving you maybe the detailed data management plan that would be desirable. But that's one thing.
We've noticed, since we've put in requirements for data availability statements and data sharing that, we need resources, not just for authors, but for editors and reviewers to sort of bring them along. And so we've been adjusting workflows at the journal level.
In some cases, authors can catch up with some requirements after acceptance. This isn't ideal, of course.
Ideally, those data are available during the review process, and so we're trying to move everyone in that direction, we're not yet asking editors or reviewers to verify analyzes, for example.
So, you know, we're trying to make this lift as light as possible.
For now, we have checklists for authors that go beyond what they're asked to provide in the submission system again, at the journal level. And we've had things like, just really basic things like responsibility charts for editorial boards we found are a little bit more helpful in terms of getting everyone invested.
We've talked a lot about what constitutes an appropriate repository.
And again, the vast majority of the datasets, LinkedIn are articles are to OSF, but there's a lot of anxiety out there about protected data in psychology, specifically, especially data, you know, for groups that may be vulnerable or targeted in some way.
So, we now point authors to the registry of the Research Data Repositories, which is OK.
We're looking for more resources there to offer authors, and I know that's something a research data alliance is doing work on, But, I think really just engaging with everyone where they are and trying to address those concerns is is starting to help.
Yeah, just just one quick follow up, just in terms of, And you don't have to.
If this is uncomfortable, you don't have to answer that. But, in terms of editorial boards, is that is the pushback? Because the reason I ask this in a, you know, across the gamut of open research, I remember when ACS launched preprint. There was one attitudes that it's fine for every other journal. But not mine.
Eventually, they felt they conceded.
But is there any pushback on that level?
So, I think there have been varying levels of comfort, for sure.
And we do have an open science and methodology committee in place to try to, to sort of help with some of those concerns, and provide resources around that.
But I think, I think, in general, sort of the tide has turned and the social sciences and psychology. And, and people are more interested in this, but I think the real issue is just that people are already so overwhelmed with demands on their time.
And so, when you introduce this new requirement, and, you know, if I were a reviewer looking at this manuscript and now thinking, oh, I have to check the data so that I can make sure that what I'm saying is accurate.
I can understand that feeling of overwhelm, which is sort of why we're looking at ways to make it easier. Though. There's, to some extent, there's not that much we can do, it is sort of an integrity issue at that editorial level.
Um, I think I think Just trying to understand limits on people's time is really important.
Right. I was just looking then to double-check and we asked that question, you know, Why would you not make your data available during the State of Open Data?
In 20 18, 21% said one of the reasons is not enough time, and in 20 21, 21 percent of the recipient for the response is still said. I still. Not enough though. Nothing has gone away, right? I still have to do.
Matt, if we just jump back to you, the same question. Hopefully, the Wi-Fi holds up.
Obviously, you guys have a whole gamut of open research, specifically with the dates and policies.
Where do you see the, the, the, your responsibility is to help?
I think it's really about supporting, well, as many of the stakeholders, we can, I think there's a lot of work we can do with supporting yourself. We offer like a mailbox, so where authors can send e-mails, if they have questions, when they come up against our policies and the questions we get.
Really wide ranging, some of, it's still just eventual policy, but what do I actually need to do? Like, I think this is what you're saying, but can I just check this? Exactly?
Why do we get a lot of people concerned about the ethical element? So like, all by, I've, I've collected this data, and I'm not sure if I can share it and what does that mean for my publications? And it's just a lot about re-assuring authors that, oh, yeah, if you don't have the permission, you don't need these kind of agreed expectation exceptions to the policy. And it's all kind of documented. But I still feel like there's a lot re-assuring to do that.
Then, also, with the editors, you're kind of another of our main touchpoints. Just about kind of having the conversations, asking what the discussions are, no specific subject communities, because we're really just trying to set the kind of minimum guidelines to be in line with what that research community and doing?
