 Welcome everybody to this webinar, this Anne Snick-Dradius webinar. My name is Susanna Sabine and I will be your host for today. I will be joined in a little bit when they turn their cameras and things on by Sandrine and Andrew from the University of Queensland. They will be, well there they are. Hi guys, welcome, talking, sorry they will be talking to us today about research data storage and sharing made easy with the University of Queensland research data manager who's talking today. Sandrine who's the project lead on this research data management amazing initiative and Dr Andrew Janky who's the technical lead for the project. So I'll hand it over to you Sandrine. Thank you so yeah we're going to both do this today so the first thing is to just give you an introduction to UQ for those who aren't aware. So UQ is a university of about 2700 academics we have about 5000 HDRs typically at any point in time so PhD and Master's students and this project was also not about just building a new system but it was about changing how UQ thinks about research data it's about how we manage research data long-term it's how we meet our obligations to publishers and to funders it's all the questions around how do we store research data for 40 years how do we store it for 25 how do we store it for 100 years it's the questions that are often hard to think about and well we're not going to say we solved everything with this project but it's at least we could build a system that had a look towards some of those problems. So when we started the project it was a initiative out of the office of the deputy of us chance for research and it started off as a project around human data and that human data was hard to store. Research is under a lot of obligations around human data and how we manage it long-term but with the system we developed it was noticed that perhaps we could try roll out for the whole of UQ for all types of research data so when we went and talked to academics before we started and piloted the system what you see there is a lot of problems that academics were having and this is pretty consistent across the whole university multiple people were entering multiple things into multiple systems and that was seen as a waste of time there was a loss of research time there was no reward in a lot of these systems around why researchers were entering all the metadata information in systems and collaboration is always hard especially to do it within the restrictions that are placed upon you by some contracts within the university and funding arrangements we had students running away with data on laptops and you couldn't contact them at the end of phds all the things that happen in most universities so it was about building a system to help researchers with their problems but in the process of doing so also build a system that happened to meet the university's obligations around research data and having good collections of data attached with publications so you know here we are we're essentially playing sound of course here because we've been asked for the moon we might not be able to make it we might but you know we've got to try so the way we approached it was instead of asking for funding to solve all the problems in the world including the moon we decided that instead we should stage this as a series of projects and these have run over the past almost two and a half years within uq and it was staging it as manageable chunks so the first part was around building a metadata system which was like a dmp but a whole lot more minimal it was trying to decide which pieces of information were absolutely business critical and nothing more that we needed to know about researchers projects part of that messaging was around looking at existing university systems and recognizing that these systems were necessarily researcher focused so the existing library catalog systems and their publication systems were centered around the researcher as an individual rather than around projects so it meant we had to build a new system alongside the existing library systems around projects the second one was about how do we store research data or make it available in all the places that researchers expect so this meant that we talk to researchers and get them understand tell us how do you work with your data currently the third project is where we start to get a bit interesting and this is around how do we attach the working data storage to outputs so how do we identify a group of data within a working project and this led to a publication and number five sorry number four we're not there yet number five is about closing the loop it's about how do we roll this out to the whole of the university it's not a not a system which we thought where we could just launch it with an email and a bit of fanfare and say here's a new system you should use it we didn't think that would work well so we had a whole strategy around that which we'll go into here today so in a bit more detail so there were some specific things we were going in on the first project and that is we sort of had an idea that it had to be a no black holes approach and by black holes approach this is expanding upon the idea of a researcher might enter ethics information into multiple systems within the university that would enter their ethics number alongside their grants they would enter an ethics number to the hera committee that they would make sure they have ethics locally within their center so it meant multiple systems that they were entering information and so even for simple things these are what turn off our users if they have to enter the same information again so we we had to remove that type of system we also had to know that what was essential so for us what was essential was the type of project so what sort of data they