1. Towards Domain Protocols for Research Data Management
IG Domain Repositories RDA 9th Plenary meeting Community-driven Research Data Management:
Towards Domain Protocols for Research Data Management
Convenors: Peter Doorn (DANS) and Marie Timmermann (Science Europe) Meeting Chair: Geraldine Clement-Stoneham (Medical Research Council, UK)
Barcelona, Wednesday April 5, 11:30-13:00, Room MR6

2. Meeting objectives
To present the S.E. Working Group’s approach and the resulting framework to the Domain Repositories Interest Group and other RDA P9 participants
To compare it to other existing approaches, from communities and institutions and to identify common points, differences and gaps
To discuss means of and identify partners for the implementation of a commonly used framework for RDMPs

3. Meeting agenda
Introduction to Domain Protocols for Research Data Management (Peter Doorn & Patrick Aerts (20 minutes)
Applicability of Protocols for DMPs – reactions from the perspective of policy makers and funders
The H2020 Open Research Data Pilot and FAIR Data Management (Jean-Claude Burgelman, Head of Unit "Data, Open Access and foresight"; Chair Open Science Taskforce, European Commission, 10 minutes)
The ERC Open Access Working Group – Work on Open Data and DMPs (Martin Stokhof, Vice President ERC, 10 minutes)
Applicability of Protocols for DMPs – forum discussion with reactions from research communities (45 minutes)
Franco Niccolucci (humanities, ARIADNE and PARTHENOS projects)
Susanna Sansone (life sciences, ELIXIR/Biosharing)
Ron Dekker (social sciences, CESSDA)
Dieter van Uytvanck (humanities/linguistics, CLARIN)
Ari Asmi (physics/climate research, ENVRIplus)
Summary of the outcomes (Peter Doorn, 5 minutes)
Announcement of new chairs of the Domain Repositories Interest Group (DRIG) (5 minutes)

4. Introduction to Domain Protocols for Research Data Management
Peter Doorn, DANS / Chair Research Data Working Group / co-Chair IG Domain Repositories RDA
Patrick Aerts, NLeSC / DANS
@dansknaw @pkdoorn

5. Three take-home messages
Treat Data Management and Software Sustainability on equal footing
At least policy wise
Consider and treat Data and Software as value objects
Then it starts making sense to spend some to keep the value or increase it
Make the stakeholder positions explicit, define their role and involve all
Funders, Scientists, Service organisations

6. Stakeholder roles and tasks

7. One size of data management doesn’t fit all: a domain-oriented approach
Specialized solutions address different (sub-)disciplines or communities
May get better acceptance/adoption by the community
May be much more suitable to serve the community needs
But:
Require a generalized framework on top, to ensure minimum requirements, such as mutual compatibilities, standards, exchangeability and other requirements not in the direct interest of a specific discipline
* or community

8. Effectively organize involvement of communities
Science Europe M.O.’s (and others) to set Data Protocols Framework (Terms of Reference for Domain Protocols)
Domain Data Protocols (DDPs) to be openly published
Report:

9. Domain Data Protocols: the core idea [1]
Protocols defined following (sub-) disciplinary guidelines to be formulated and adopted by research communities:
Will make life easier for researchers:
Researchers can refer to the data protocol to be followed instead of finding out the DMP wheel individually
Protocols will raise quality standard of DMPs and will be regarded as useful, in turn DMPs will be a stronger tool
Counter situation that researchers see RDM as yet another bureaucratic requirement
Can cover all research outputs relevant for Open Science, including software
DMP

10. Domain Data Protocols: the core idea [2]
Framework (“terms of reference”) for Protocols to be defined by RFOs and RPOs
Will make life easier for Researchers:
Diminish the administrative burden for researchers
By having a single generally approved model for RDM (and SoSu) plans across different funders and research organisations:
EC/H2020
National funding organisations
Universities, Research Performing Organisations
Will make life easier for Funders:
Instead of checking thousands of individual DMPs, endorse disciplinary/domain/community protocols
DMP will not be a paper tiger, impossible to check whether it is obeyed during execution of research project

