 Before we get started, welcome everybody and thank you for joining us. I'm Cliff Lynch. I'm the director of the coalition for networked information and I'll be introducing this session. This session is the last of the scheduled contributed breakout sessions for week three of the fall 2020 CNI member meeting, there will be a summing up session on Monday that I will that I will chair. So remind you week three is devoted to issues around standards infrastructure and technology. And I also want to remind you that along with the scheduled videos there are a number of pre recorded videos that we've made available, and please make use of those as appropriate as well. Here's to today's session. We are recording this and we will make the recording public after the session closed captioning is available. There is chat available. And there is a Q&A tool that you can use to enter questions at any point during the presentations as they occur to you. We will do all the presentations and then actually Casey read rather than the usual Diane Goldenberg heart will moderate the Q&A session Casey is from a PLU. We have with us several panelists, Judy Ruttenberg, who is from the Association of Research Libraries. And Casey who I've already introduced, and John Chidaki from the California Digital Library. We also have with us Cynthia Vitao, who won't be speaking but may get involved in some of the Q&A. She is from Penn State and has been serving as a visiting program officer with ARL working on various aspects of this project so we have a great team of presenters and discussions here. And what this is about is the results of a convening that happened in conjunction with the December 2019 CNI fall meeting in Washington. This is a workshop trying to look at practices around research data management and there have been lots of subsequent discussions and refinements on it, resulting in a very nice guide, a good deal of this focuses on issues around data management plans and how to deal with them. Without any further ado, it's obvious why this is needed and why it's so important and I'll just turn it over to Judy to start the presentations. Let me thank our presenters and welcome them back to CNI. Thank you so much, Cliff. And thanks to CNI for having us today. Thanks to all of you for joining us or if you're watching a future recording. Thanks for tuning in. As Cliff mentioned, this presentation is based on a National Science Foundation funded conference that ARL organized with CDL with AAU and APLU at the end of 2019. And we came together as organizations to do this conference because we're already involved in advancing open times by design by accelerating public in accelerating public access to research data. In the case of AAU and APLU and that working group and with CDL as tool builders and experts in research data management and curation. So I just want to acknowledge the outstanding project team, many of whom are either on the panel with us today or in the audience as participants. So I'm going to present the results of our conference, the project focusing on the report that we published in September of this year, and the toolkit that we've put together designed to use the content of that report in conversations within your own institutions and across a variety of stakeholders. Casey is going to organize the Q&A, facilitate some interactive work, and John is going to close for us. So this project, the conference, the report, the toolkit started because NSF issued a Dear Colleague letter in May of 2019, recommending two well-established good practices for managing data. Assigning a persistent identifier or PID to datasets and creating machine readable or active data management plans. So why PIDs? Because they connect to the elements of scholarship. So in our report in our project, we ended up recommending five core PIDs for people, objects, funding, funding force, grant, and organization. And why active DMPs? Because in an active state, as opposed to a PDF document that's attached to a funding proposal, an active data management plan serves an important communication function between researchers and their research offices on campus, between PIs and their program officers, funding agencies, and between researchers and data repositories. So the project began with the conference we held last December. And after which we, the project team, took our notes, created a set of draft guidelines for and vetted them with participants this spring, as well as other stakeholders that were not able to be with us at the conference. And so by the stakeholders we referenced in the title here included leaders of libraries, campus IT personnel, senior research officers, tool builders, and researchers themselves. So that's how, who was involved in creating them and who were speaking to you, as in terms of implementation. And then everything related to this project is available on ARL's website on the URL that you see here. So today what's new, we're kind of presenting this findings as a kind of lightweight toolkit based on our report and recommendations. Everything in it is customizable and reusable for your institution for sort of taking the contents of this report and turning it into shareable slides, handouts, discussion questions. The reading list that we used for our conference to prepare for our conference that really gives you the kind of deep background on to as to what how these data practices emerged in the first place to be recommended by NSF. And the report everything that we've written about the report and blog posts and articles, and some video interviews that we did with key stakeholders that can really help explain not the importance of these practices and what they can do for us. So, the recommendations are, you know, like I said, sort of segmented by stakeholder and this is so created the sort of stakeholder pyramid to explain that but not to reflect both who we convened, and who we consulted, but also how these practices kind of propagate across the research ecosystem and where we believe our steer of influence to be. So, you know, these, these standards around PIDs and machine actionable machine readable data management plans really come from the research community and groups like RDA research data Alliance. They get embraced by and required by government and funding funder agency policies incorporated into tool building and publishers and sort of between all of that and researchers. So, you know, is this kind of research support service area which is the really the group, the groups that we as associations wanted to convene in order to make these practices, sort of doable and achievable and as we said no nonsense and practical within your institutions. One of the report is that the more open the systems are around these practices and the more collaborative this the stakeholders within this pyramid are the more effective the services and relationships are going to be for the folks at the top of the pyramid which is the researchers themselves. The report is structured with as kind of high level, like across the board recommendations