We're not really trying to force people to share things. Like, we're not trying to get the journalist to reflect the practices of the community, and it's just about trying to understand what those are.
So we can set the right level of support, the specific research community with their aims, and what they're trying to deal with research data amongst themselves.
And publishes by themselves, are not going to be able to drive the agenda, will drive more data sharing, we can support, but we need to work with groups, too.
Yeah, it really as a whole ocean has their eyes in order to rise all ships across everything. You need the funder experience. You need to publish your experience. You need the institutional experience and suppose, you know, you mentioned that you have different policies because it's such a big publishing company.
I suppose a and you have the the other end of the spectrum, which you mentioned plos one is a an enormous journal with a single mandaean.
So, hand holding at that level must be A tough operation. But at the same time, just as a follow on question to to move the conversation a little bit as well. If you could answer tell us a little bit about what plos does that but then talk about.
Fair principles, findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-usable.
And, you know, how do you tally up that, where we are now, and tens of thousands of publications with people where it's new, and then trying to not only get them to do something, but then start moving it towards this FAIR data practices.
Sure. So this, this won't be a comprehensive summary, But a few things that, that plus focuses on support authors.
And, as I, as I said before, we probably have a different set of problems to focus on, because, because we're requiring everyone to share data.
I think one thing that, that, the interest me a lot is the fact that the most popular method for sharing data, plus about two thirds of authors is to share as supporting information, or supplementary information.
Um, having surveyed and, and spoken with authors, It's, it's popular for a lot of reasons.
You know, there's a certain degree of trust placed in the journal and the publisher, For that, it's more convenient, It's within an existing workflow. And so, one of the things that plus does, like a lot of other publishers, is that we weren't fixture to try to improve the discoverability of data shed and not method. Even if, you know, we recognize that there are more optimal ways of sharing data, such as trying to get data into a repository early, ask permission, or even before a full submission to a journal, and that's, that's another area of focus.
Now is, how can we get, encourage more authors to use repositories, you know, if there's one that suits them earlier in the process, because that's going to improve accessibility, joint peer review, but also, subsequently went articles are published as as well.
Um, so moving on. The second part of your question is about the FAIR principles. And so I think what's interesting is that like if you look at the plus policy in a lot of publisher policies, you might not actually see Pam mentioned explicitly. I think in plus this case, we had a policy before, The FAIR Principles were published in 2015.
But I also think there is, there is, there is some conscious decision making there about how we present the FAIR principles, or not, at least to authors who you know, under time pressure, and have certain things they need to do.
And when they're submitting to a journal, I don't think one reason why we don't provide a lot of information about Fair, and the policy, and the author guidelines is that we know that still, not all authors a particularly familiar with bad. They may not have heard of it before. So, we are a bit concerned with presenting a lot of information that requires context and understanding, and could be a distraction from what we're actually trying to get them to do in that specific context.
Having said that, I think is it's a very useful way of thinking about different aspects of sharing what you're trying to achieve and therefore What you might guide authors to do. And I think you'll know if you were to look at pluses policy and others, there is very much focused on bind to build an accessible. But the interoperable and re-usable gives us an aspiration and also the direction of travel. And as we think more about these things. I mentioned around data quality then then Fed gives us think a framework to make progress.
Yeah, thank you. I think it's, it's a tough one, right?
Because it's, it's, it's it's an interesting angle as well, what you mentioned about the point at which we want researchers to be doing something.
And for publishers, specifically, the points in which, in the normal publishing workflow, obviously, with pre prints is moved and things like that is at the point of, Here's the output, right? So if there's, no, I've heard before that, you know, data management plans from funders that even if, even if they're not checked or anything like that, it's to make researchers start, think about thinking, about making their data available.
And you mentioned that, Annie were pre-registration as well, that particularly in the in the medical sciences as well that, um, water use, but what are you doing with your research and how is it going to be disseminated?
