Exposing Data Management Plans Publisher’s perspective Elena Zudilova-Seinstra, Elsevier RDM Solutions Email: e.zudilova-seinstra@elsevier.com 11th RDA Plenary Meeting Berlin, 22 March 2018

According to Retraction Watch, more than 1,000 articles retracted in 2017 alone. This is a 50% increase in retractions compared to 2016. https://retractionwatch.com

The research community and the public need to trust published results Opportunities to improve reproducibility: the life sciences example Freedman LP, Venugopalan G and Wisman R. Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities [version 1]. F1000Research 2017, 6:604 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11334.1)

Increased research quality, transparency & reducibility through the DMP Exposure PI review RDM/domain expert review DMP Exposure Freedman LP, Venugopalan G and Wisman R. Reproducibility2020: Progress and priorities [version 1]. F1000Research 2017, 6:604 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11334.1)

Examples https://riojournal.com/ https://dmptool.org/public_plans 14 published DMPs (last accessed on 15 March 2018) https://dmptool.org/public_plans 177 shared DMPs (last accessed on 20 March 2018)

Some initial thoughts… Co-authored by all research team members and preferably also by a data librarian and/or a data repository representative Easy to prepare and submit, e.g.: interactive standardized (!) templates, recommendation engine, etc. Reviewed/checked by RDM and/or domain experts to ensure compliance with the state of the art data sharing practices Accessible - published in a OA journal, open repository or funder catalogue Citable (assigned a DOI) and regularly updated (versioning) May be under embargo until the official start of the project Linked with research literature (e.g.: links can be deposited to Scholix) Machine-readable to allow search and automatic data tracking