11. Definitions for future reference: Framework and Protocols
Domain* Data Protocols (DDPs) are defined as generally agreed-upon guidelines, or predefined, written procedural methods. One might also conceive a DDP as a 'model DMP' for a given domain or community sharing common methods.
Data Protocols Framework (DPF), agreed upon by the Members of Science Europe, will set a number of minimal requirements for disciplinary/community data protocols. These requirements will have close resemblance to the requirements of current DMPs and will fit perfectly in data policies that have been or are being formulated.
* The level of granularity can vary

12. The advantages of this approach are:
Prevent situations where scientific domains or scholarly communities find top-down requirements or templates for DMPs not applicable or not useful for their field/research
Better DMP acceptance by researchers and better researcher engagement in RDM;
Provision to researchers of a learning vehicle on research data management practices in their field, thus raising the general quality level of RDM; and
Reduced DMP processing costs and burdens for funders and researchers , and more focus on and better assessment of deviating RDM solutions

13. Authorship of protocols: at which level of granularity?
Several ESFRI ERICs interested and are well placed
Rely on existing work as much as possible rather than asking potential partner communities to start from scratch: 
Think modular: the detail can vary according to need:
Even a very generic protocol or ‘model DMP’ will be helpful
You don’t have to oblige anything or anybody: Researchers still write their individual DMPs, motivating where they deviate from the norm/protocol in their field
Communities will decide on the detail that they find useful (within the margins of the Framework)
There may be alternative DDPs for different purposes (depending on size of project, type/volume of data, etc.) within one domain
Find volunteer organisations from different domains to kick-off the process (proof of concept), create expert teams, including both content and data specialists

14. Selection of proof-of-concept communities for domain data protocols
Community
1. Humanities (general)
DARIAH
2. Humanities – Archaeology
PARTHENOS - ARIADNE
3. Linguistics - Language data
CLARIN
4. Social Sciences - Survey research
CESSDA
5. Social & Behavioural Sciences – Psychology
Psychology departments and associations
6. Social Sciences - Ageing Studies
SHARE and TILDA
7. Life Sciences - Bio-informatics
ELIXIR
8. Plant Science
ERA-CAPS (former Working Group on RDM)
9. Climate Research
ICOS / ENVRI+

15. Questions posed to communities
Do you consider the approach described here useful and feasible for your domain?
2. Using DCC general DMP template as a starting point
Indicate which questions in the DMP template are not answerable for the community you represent?
Do you miss particular questions, or would you want some of them to be phrased differently?
Which important building blocks do you find superfluous or do you miss in the template?
Are you willing on behalf of the community to compile a first draft of a generic protocol for your community?

16. General reactions from communities
Almost all reactions positive, general interest of communities to cooperate with the S.E. initiative
Several of them are already working towards this direction:
Data policies (e.g. Plant Science, Climate Research)
RDM Recommendations and guidelines (e.g. Life Sciences, Bio-informatics)
Detailed RDM templates (e.g. Humanities)
And even full-fledged Data “Archiving” Protocols! (e.g. Dutch Psychology)
Activity seems to fit in with a more general feeling that we have to find the communalities of data management planning, across funders, institutions, and researchers
Approach also appears to fit in well with the DMPonline developments of the Digital Curation Centre

17. But some complications as well
Chicken and egg problem: we asked the participation before the terms of reference of the Framework were formulated (and wanted to include the feedback in the Framework)
Questions: difference between protocol, plan, template, guidelines and policy?
Protocol: formal status, officially published, recognized
Plan: for individual project, not for many projects
Template: empty frame specifying the subjects
Guidelines: help, recommendations
Policy: sets out the principles
Science is not organised in neat separate compartments: many overlaps, subgroups, etc.
Communication is needed!
Is a community formally responsible for a protocol?
This depends on the acceptance by the community itself