It's becoming more of a question, but it's: it's hard for publishers specifically to, to push that because of the times in which they interact with the authors. I mean, has any, has, has FAIR being a driver? I hear FAIR everywhere, so I just assumed that everyone was, you know, on the, on the bandwagon. So it's it's it's it was shocking for me to hear that it's not all over the plus language, because I thought was all over all that data, which is it a big thing at APA.
So I will definitely echo what Ian said and say that the FAIR principles are still really aspirational for us in terms of development.
I can't even really address this at the author level. I'll say that we haven't had the resources to really develop our own article level metadata around open science artifacts to make them all truly findable or accessible, not to mention interoperable and re-usable.
We do tag our datasets. And I think we've had some success in making those findable and accessible. I know scholars that identified hundreds of those.
I think on the strength of the number of publicly available datasets pointing back to our articles using the DOI.
So that's something, but we're really trying to expand our efforts in this area as a publisher, in terms of guidance for authors on datasets themselves, I don't think we're there yet.
Makes a lot sense. I think, you know, we we support citation counts on Figshare and work for work. We've done with an NIH pilot. You know, they were, they were really interested in re-use of datasets. You know, if you make your data FAIR will people. A lot of people build on, top of the research that's gone before.
But, if you're just looking at links from papers, two datasets, most of the datasets have one link, which is, here is my data from my paper, right? It's the same author. It's not re-used in any way.
So, and use, the shangri-la are moving further and faster because of open research data, I feel is, is some way off yet, but the, yeah, achieving transparency and reproducibility is a much more accessible goal for a lot of publishers. Similar experiences with you, Matt.
Yeah, I'd say so, and I agree with what kind of in says the five principles are aspirational when I think they were supposed to be? We do mentioned Fair, and our policy says, the highest, most open person policy that we have we call is called Open unfair.
But we only have, I think five journals that have adopted it, in the Earth and Environmental Science Community where society groups, like the American Geophysical Union, have helped create an understanding for that, Can we see about law?
Fair means? And so that's where the line, those journals and what the AGU are trying to do, and that's kind of specific activity around FAIR.
I think also, it's worth saying that a lot of guidelines around FAIR, around increasing the machine readability of data and links between data centers.
So, in a way, ..., just to be aware, but ultimately, I think, best of using a lot of the human readable text direction within the papers and the data availability statement, say, this is where my data is, where a stipend schools are very much focused on, kind of machine, where extra resources are stored and into.
And, as Andy said, there's a number of other frameworks that are just as useful.
So, he pulled out the top guidelines, but also influenced our policy framework.
I think the care principles, as well, which, in looking at how Indigenous data should be treated, are also may be valuable, and provides more, um, tangible, but a lot of really useful things to consider from authors when thinking about how and why.
They go about sharing the data linked to that assessment.
Yeah, and if there are any other publishers on the call, or folks who work at, publishers Who think there are other interesting guidelines that we've not referenced, or ones that we should be aware of, please let us know.
It's not, We're not in person ..., you can chat in the chat, and if you do have any questions that you'd like to put tour, speakers, please let me know, put it in the chat, and I'll pass them on. The vetted, as I said, as I go.
So, when we're talking about machine readability and improving linkage between, you know, information, I think, and this, there's something recent, happens up close, which is the new, accessible data feature.
So, this is next steps, should so to speak, or at least as I perceive it as a next step from an outsider looking in, is that is that how you perceive it?
Has there been a response from authors yet, on that, or any changes? What's, what's the goal?
Yeah, so thanks for, for highlighting that. So, we have this accessible data feature that was launched at the end of March.
In brief, it's a prominent visual button, or Q, or like a badge, or reward that features on published articles, if they link to data in a repository, by the data availability statement. And, that's possible for a few reasons. one reason is we've had a policy in place for a number of years, Around 30% of our papers. Do link to data in the repository, which we assume is much more likely to be findable and accessible.
And it's deployed in an automated way.
So, there's no extra work, both digital or additives, but that there are two main reasons why we've done it. The firstly is actually to support data re-use.