had the collaborators they wanted to include on that project including national international and the unit that led the project and this is not even when you say the unit that leads it that's not a simple thing because people get in the quandary of I'm administered by this unit in my university but I have a joint position with this other unit so the messaging we always give is it's not about you it's about the project and then the story becomes a lot simpler typically everybody can identify a research unit that leads a project rather than they they themselves and then we ask them where we sorry we don't ask how they would like to store their data how long they need to back it up for the types of security instead we make those decisions because it's a constantly changing landscape of the Australian Privacy Act the ARC rules so we ask about the type of data and from that we make the decision the second project in a bit more depth is a the feedback we got is that a lot of people were using Dropbox a lot of people were using Google Drive a lot of people were using Arnek Cloud Store some people used university fast sharing systems which at the time in UQ were faculty based so every faculty had their own share and they couldn't share between faculties and men that the system we developed had to be as good as all those systems because if it wasn't there wasn't going to be good uptake so the system we built is a single view of storage we tend to call it um we set up a single drive letter across the whole of the university for UQ this is new for a lot of universities this isn't new so we understand where this might seem like it's pretty simple but for a researcher in UQ the fact that someone can see the same drive letter they can in another school was new we also had to have a cloud-based system that was important and we synchronize the view between those two systems so something you put into the R drive as we call it will appear in the cloud system and something that other researchers put this in the cloud system for a project will appear in the R drive as well for some researchers we also mount the same storage into HPC facilities because that's where they need the data they don't want to be copying it we also have a synchronization client much the same as Arnek or Dropbox or Cloud Store any of these systems which means that a researcher can choose to synchronize what they want from their projects to their own devices their laptops their iPads their tablets their whatever and this is an interesting use case in that researchers do things that they go out and they record interviews with people out in the field on their iPhone so it means we can support that now they no longer have to then plug their iPhone into their laptop everything should just work well that's what we're aiming for the second part is that it has to work on any any platform within UQ this is important in that existing systems there were second-class citizens the Mac users the Linux users in the university we always took a view from the start of this project that this system has to work equally well across all major platforms that our users were using it had to be easier within Australia which meant there's one option the Australian access Federation and for international there's really only the edgy game Federation the other way to approach this is you have to make individual user names for your international club rows and that's not great because the experience for the international users and the national users should be as seamless as those within UQ I think when you're building these systems you have to think about building it not just for your own users but we always thought about building the system from the start for the external user as well which meant they had to use their existing university credential we've already lost the game this means we need to rely upon something called the edgy person principal name the eppm this wasn't supported in the AAF Federation when we first started it now is it's an hour required attribute which meant we had to do a lot of legwork talking to the universities who don't support that attribute yet and raise it on their radar as to why we thought it was important it's about getting a long-term persistent idea on external researchers and we can't rely upon email for that because an email address is often recycled with the university there's only so many hien noyens you can have a university before that email address is reused which would allow access to a data set to a new hien noyen who shouldn't have access to that data set so we had to use persistent identifiers we now capture orchid wherever we can for example and that may be a long-term view but at the moment the adoption of orchid within Australia is not huge so we can't rely upon it yet industry partners are hard we had a couple of thoughts at the start of the project of how we'd handle them we of course support out of the box sharing via email so you can share a one-time link to a subfolder or to an entire folder to an industry partner they get a one-time link to the email address and they get a password which is auto-generated so it's much the same as Dropbox the same workflow we also knew that we wanted to get a persistent idea on industry partners where possible to solve the 40-year problem our thoughts around this are for LinkedIn we get what I would call very bimodal feedback on this some people like it some people hate it the message we have to go out with is that we've made LinkedIn available for you if you choose to use it it's available we certainly haven't gone out with the message of saying you integrate your industry partner with LinkedIn the feedback we get from some of our industry partners within UQ is that some again some like it some don't so it always has to be about providing