why these are good practices, and then it's broken up into stakeholder groups I'm just going to use the example of researchers as one as one segment. And this is the way it's laid out so there's the sort of introductory context for the group within the ecosystem researchers have many demands on their time and attention. So incentives for adoption for that group, and then recommendations themselves. So, which are some are easier than others to implement we get that, but they are all practical, achievable and sort of widely endorsed by the community. The point of the toolkit is to help help you figure out how to have these conversations and some discussion questions around, you know that might arise as you discuss them within within your own institutions. So, will show the URL again at the end for the toolkit but what it includes are shareable slides that you can customize to your own institution that have things like value proposition and the recommendations themselves, you know you could scope it just to that to a particular group you were talking to you. And then certainly of course, use this opportunity to link to and include services that exist already on your campus and where people local contacts and where people would go for help in your institution. We also include in the toolkit, the again the reading list that we circulated in advance of our conference and that we've all contributed to. And then the conference at a glance the kind of questions we asked people are key takeaways. Again, the kind of core, the five core kids that we're recommending an incentive for adoption. So, like I said, the, you know, some of these practices will be easier to implement than others so one of the, you know, to accompany the slides and recommendations themselves. We've created some discussion questions to go along with it again by by stakeholder groups or for researchers designed to help you basically as collaborators and service providers sort of really dig into how to implement these practices. The gaps might exist in your institutional workflow, how you might advance them, and then at the same time what services already exist so another opportunity to show people what, you know, what you're already doing in libraries and research offices and collaboratively in order to advance these practices. So, with that, I'm going to turn it over to Casey. Thank you, Judy. I'm Casey right I'm the associate VP of research and some education at the Association of Public and Landgate universities. It's a hired association here in DC. We, I think what would be best, since we're in a webinar situation is to just go right into the padlet and give people, our audience members a chance to sort of interact in that way so I am going to get ready one second and put it into the chat. And then I'll share my screen so we can see in a second but so we have a padlet here. And this is a space where the audience members can put sticky notes essentially on a question that we're asking back to the community. So, we thought it would be really helpful if one if we better understood sort of what you guys thought success looks like for the CNI community. And then we also thought it'd be useful for you guys to hear from one another, what what success looks like so we share my screen. And maybe just want some more second, because that opened up a window to have the, to have the report open. Okay, so I'm sharing the padlet here I see people are already starting to add so that's awesome. And if for some reason just technologically you can't access the padlet, you can also drop it into the chat and we will move will be moving it over so I'm going to give folks just a couple of minutes to add to the padlet. And if you see there's a, there's a plus at the bottom right hand corner that you can click on to add a post it note. So what would success for the implementation implementation of machine actual DMPs and PIDs look like at your campus. So one of the postsets we see, and you can also as some of you have seen you can upload posts those that you think are especially good points. Success would be streamlined coordination among research data service and infrastructure support. Another one is the contents of a DMP would be shared across the campus for better awareness of upcoming and ongoing data needs. We have my library would be able to quickly discover the research outputs data publications and our researchers produce and and at no cost. There's this idea that this is would be incorporated into research administration systems and checklist so that sort of potential like a compliance sort of piece that we can sort of follow what hasn't hasn't been done. Success would include knowing what data needs are and what the PI say they will do regarding data management, always trying to get buy in from faculty is always a challenge. I'll give another 30 seconds or so for more ideas to come in and then bring those forward. Every DMP would include do is or pearls for where outputs could be found. And then the machine actual DMPs would allow the do is and DMPs to connect someone's added that the tracking research for impact and assessment reporting that has been one thing that, as we've been, you know engaged in these discussions is, how do we start to reward this work and what sort of reward is thinking about how to assess impact. So I think that's sort of the next frontier thinking about this work about how we do that in the humanities into the discussion there's often a strong sense that data practices only pertain to the sciences. And then, and then there's been a question so whoever Katie's asked you have any resources on sharing data and humanities. I'm uploading so it looks like tracking research for impact and assessment has a couple of thumbs up, and this fostering the cross campus collaboration on data management to build coalition. Often when library start the discussion we fear that we will be stuck with unfunded mandates that one's gotten a couple of uploads. And then success would look like many systems using orchids as unique IDs, if we could just get that minimum bar that would be great. So that's just for the idea of being able to share the contents of the DMP across units on a campus, being able to articulate the value of PIDs other stakeholders owning this space. Oops, I'm going faster than than john is being able to add his thoughts. I think maybe we've we've had a good amount of time to sort of to dig into this, this piece and so maybe we'll check the questions and answers. So we'll keep this open so as people add to it we can. I'll try to bring in some of that discussion and if folks have questions or you know have things to put in the chat we can bring that into but if you did have any questions for us the question and answer box is open as well for that's in the zoom webinar. So we're ready to take those. Did you guys did my co host see anything that I might have missed any good ones. I don't know that you missed it I mean you use it has a lot of upvotes this contents of the DMP would be shared across campus that was a huge theme of