Some research that we're doing, highlighted that more than half of researchers, nature, we use data for their work, but they are actually dissatisfied, on average, with our abilities to get hold of data that they can re-use. So it's intended to be actionable, provide direct access to data and repositories. And the second goal is, we're interested to explore these both hypotheses. At the moment, it's anything running a few weeks, but we're interested to see if there's that incentive role. So, papers, if they received this, this button, this, this the shield like icon, will researchers be more inclined to share data in that way, in order to, to get one of those features on the articles?
It's early days, but one of the things we were looking at, correlations between views and downloads of data, for papers that have that features, and feature and papers that day.
You mentioned 30%, that, was that right, 30%? I mean, that's, that's huge, I guess.
There has been some tracking of data availability over the years, because you've had that policy in place for a long time. Have you, have you done any work on trying to understand?
Is it increasing?
Didn't have a sharp increase at the beginning as a general Move upwards.
How's how's it being tracked, internally?
Yeah, so we it is something we're pinch. Pay, Pay attention to in terms of, you know, the the main modes of data sharing, cinema our case. It's in the repository, in supporting information, or for tiny fraction, about 5%, available with well described access restrictions. And that's something we have been tracking internally for years, and interestingly, other researchers, external to plus, also check this and the publisher, the massive research studies that enhances your question, will come from about 20% of papers using repositories to more than 30 now.
And there has been a steady one to 2% increase year on year. one of the things we're doing with things like the accessible data features, can we, can we accelerate that increase with different, with different solutions?
Gotcha. Yeah, and so any, you're using OSF that, you mentioned, obviously center.
Open science has been a huge voice for a decade and trying to think along and understand what's happening with the open data space in the open research space, T O P guidelines, and things like this.
Have you, have you seen a similar?
Have you been tracking it, or is it was it just a point of making working with the OSF to make a way to make data available.
And it's, it's problem solved.
So we have been tracking it. I think when we started sort of looking at ways to encourage uptake on these things back in 20 17 we had started working with CEOs on badges.
And we were looking to partner with with them on other things.
We did partner with them on our preprint pilot, whereby, authors could submit via an interface from ... Archive.
But we also wanted to just create this repository as like, you know, for authors who are not super familiar, here's a place you can go.
And this is really easy to use, but I've noticed that.
I think, since we started pointing authors to that repository, we've got almost 200 datasets or authors who have deposited datasets there, So that represents about half of the authors whose work we've published in the last, I would say, 3 or 4 years.
I do think that uptake on data sharing itself has increased by, I want to say maybe almost six to 7% points per year in the last couple of years.
And we expect things to really improve over the next few years, now that we have the new requirements.
But I do think that we're a little bit hampered by some limitations in the metadata. We are, like I said, we do tag datasets.
I think we're going to also start tracking reasons that authors share for not sharing data, and that should give us some intelligence on on what some of the further barriers are.
We do see a handful of authors who share via Figshare, or dataverse.
Not so many are using their institutional repositories now as used to, but we're definitely looking for patterns there.
Yeah, and I suppose that shows the kind of, like this idea that, I feel that there's not one answer for why or how are we going to get researchers to share that data? It's just, if they're gently being nudged from every touch point, then they're going to do that.
And, as I say, you know, more than a third say, they look to the publishers, and what's evidenced here is the publishers are innovating in this space, which I think is: is often, you know, in the: in the larger It's hard, too.
Have big innovation at old publishers with legacy systems, and all of this stuff, you know, but they that there is a constant battle going on within the publishers to try and achieve that.
I know, Matt, Your end, T and F.
Your author services team have created an introduction to data Sharing Ethics, which is really interesting to me.
So I mean, how did this come about Why? Why did this come about? Because, it seems, again, more innovation in this space.
Why did it come about?
Yeah, so I think It's just, I think, a result of a lot of the questions that we get that come into the inbox that I mentioned earlier, So we get.
I'm just. Kidding.