options the third deliverable was about DMPs our researchers needed them often for grants for various things and for a lot of people these things are confusing so that meant for funders they're often asking for this ethics often ask for this and often what happens is a researcher will enter a bit of throwaway text which they've canvassed around with their friends and see what else someone else has put in an application and it doesn't really mean much they're not invested in the process which would like them to be around data management planning even if it's very soft touch so from the start we ask some questions these are optional and if the researcher fills out these tick boxes it means that from that information what we can do is start to build a picture of how they're managing their metadata within the project they conferred again as much of this information as they need or they want or they see fit we encourage them to fill out as much as possible but none of it is mandatory and we also don't don't present these questions at the start we only present them if they go back into the RDM system so it's not overload when they first fill out a record they only see a very small amount of information requested when they go back to update their record they're encouraged to add this extra information so these are sorts of question we ask information about these have been structured largely upon existing DMP sections but we try and make things as drop down and as easily fillable as possible this means that when they go back to their records we provide easily downloadable data management plans because we now have all the information that we know about the project and we build a as detailed data management plans the information they provide so if the feedback is from their funder that they need information about intellectual property well then we ask them to fill out that section tick and cross the boxes regenerate the PDF and a data management plan is generated which is compliant with the various funding requirements and the the paper requirements as much as we can possibly make it so then they just copy and paste that into their grant application it was also about we need to provide an easy way for them to do things which are currently hard for them and things which are hard for researchers are things like backup if they have to manage it themselves we're also starting to think about long-term curation of data at UQ it's not easy because most researchers acknowledge the question I lead on with is you know how long do you have to keep your data for I often get blank looks for that and I'll see the the presentation by asking a question of you know who is ARC funded and then who knows how long you have to keep the data and the answer is five often we get seven because that's the science answer and it's about doing the education but also making them aware that we're not requiring them to know this information it's about if we give them all the information if they give us the minimal amount of information about their project about the grant about the type of grant it is because from the application ID it means that the RDM system can make the decision about how long to keep that data for them and it also means we can provide them a system where we can guarantee that working data will exist 25 years from now because the data is taught by project there's an identified group of CI's by their persistent ID wherever possible and if they've left it means that we have to school the unit that led that project and that means there's a role there's someone who's identified as looking after that project long term so maybe we've solved all the world's problems maybe we haven't we can tell you now about what the experience has been so far based upon the system we've developed and the rollout process we have so far. So Hunter has explained that it's a series of projects that the UQRDM was built upon so I'm going to concentrate my part on IDMT4 which was which is closing the loop which is the implementation of the system at the University of Queensland. So we are a task with implementing the system across all University. So that means talking to researchers in life science but also talking to researchers in humanities their needs the perception that vocabulary are different so we need to adapt yourself. So we started the launch in January we're now halfway through and so far we we're looking good that it has been a swift update so we know that more than a thousand projects have been created on the system we also know that they have been set up as collaborative projects with two or more collaborators for each project. This is really good news for us because it demonstrates that people are not simply dumping the data of me in the system they're actually using the system the platform to really drive their collaborations. So who are our users? Well we now have more than 1200 UNIX ID so we know that the majority are staff members we also have a lot of students in particular higher HDR students so higher degree by research and also about 300 external collaborators so we know that these are mostly from external universities. So Andrew has briefly mentioned that but it was not just about saying okay you've got a platform go and use it now we spend a lot of time doing some pre-work before the launch so it was about making sure that the senior management is in form and also it's taking a big part in the project in the engagement so the DVCR the Deputy Vice Chancellor Research is sponsoring the project and there has been some really clear messages in terms of communication to our Associate Dean Research to make sure that they were aware of the system and were supporting it. We have done some work as well with ITS so it's about working with different sections of ITS not only about