1. An Analysis and Characterization of DMPs in NSF Proposals from the University of Illinois RDAP14 Research Data Access & Preservation Summit March 26, 2014 William H. Mischo, Mary C. Schlembach, & Megan N. O’Donnell University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Iowa State University

2. NSF Data Management Plans Data Management Plans (DMPs): required element in NSF proposals, January 2011 July 2011: the Library, working with the campus Office of Sponsored Programs and Research Administration (OSPRA) began an analysis of DMPs in submitted NSF grant proposals Currently, looked at 1,600 grants with 1,260 in the analysis.

3. Reasons for Analysis What storage venues and mechanisms for sharing and reuse are being used? Are the PI’s using local templates and local campus resources such as the IDEALS?

4. Follow-on Develop campus-wide infrastructure (Research Data Service - RDS) Assist in compliance with federal agencies Develop important partnerships with campus units (CITES, NCSA, Colleges) and national entities Develop best practices and standard approaches

5. Analysis Analysis attempts to characterize and classify DMPs into categories DMPs assigned multiple categories 1,260 DMPs from July 2011 to November 2013

6. Categories PI Server – Servers and workstations that the PIs (and their students/staff) use to store project data. laboratory server/workstations, external hard drives, group computer PI Website – Websites edited or administered by the PI or a group they belong to. Examples: lab website, project website, wiki, PI’s website

7. Categories Campus – Services located, operated by, run by or endorsed by Illinois. IDEALS, Netfiles and Box.net, NCSA, and Beckman Institute. Department – Used when a department was specifically mentioned as providing a storage or hosting resource. Departmental website, departmental server, departmental backup service or a web address traced back to an academic department (also given the “campus” label)

8. Categories Remote – Services and sites not located on the Illinois campus. NASA, other campuses, collaborative projects, non-Illinois institutes Disciplinary – Disciplinary repositories. GenBank, arXiv, ICPSR, SEAD, Nanohub, and Dryad Cloud – Storage services using cloud technology. Google Drive, Google Code, Box.net, Amazon, Microsoft, Dropbox

9. Categories Publication - Scholarly outputs. Journal articles, workshops, and conference presentations/posters. Analog - Physical records/data. Lab notebooks, photographs, files Specimens - Physical specimens. Usually biological or artifacts

10. Categories Optical Disc - DVD, CD, and Blu-ray discs. Not specified – the DMP was not specific enough for us to categorize further. No Data – Indicated the proposal will produce no data products. Local Template Used – used a library authored template.

11. Category NumberPercent PI Server 50339.9% PI Website 52941.9% Campus 66752.9% Department 14211.2% Remote 35328% Disciplinary 27521.8% Publication 55644.1% Cloud 635% Optical Disc 564% Analog 13110.4% Specimens 1118.8% Not Specified 665.2% Collaborative 16413% No Data 1038.2% ALL DMPs (n=1,260)

12. Data Venue and Risk Data Location Submitted ProposalsFunded Proposals Risk of Loss/Corruption/ Breach n=1260 n=298 PI Server/Website 64%High61%High Departmental Server/Website 11.2%Medium to High7%Medium to High Campus-Wide Resource 52.9% Low 45% Low IDEALS (Institutional Repos.) 21.9%19.8% NCSA 4.3%16.4% Disciplinary Repository/Cloud 25.8%Medium to Low21.4%Medium to Low Remote Repository 28%Medium to High22.8%Medium to High Optical Disk, Specimens, Analog 19.4%Out of Scope11%Out of Scope

13. Notables Funded: 298 Used local template: 254 Only 87 DMPS contained information about file types IDEALS: 275 NCSA/XSEDE: 55 Dryad: 22 ICPSR: 17 GenBank: 55 ArX: 61

14. Analysis Any differences in storage venue or technologies between the unfunded proposals and the funded proposals? Any differences between the proposals from the first year and the more current proposals? Other differences in proposal categories between funded and unfunded 734 active NSF awards, $861.8 million

15. Analysis: Funded vs. Not-funded IDEALS institutional repository: frequencies: 62 funded, 197 not funded: chi-square: 0.17. need chi-square >= 3.84 to be significant Storing data on PI server or website: 183 funded, 569 not funded: chi-square: 0.7 Disciplinary or Cloud: 67 funded, 241 not funded: chi-square: 0.85 Remote storage: 68 funded, 267 not funded: chi-square: 3.01

16. Analysis Use of IDEALS before August 2012 = 108 after (thru November 2013) = 166 chi-square: 4.59, p <.05 Use of Disciplinary or Cloud before August 2012 = 121 after = 182 chi-square: 4.33, p <.05

17. Implications and Conclusions 1.No significant differences between funded/unfunded proposals in storage venues - no funding advantage in IDEALS, Disciplinary. 2.But, more recent proposals suggest IDEALS and disciplinary repositories included at a significantly higher level. Why? What is the role of the library? The campus? The subject discipline? Connecting data to the literature important