We have lost humor, sorry. Maybe if you lose your camera, the audio might improve. I'm sure we'll hear a little more robots in a second.
Apologies for the interruptions.
Sorry. We lost you for a second.
So, with, with the I think, I think data ethics is an interesting area for the rest of us, students and wanting re-assure and some guidance about how to interpret the policy and accurately reflects the work of their research project.
Hopefully, hopefully, we get you back, Matt, we lost you for a moment there, but with regards to ethics, as I was just searching, what are your thoughts on both those making their data, the data available on request? And this is one of my, I have strong opinions on this or not, I'm not sure I'm allowed to jump in. But what are your opinions on this?
So, I suppose, have been in some approach, and position in the plus policy comes aligned, somewhat with my personal opinion, in the.
It's, it's not some in terms of thinking about enabling data to be accessible and re-usable. then there's study after study after study that shows the data available on request isn't unreliable, a best way of ensuring future data access.
There was a paper in Scientific Data Journal, I think, a few months ago that was the latest of a round of studies that have shown that.
It's not a very effective way, um, to enable data access and, it, coincidentally, plus policy doesn't doesn't permit that, unless there's a lot of extra detail on why it's not available, who you would go to, how you would get access to it, et cetera.
So yeah, I think I'll leave it candidly that.
Any, any thoughts that you can Yeah.
Yeah, so, I mean, you know, that's the bare minimum standard at APA and has been for a long time, is to tell authors to have their data available for at least five years after its articles published, for sharing with qualified researchers for verification.
But I think in the social sciences, generally, we've seen increasing acknowledgement that that tradition is often a form of gate keeping that can stymie scientific inquiry in general.
And obviously, I think we're trying to move via the top guidelines to toward more equitable access, but I'll also point out that that standard doesn't really provide any impetus for researchers to make those data usable.
I mean, I think putting some sort of framework around what's needed for verification is really important.
Yeah, I think if you're going to ops figure, if you want to forget, you're going to upscale, right? I always play devil's advocate and think what if I just mentioned five years?
What if I go two papers published five years ago who have data available on request?
Asked for the data? I mean, you know, do I qualify as qualified researcher, I don't know. I'm not an academic anymore and if they didn't or if they didn't respond. Could I ask for that? Paper retracted. For example. Obviously I'm not going to do that.
I don't want to be attacked walking down the street but it aye seen experimental data where people have said that the data is often not available as he and references.
But I think, you know for the large part there is a general movement and you're not gonna get 100% coverage. Straightway might have never get 100% coverage. That's always gonna be a tough one. I am aware we've been going for some time. now, I don't know if anybody has any questions for other members of the group. Otherwise, I was going to touch on as kind of a rounding off point.
What do you think the future of your org and data sharing looks like at your organizations?
Oh, sorry, I just jump in really high, it's me again.
Just to say some of that, questions and comments have come through the question feature, rather than in the chat.
And so, and only I can see those so that time back, and I thought I would just raise them.
The first one is more a comment than a question. But the panel may want to comment, asteroid just to say, we use doesn't necessarily mean re-using data for a different purpose, using open data to reproduce research findings, is another form of re-use, enhances trust and quality. And the product publishers are settling.
Yeah, just my 2% there.
I think one really interesting thing would be publications that have more than one citation. There might be some really interesting metrics on the companies, like sites coming out with understanding what the the reason behind the citation come up coming out could gives a really full a picture on what data re-use really looks like.
There is a question asking if anyone has looked at trialing, APC discounts, to prompt greater data sharing?
That's not something we've thought about, I guess the rationale there would be, that you could re-use some of those funds, for data curation, or management somehow, which would have to be planned ahead of time. It's interesting.
I was going to say would it be the opposite view if you thought about the need to up APCs in order to give a pola service.
Sure, it's uh.
Apparently we're not talking business models.
Yeah, I don't think any more questions have come through that.
Feel free to send them in.