the communication that we would like them to relay on our behalf but also with the help desk so it's about us understanding what the support desk needed and making sure that we were putting in place resources that they will require when they need to be at the front end and making sure that the answer uses inquiry. The other category of people we've done some work with before the launch were the librarians so at UQ we've got liaison librarians so each school at the university has dedicated librarians who look after researchers help them answer the questions about research so we need to know who they are training them involving them in the implementation that was coming to the school so it's really a partnership with all these stakeholders. In terms of the rollout strategy we approach it a little bit like a roadshow so we're spending time with each unit whether they're a school, a faculty, a faculty centre or an institute at UQ and we plan with them a dedicated and purposeful rollout so what does it involve? Well it involves a quite a long engagement period so we spend time communicating with the executive of the unit so the head of school for example the school manager to explain why we're coming, what the platform is about, how we would like to tackle the presentation to the whole unit. We do that the presentation to the whole units and students would do that typically what we call week zero and following that there's two weeks of dedicated support period that is offered to the school where we come back, educate some or spend some time with students whatever they need us to do in order to drive up takes. Along the way we communicate with the head of school for example so they know what the uptake looks like, open a survey, collect feedback and reflect on the presentation and reflect on the rollout. So that's pretty much our engagement with units but that also involves a lot of people outside of the schools so for example research administrators so they are based in faculty or in school they're the ones with the most local knowledge and they're usually the first point of call for researchers. We also talk to the research partnership managers so they're the people in charge of contracts with industry partners at UQ because research partnership managers are also the first point of contact for collaborative agreements to share the data or check that the contracts already in place with industry partners allow the researcher to use the UQ research data manager. We talk to the research integrity advisors so they are academics who can answer questions about integrity and best practice at UQ and it's important that we make them aware that we're talking to the unit because there also will be a point of contact when people are asking questions about the UQRDM when they are asking how it fits with the integrity and the code of conduct. And last point we're talking with the ITS research sorry ITS relationship managers so they are people based in ITS and they are the link between schools and ITS so they're the one answering the questions about storage when people approach them for example. So it's about this exercise is really about raising the awareness of the platform amongst this group and our message is always the same with all these people it's not just an IT it's not just an IT platform it's about making sure that it doesn't become a big dump of unorganized data so it's one of the message that we keep on stressing that it is for projects and not for people. So not about the last 10 years of me of me but really the data of the project that I'm associated with at this point in time. So it needs to be project specific because it's described by the metadata and organized by projects and to create this approach we have a the collaborative tool that is available to them so people understand better when you say well actually define your project by the group of collaborators that you need to give access to to the research data. As part of the role as well we we try to establish a data custodian role so going back to our form our metadata form Andrew mentioned before that we ask which school or department leads the project so that gives us pretty much a chain of commands because in each school we're setting up the data custodian so they are it's a role usually held by the head of school that will help us to have that chain of commands to to make sure that the data is never orphaned. So for example when when the library receive a request regarding your data sets for reuse and the investigators are no longer at UQ so the data custodian will be contacted to seek their recommendation. For example when people leave projects and they are no longer UQ stuff on the record so it's about transferring the lead of the project to somebody else. The data custodian role can either act or delegate in that case. It's also about research integrity so when concerns are raised on the integrity of a research project and the UQ integrity office needs to investigate and potentially gain access to the research data they can contact the data custodian role. So it's really a little step towards the F and A of fair data so findable and accessible at least within UQ. That way we know that UQ has a pretty good oversight of the research data if it needs to be found again. As part of the implementation so IDMP4 we're also instilling the message that the UQ RDM is here to start. So we're working with other departments at the university such as graduate school so the unit that looks after our PhD students for example. It's about making them aware of the platform of course. I'm encouraging them to communicate to students that it's a good tool to use. It's about talking to the office of ethics so if they've got questions or if they've got concerns in an ethics application they can find the researchers