A. D. SMITH – SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 RESOURCE PLANNING

It is becoming increasingly clear that effective and efficient management and reuse of research data will be a key component in the UK knowledge economy in years to come, essential for the efficient conduct of research and its dissemination and use. In recognition of this, there have been many calls for access to science data at national and international levels. Loughborough University, Department of Information Science, JISC-funded Final Report on Cost-Benefits of Data Curation

RESOURCE PLANNING Dealing with Data: Roles, Rights, Responsibilities and Relationships Consultancy Report Dr Liz Lyon, UKOLN, University of Bath 2007

RESOURCE PLANNING

RESOURCE PLANNING

Dealing with Data: Roles, Rights, Responsibilities and Relationships Sustainability: REC 30. The JISC should work in partnership with the research funding bodies and jointly commission a cost-benefit study of data curation and preservation infrastructure. (4, 5)

RESOURCE PLANNING JISC’s strategic objectives Provide cost-effective and sustainable shared national services and resources Help institutions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their corporate and business systems Help institutions to improve the quality of learning and teaching and the student experience Help institutions to improve the quality, impact and productivity of academic research Be a responsive, reflective and learning organisation that demonstrates value for money

RESOURCE PLANNING The project’s objectives are to: I.Identify the benefits of curation and sharing research data II.Identify a methodology by which to estimate the benefits to UK Higher Education and the UK more generally of curating and openly sharing research data produced by researchers in UK HE III.Use the methodology, as far as possible, to derive an estimate, expressed in financial terms where possible, for the identified benefits IV.Document case studies and examples of data re-use, where that re-use led to tangible benefits.

RESOURCE PLANNING

Recommendation 1 – Baseline reporting A key finding of this research is that there is, as yet, no standardized and consistent system of reporting of the data necessary to make a business case. It is therefore recommended: The development of guidelines for data collection and reporting through consultation with stakeholders. Further classification work to explore how costs and benefits differ according to institutional and disciplinary factors such as intellectual field, objects of research, data types, analytic techniques and approaches.

RESOURCE PLANNING Recommendation 2 – Model Questionnaire The project has provided a foundation for the development of a model data collection framework that could be further developed. It is recommended that: The development of a model questionnaire building upon the questions outlined in The report. Host a web based survey/data gathering instrument.

RESOURCE PLANNING Recommendation 3 – Developing a community resource In order to achieve an empirical and scalable evidence base upon which policy makers and funders can evaluate benefits at different levels of granularity, e.g. across types of repository/centre or discipline, a system of consistent recording and reporting needs to be developed: The centralized collection and collation of data resulting from the development of guidelines for baseline reporting and participation by community members in the model questionnaire be made available as a shared community-level resource and that; Such a resource should stipulate what basic core data might be collected and reported annually. The model might include collection of the following data in a consistent way: annual acquisitions (data submitted, data accepted), annual usage (downloads, requests), citations, external funds received, annual spend (split across main budget headings).

RESOURCE PLANNING KEEPING RESEARCH DATA SAFE 2 Neil Beagrie, Brian Lavoie and Matthew Woollard with contributions by the Universities of Cambridge, Oxford, and Southampton, the Archaeology Data Service, OCLC Research, UK Data Archive, and University of London Computer Centre. Final Report - April 2010 Prepared by: Charles Beagrie Limited A study funded by JISC With support from OCLC Research and the UK Data Archive Copyright HEFCE 2010 The authors have asserted their moral rights in this work Key findings: Long-term Costs of Digital Preservation for Research Data: The costs of archiving activities (archival storage and preservation planning and actions) are consistently a very small proportion of the overall costs and significantly lower than the costs of acquisition/ingest or access activities for all our case studies in KRDS2. This confirms and supports a preliminary finding in KRDS1. Benefits of Preserving Research Data: We have recognized that the identification and promotion of the “near term benefits” are particularly important in advocacy to researchers: we can show in our benefit case studies and also our costs work at Oxford that there are significant benefits in the short-term to current researchers as well as long-term benefits to future research.

RESOURCE PLANNING

MIT - Minnesota - Wood Hole – Georgia Tech - Edinburgh - services/services/research-support/data-library/research-data-mgmthttp:// services/services/research-support/data-library/research-data-mgmt UCLA - CDL - ANDS - Cambridge - Nebraska - University of Oregon -