Yeah, and Matt, your video seems good. Let's give it a go. What do you think the future of data is at the end?
So, each has to be a chung. Can it easier for researchers?
So, I think everyone knows best and work to do, to make it easier, to do that. And so, that's got to be anonymous publishes, whether it's in the submission process season, the data upload. And I think there's lots of different angles to the cats in the more immediately.
I think we've been doing some work with us on dozens, and they've just launched thousand.
Routledge And Lisa, which is all focused tools that can open access open data and open peer review, and that sometimes that Rebecca Grants written, trying to just explain your own expectations, Open data for Humanities and Social Sciences, with lots of great examples of how to talk about physical data, and no data availability statement and things like that.
Kind of in the future. There's a bit more effects on humanities and social sciences that's played.
Yet, we got most of that, we got most of that, I think.
I think, so, Thousand working on some services, I think that the there is definitely a author, um, wish for more services to be offered by the publishers around all of these things.
I think, you know, saying about APC's, I think that would be a welcome, if you could, if you can take more boxes for me and handle this for me, make that make their life easier.
And I like saying that because it pushes all the hard work and all of the the people work on the publishers. And lessons in places like fixture.
We do have fixed personnel, and we do a bit of curation for fee for large datasets.
But I think it might be interesting to see a wealth of new services offered by the publishers around all of these new risa, these these new outputs associated with with the actual publication itself.
And what's, what's the plans that API, or what's your thoughts on what is going to go?
So I think in the near term, we're looking at challenges to adherence to current policy. Right?
So making sure that links are stable, and correct, that kind of thing.
Tracking what authors see as barriers to sharing data, Especially for authors who want to do this and engage in these practices, can we provide any resources for them, whether as a publisher, or even as a society, in terms of advising them on things like data management plans?
Um, I also think as a publisher, we're, you know, as I said earlier, we're working to improve our metadata so that things are more findable, things are more accessible. Those are kind of the big two sets of plans.
Um, but, yeah, I mean, ultimately, we want to support authors at every step of the research cycle, that we can engage in.
Do you think that this society plays a side of things, has a role in the kind of defining metadata standards around data?
And, for me, that seems the most natural fit in, These should be the rules in our community. That's the role of society, right?
So, I think there's just going to be more on that, and more interest in the society space for that reason.
And to the extent that funders can be supportive of that, too, I think that's important. We want to work together.
Yeah, yeah. It's a big. It's a big cog in the machine, right?
OK, so, in what's happening, applause, and your thoughts on where we're headed, and I think that will be the wrap up, so no pressure.
OK, 3, three main things in terms of what's happening at a plus, I think, where we want to diversify rarely. So, you know, if features like the accessible data feature or recent integration with Drive submission is successful, then we want to diversify to support more repositories, more research communities. I think a really important consideration in offering solutions. And you're not towards business models and services, That, I think, that those, any new offerings, do, you need to be equitable and accessible to all? So, that's become a really important consideration if and how they're funded. And an implemented, I think, more broadly, I think, plus, is actually interested in sharing our experience as much as possible, having, you know, how the data policy for a while, I'm working with other publishers to do things like how we can collectively drive up quality in data sharing and data policies.
There's some interesting efforts across organizations, such as The Research Data Alliance to, to do. So, I think, yeah, collaborations, not just among publishers, but also importantly, with funding agencies, where we more alignment in terms of data management planning and publisher policies. I think there's a lot of opportunities to make progress.
Thank you. So on that note, we'll give you all a couple of minutes back, Thank you so much for attending today.
Thank you so much for our speakers today Annie Hill and Matt Canon. I think that's the the what Iain said At the end there is really where I think the space is headed.
The, it's, it's not going away.
People want to collaborate, the publishers have been innovating, and the publishers will continue to innovate, and I don't think that the authors will stop coming to the publishers, so thank you all for sharing what you've done to get us to this point. I think the future of open day through public publishes is bright, and I hope everyone has a lovely day.
Right, Thank you.