to the UQ RDM platform. It's about the office of research integrity who needs to answer questions about research integrity and again if researchers ask them questions they can point them to our platform. And last thing it's about we also using with the research computing center who looks after HPC facilities at UQ to make sure that they know that they can direct researchers to us as well. The other aspect on which we are working at the moment is it's about linking so going back to IDMP3 which is which is about migrating data to manage collection. So far the UQ RDM has been used for working data and it is intended to be used that way. What we need to do is making sure that the green arrow that you've got on the slide here actually goes towards output. So it's about a researcher selecting a subset of the data in their project and pushing it towards the data sets for which they can obtain DOI and linking them to our institutional repository which is called eSpace. So again that's another little step towards fair data. The other aspect of that project is also the archiving. So it's making sure that at the end of a project researchers can select everything and push it to archive. This is about compliance making sure that UQ help researchers to comply with their legislative requirements so if the data needs to be kept for 10, 25 years. And so still in our way of linking with persistent identifier we have made that link with Orkut so people can actually see with the collaborations that they've got involved in the project their Orkut ideas. So permanent identifier to make sure that the data doesn't go astray. Orkut is one platform and we're also linking with the research activity identifier. So by project this time not by person. So what's coming? For the project is further enhancement. So the UQRDM will be used to provision digital research notebooks. So by digital research notebook we're talking electronic lab notebooks. So the electronic version of the lab notebook that goes into the laboratory where researchers put all their notes and sign etc. So when researchers create a project record on the UQRDM they will just have to tick a box and a digital research notebook will be made available to them if they choose to. This is about making sure that they keep all versions of all documents. So it's particularly important for compliance issue if for example later on the track they will pattern or they've got very strong requirements in terms of keeping all versions of all documents. The other piece that we are working towards is about giving researchers feedback on the use and on a bit more education around the UQRDM. So for example raising awareness in terms of how long does that need to be kept for for example so we'd like to feed that back to them. So having an interface where it actually shows well your data will be created for such number of years. The other piece of information we'd like to feed back to them is the cost of storage not that they will have to pay for the storage but it's about making people aware industry partners granting bodies how much UQRDM is investing in decoration of data and raising awareness around the income contribution for any kind of project. So it has been an interesting journey and while the project is still going strong we know that we've got some challenges ahead of us. So the first one that I will mention is about data management planning. So Andrew has mentioned that we've got a section on the record that has a series of questions about DMP. We're not quite sure how this section will be used. It's not compulsory. It's totally up to the researchers so if they want to use it they can but will it. So that would be quite an interesting question to revisit later down the track. The other challenge is that we've got is around extra sensitive data. So we've got a good platform but when you mention cloud people can be a little bit concerned and industry partners in particular. So we have more convincing to do making sure that we adapt our system to the more higher requirements if you'd like. We need to do other further step towards reproducibility. So there's more education because it's not just about providing storage, it's about educating people what they can put in there, what they should be putting in there and also when we get to the archiving making sure that the package that is produced is actually useful for reproducibility. So we've been talking about baggage format, we've been talking to the data crate project to know where we're going. It will also be about keeping the flame alive. So the uptake has been swift as I was mentioning but we very well aware that the system cannot be static. We've got a competitive edge at the moment at UQ because we've got that one view, what single view of research data at UQ but it's about making sure that the system is enhanced to keep on being perceived as one of the best platform for UQ researchers. We've also been talking to scientists and instrument managers that would like the same kind of system but for instruments so not just about working data but for all data. It will come in time, we haven't had a single solution at this point in time to offer to them so it's still in the making. Well we've got all these challenges, we also know that the last five months have demonstrated that the platform is successful and that taught us a couple of lessons. So we know that we're on the right track for the engagement process. It's very time-consuming but it's also worthwhile. People are engaging successfully with the platform and I don't think it would have been possible if we just had released it by an email. It's also making sure we know that we need to keep on building a unique value proposition so why is the UQ RDM better than a commercial product at UQ and keep on message and because