the conference that and you know and it's part of making it active sort of pulling it out of the funding proposal and figuring out a way to share it so that it really becomes a communication vehicle I just think that was a core insight. I also had some discussion about how public to make it in win right so. I think we were all in support of having the DMPs be at the end of a grant be made available is also it's kind of a way a catalog of what folks might look, you know might be looking for his data sets from a research from a research project. John were there any of these that you wanted to sort of bring into the discussion that you wanted to expand upon. I'm sure yes so I think that as Judy was saying you know our, our project was inspired by this dear colleague letter from NSF and that dear colleague letter was really a conversation between NSF and NSF researchers. And while that conversation was going on there's obviously other conversations going on in the library space about how we as libraries can interact with other cross campus communities and departments on research data research data practices. And so this conference this this discussion here was really trying to empower libraries in a space that we definitely have a tradition of being involved in, but in many ways we can be left out of discussions or feel like we are out of discussions on different dynamics, they might be funding as was in here about, you know, not feeling that it's appropriate for us to start discussions about research data when we know we don't have the funding to, to back it up and being afraid that will be stuck with unfunded mandates that maybe we're involved in making another dynamic might be that research it or the grants office might be in charge of the information a little bit more than we are. And so there's just not that cross campus collaboration and there's just not the understanding of whether or not the library is really the place that would have the information, for example with a DMP a researcher fills that out and while we are helping with consulting. We might not be able to to to have all the information available to us to help researcher. And so we're kind of a little worried or unaware or unsure if that's the kind of place where we should put our, our resources. So there's these different dynamics that are at play and what we were really trying to do at this conference is, you know, one just reassure the library community that there is a very practical and impactful way for libraries to contribute. And the other is really to to very clearly articulate select this practical no nonsense approach is like just articulate exactly what that value can be and how close it is to where we already are as a library community. We are many times either through those dynamics or just through our own day to day work. We forget that libraries are very much at the center of this idea of research data because it does rely on our traditions of stewardship and and cataloging and metadata and information science so we we wanted to make sure that we could address the questions that were brought up from things like the dear colleague letter that are very much couched in these science to science terminology. But we wanted to bring that and demystify that down to how can librarians talk about it and be involved in the conversation. And I think that's one of the things that was very telling about our discussion is that, you know, as we broke it down stakeholder by stakeholder it was very easy to see that librarians already know these things, even if the terminology is a little jargon ish. If it's like, you know, seems a little techie or a little bit too much about research office or grant office inner workings. But one of the nice things about this board here is that we're seeing, you know, there is this real understanding that librarians are involved in things like not just consulting around data management plans but actually interested in the inner workings of the information within it and how it can impact different departments on campuses and within the library. And that, you know, libraries are obviously involved in kids and persistent identifiers, but really understanding that those persistent identifiers are not just in themselves, kids, they are packages of metadata that can travel and be linked to other entities. Again, these are all concepts that we work on within libraries all the time. And once we demystify that kind of the way kids and active DMPs and everything kind of are being discussed out in the wild through RDA and other places we can really see a clear home and a place for librarians to remain involved in the in the discussion. And so I would say that we were very successful in creating a very no nonsense practical guide so I would recommend everybody taking a look at it and I would, you know, thank you to ARL for the leadership on pulling together the toolkit. It is something that actually can be grabbed leveraged librarians who even maybe don't have as much information around research data can definitely leverage it and can quickly understand how they can be involved in the conversations on their and it gives context to specific stakeholders that you're working with. And I just put up the final slide so we didn't have to switch back to duty of the sort of where you can find more which we also dropped into the chat. So the I guess the only other things we'll say, please check out the resources. And I'll put a plug in for a UN APL use accelerating public access to research data a part work. So we're looking in the new year to have our guide out to the community so sometimes February ish spring will say spring will just like you know spring ish early spring of 2021 and are working on a second summit so we will be sharing that out with our communities. So look for that we a UN APL you have worked with ARL on this report because we do really see the value of the librarian community and are thinking about how can this be a cross campus effort right it's going to take a lot of it's going to take a lot of hands with a lot of expertise and ownership of different parts of the puzzle, and just trying to come together and have a coherent right cohesive systemic way to support researchers and doing this work. So, I'm not seeing any questions come through the question and answer piece or the chat so do we want to just say thank you all for coming and pass it back to CNI CNI folks. Excellent thank you. Thank you so much for that wonderful talk, we really appreciate hearing about your work in this area and thank you so much for coming to CNI and sharing it with our community. We're just about at time so I'm going to go ahead and close down the session with thanks to our panelists thanks to our attendees. I'm going to turn off the recording now but I will invite our attendees who are still with us if you want to hang around and have a chat with our speakers please feel free to do so just raise your hand, and I'll be happy to turn on your microphone. And with that, thanks everyone take care hope to see you back at CNI soon. Bye.