of the number of stakeholders this is quite a challenge as well making sure that we are we are saying we are all saying the same thing and lastly we know it's a success because it has involved the input of a lot of people so it's a mix of people academics and in people library people, recent PhD students, technical staff and also champions so researchers have been a big part of it. Without this feedback and without the engagement with the platform I don't think the project would have been that successful. Last thing from me is about trying to, how can I say, try to build a UQ RDM community. So obviously the UQ RDM is for UQ researchers but we have made the code available for evaluation by other universities so I think for within Australia and in New Zealand had access to the code and it's about sharing the lessons that we have so far encountered. So that's it for the presentation and we'll be quite happy to answer your questions. Fantastic thanks Sandrine and thanks Andrew. I've got a couple of questions that have come through. The first one was a really early one that said what is the uptake of edugane internationally? Do you know it? We thought it was very consistent turns out no. It's actually pretty good. We don't have hard numbers on our success rate with international partners. I would estimate it to be around about 50-50 if not better. What's interesting is that different countries have made decisions about how they use edugane. So for example the the Dutch group I think it's called they make a decision where if you join a service to edugane a university in the Dutch consortium has to ask to have that service included before the Dutch researchers will be able to use it whereas in every other country every service is available. In the UK there's some sensitivities around releasing EPPN around being identifying information and yet EPPN is a required attribute of the edugane federation. The approach we've had to take is there's 2,700 plus institutions within edugane which means that we have to ask our researchers to try let us know where it fails. Where it has failed we've pretty much always succeeded by contacting the technical contact which is available on the web in the edugane federation, contacting them, making the case. This is important to us as UQ. It's important to these group of people within your university that part is critical. You can't approach the other university and say you should do this for UQ they don't care. It's yeah please even that doesn't work. It's about is the identified if they have prof after and probably works better saying if four people in your university who want to work with UQ with this system that we haven't failed once with that approach. Sometimes it takes time but we haven't failed. Fantastic. That's a very good way of going about it for all sorts of systems not just edugane. Okay the next question we have is what is UQ planning to do with data after the retention period? This is an answer of question. We don't have any plan for deleting anything so we currently in talks with the ITS trying to figure out a solution for data storage and we're talking long term. And there's certainly not a technical problem. There are existing cloud technologies which make it very cheap to store data long term. It's more about the policy around it. So yes the archiving workflows which are coming allow us to keep data on ice forever at the end of a seven-year five-year whatever project. What's not in place is the university policy around after 25 years who's makes the decision to delete it? That's the hard question. It's around what's the process? Do you email the CI's? If they don't respond what do you do? Do you email the head of school? Who makes the call? And this is we're trying to embed this information when we make the archive to say who has the power to delete this long term which is why we're taking time to implement the archiving workflows. I've just got a question on that one. Do you link the data in the archive to the DOI on it to see whether it's been used? I'm sure that that would be part of the decision making process there as well. Absolutely. That's always a hard one there. Okay another question. I'm interested to know if your code is able to be evaluated by government funded science organisations. Why not? I'd say that would be an email Andrew or Sandrine and ask the answer to your question there. The advice is around for non-commercial use. That's fine. Okay next question is Andrew mentioned asking what types of data researchers have and can he please elaborate on what he meant by this? That's very simple to say is the data human? Is the data human identified? Do you have data which requires access to HPC? It's really a very small list of questions if you think about it in terms of the business requirements. It typically comes down to things like the Australian Privacy Act. Identified human data has to be within Australia. It's a very small subset if you'd like details we're prepared to share but I've effectively just said the only questions we need to make a decision. Okay I think linked with that might be which institutions in Australia are currently accessing the UQ IDM code? I will need to go back to my list. I think we've got the University of... No I don't want to say any wrong things. That's right. Email and ask I think. Is the answer to the question on that one? Okay. Does the system have any reporting function? In time. So at this point in time it's another reporting to the head of units. We tell them how many records they've got in the system. Who are the institutions that the researchers are collaborating with. So it's very generic. It's very, it's very, not very detailed because the policy in place to share that metadata hasn't been set up yet. So we are cautioned that. And I would say what is the amount of data in the system? It is immense but it's about keeping researchers trusted. This is critical. So our project control group is 50% academic represented from every faculty, every level, ABCDE across the whole university. The last thing we want to do is say here's this magical reporting tool if you use it the university will know exactly what you're doing. That's not... I can't go bad. Researchers I don't know whether it's understandable or not but they're cautious about being followed minutely. And we have to be very cognizant of that at all points in time. And the feedback we give to them is there is not a policy until there is a policy which everyone will have access to. The recording is minimal right now. It's de-identifiable. Okay. We just had somebody who's piped up that UOW I believe is one of the institutions which does have access. Yes, actually. Then someone says, excuse my ignorance but what is the 25-year period of retention in relation to? Clinical trials is the typical retention period for these 25 years. For drug development work, for example, it's infinite. So 25 years was really an example for long-term. That's right. The next question is will the SYNC clients work for other universities and are they open as well? Absolutely. It's based upon the next cloud platform which is free open source. The SYNC client is how the international and national collaborators and the industry partners get access to the data if they wish or they use the web front end. Yes. Okay. Well the next one is when you say the system code is available for evaluation, is it open source? I think you may have just answered that question on that one. It's not a released open source product yet because UQ is keen that they protect their interest in it which means it will be released under an open source license but it's going through trademarking of various things now and the university does not want to release under an open source license until those things are in place. That's understandable. Somebody's asking why next cloud and not own cloud? That was the decision of RTS. There are some technical reasons around it. It's predominantly around the way external storage is mounted into a person's storage. If you're keen on details, contact me out. I can say why. I understand that community split from own cloud and next cloud which means we don't maintain compatibility with our net cloud store. There are a few technical reasons only. It's not philosophical. Okay. Then do you think there will be one system that will service multiple universities and PFRAs? That would be lovely. That's certainly a Santa Claus. It's not the moon. It's such a complex landscape here and universities all have different requirements and understandings. I wish the answer was yes. Practically, I think if we could get even one or two universities onto this sort of system and share the technologies, that would be fantastic. Next question is, is the metadata from the UQ-IDM published into RDA and or into your e-space or other repositories for discovery? The asset will be pushed through e-space and then after that it's the traditional institutional repository. If the question is around the metadata of the project, no. That's always private, but the archive, the data sets that come out of that, yes, are pushed into e-space which is pushed onto RDA. There were a few discussions around this. Should this metadata run all projects and you become available after a certain period of time? Numbers were thrown around like seven and 10 years. We haven't done it. Here's the answer. That's the last of our long list of questions. If anybody has a quick question that they want to put in there, just put it in there now. I just wanted to ask you about, you said that it was voluntary to get into it at the moment. What has been your uptake? Is it a sort of an exponential uptake or just a linear little gradual? The graph is very, very swift. 22 weeks now since we launched that form and we've got 1,000 records. We've got 1,300 unique users. It has been very quick. It grows on average by about three and a half terabytes a week of storage of data going into the system across the university. It grows by about 50 users a week embryonically without us doing anything at about 10 to 15 projects a week with no effort on our side. Every time we do a roll out, we get a bump of about 30 to 40 projects in the system. It really depends upon local policy. Some schools, when we say it's not mandatory, it's a school decision in UQ around how they implement some policies. In some schools, they've made it mandatory for all HDR students to have a record on the RDM system by their candidature, which is M1, which is one year into their candidature. But again, the school decision, we don't push it. Okay. Somebody says, well done. They're so jealous. The only thing we can do is support them. So we're providing a lot of support in terms of wordings, in terms of policies, making sure that it's, for example, in the HR induction list or HR exit list or this kind of thing. So it's about raising the awareness, but ultimately, at this point in time, the schools decide. And our approach has always been, there's no point in mandating it because if it's not good enough, researchers are already non-compliant. We're not auditing. We know Dropbox is used. We know other things are used. There's no point in mandating a system if you can't meet the demand. It doesn't work for them. And it's a slow implementation. If we decided that we needed to mandate it straight away, perhaps we haven't been capable to have a year take, or it would have cause more growing pain and break the trust of researchers. We've got a whole bunch more questions that have come in. So are you advising extra sensitive data users, e.g., health linkage data, clinical trials, etc., to use the system? Yeah, all right. There's two parts of the answers to this. One is, okay, I'll answer the technical side. The answer is we built the system to handle it. So this means for most contracts we see, we can meet the needs of the contract, which means we can technically guarantee that the data will only be seen by these four researchers in this IP address range in Milwaukee, every copy of every data and who changed it. Unfortunately, there's also the contractual part of that question, which is centred. So we take a case-by-case approach where we actually ask researchers to check in the contract whether what are the conditions imposed upon them for storage, for sharing. So we cannot say a cookie cutter approach. It's going to be good for everyone. Go for it. We have to be cautious. I think this is a statement here. It says the 25 years is a retention period for clinical trials with newborns. Seven years is standard period for retention with trial data, but starts when the youngest trial participant turns 18. So for those who are interested. Okay. And unfortunately, these things change often. So we ask at the start, how long do you need to keep it for? Because in five years time, that information may be out of date. That's true. So is that something that going back to people, is that something that you're intending to build into the system then? We thought about feeding it back, but we're also cautious about people gaming the system. That means if we give them feedback, if we tick the boxes and say, we'll keep this for 25 years, we're not keen on researchers, if they're a wily bunch, they'll figure out which buttons to press to meet their needs, even if they don't understand. Well, they are the sort of minds we want in research, aren't they? I think. Coming here, it says, very interesting talk. Thanks. First time I've come across someone who else thinking project centric, not researcher centric. So that's a very different basis for your system and that possibly will be a very big foundation, which will make it different from what else is out there. The next question I had was how many person years was it to build the system? Development effort or people, all the people? It just says to build the system. Okay. So to build the system development effort, one and a half FTE for two years, that's the answer. In terms of complete effort, it's probably an average of three and a half FTE for two and a half years, total, a lot of in kind, a lot of support, a lot of talking. Next one, with respect to extra sensitive and keeping access to authorized users only, does your next cloud sync manage sharing data? If it's extra sensitive data, we turn off the synchronization, the share by link functionality within next cloud. And this is one of the reasons we chose next cloud over home cloud. They didn't support the time. So it means we can manage how users are allowed to share data within the web interface based upon the type of data on a project basis. So for each external share. And yes, we do only allow identified researchers to access the data in a identified human data collection. Now the next one is, is there a demo or recorded demo to see how a researcher would interact? I presume that means interact with your system. So we've got a user guide that's available to anyone. We've got a couple of videos there that demonstrate the system. So yes, the answer is yes. And are there checks for file obsolescence, sorry, are there checks for file obsolescence built into the archival stage? Five minutes ago. Yeah, that one thought about that one. Okay. I would like them to be. The answer is, is that I'm very keen that the archiving workflows and not just a dump it and put it on ice. There are some existing systems out there. Probably spearheaded a lot by Pete Sefton in UTS, where there are long term data archival and curation services that work in the same way as an archivist works in a library. You don't just store something and shop on the shelf and run away for 25 years. It's about managing that. I'm making sure the documentation things are up to date. The way we're storing the long-term archives is in bagged format, possibly data crate. Because it's in a managed format, it means we could run routine checks year on year to make sure file formats are up to date and convert on the fly if possible. It is certainly something we're thinking about. There is no international consensus that I can see on how to do this yet. We will make a decision on that shortly, but we'll certainly set it up so that we can. There's just a comment that is with regards to keeping your next cloud sync management. Basically, that's super cool that you're able to turn off the syncing there. That's the last question that we have. Oh no, another one just snuck in. Can the user guide be made available outside UQ? Sandrine, it seemed to be that it already is. Is that correct? How would someone find it then? If you send them to me, everybody who's on the webinar will get an email when the recording is available and I can put them in that same email if you'd like and then we can put them at the bottom of the YouTube description as well, so that's easy enough to do. Okay. Oh goodness me. They keep coming in. Who did you get to do the voiceover for the videos? It's very good. That's a comment. I'll pass on to John. Okay, so they've obviously gone out and checked them out already. Fantastic. So I think that's probably time to wrap up now. Thank you so much, Sandrine and Andrew for your time today. The number of questions coming in has meant that people are really engaged with this topic and really interested in it and we greatly appreciate your time with that. So thank you everybody for coming today and thank you again for presenting and we'll see you next time. Thank you, Sarah.