 Welcome everyone to another ANS webinar event. It's a pleasure to have you all here online from here in Farris, part of the Greater ANS webinar series, which to date have included topics such as data management, data licensing, data citation, to name but a few. My name is Alexander Hayes and I have with me here on the sunny Canberra Day, Jerry Ryder. We searched down around a list from at ANS who's flown all the way from Fair Adelaide. Welcome everybody. South Australia to join us for this important event and of course a myriad of meetings that she's doing. Welcome Jerry. For your interest everyone and to acknowledge the significance of this webinar topic, it's important to note that we've got attendees registered for this webinar from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, University of Tasmania, the Australian Antarctic Division, University of Edinburgh, Chair Sciences Australia, Matrobe University, University of Canberra Australia, Deakin University, University of Melbourne Australia, Waleh Publishers, University of Western Sydney, Griffith University, University of Queensland, Research Data Storage Infrastructure, RDSI, Monash University and that's just to name a few. A few of these organisations it's obviously for to whom data is publishing as of great interest and an already an integral part of their research activities. So we've got very two distinguished guests today joining us today who are privileged to have on board given that the topic at hand is data journals. Jane Smith is the Sherpa Service Development Officer at the Centre for Research Communications University of Nottingham. In this role Jane's involved in a number of projects around open access information including Romeo, the Juliet Open Door, Fact and Geord and those of you who have been involved in institutional publications and repositories you'll be familiar with at least some of these acronyms. Jane's here today to talk about the Geord Project, the Journal Research Policy Data Bank which has a particular focus on journal publishers' data sharing policies. We also have with us Dr Fiona Murphy who is the publisher for Earth and Environmental Sciences, Sciences journals at Wiley working with a number of titles, societies and other publishing partners. Fiona is also increasingly involved with emerging initiatives that promote good management practices of research data including reuse, use, citation and linking from primary publications. Among other activities this has led to being a core part in the prepared project on peer review and publication of data sets and to membership of the STM Association Research Data Group and World Data Systems Data Publication Working Group. Now for a very brief background on ANZ activities during late 2012 and staff undertook a desktop survey to identify data journals across a range of disciplines in order to define what a data journal is to review data journal policies in particular what keep requirements for DOIs, data deposit and data citation as well as to assess the status of data journals surveyed taking into account years established peer review processes and whether they're indexed in fact by Thomson Reuters Web of Science. So pleased today to be able to bring together these lead international initiatives and these guest speakers in a webinar that were sure will shed some light on the policies devised by academic publishers to promote linkage between data journals, journal articles and underlying research data. I'd now like to introduce to you Jane Smith from the University of Nottingham. I hope everyone can see the presentation appearing. I've been working on the Journal Research Data Policy Bank or JOARD for simplification. Just before talking about what happened through the project and findings, I'm going to give a bit of background. I'm sure you're all quite familiar with it if you're tuning into the ANZ webinars but you just bear with me. Data has been coming increasingly valuable resource in its own right. People are wanting access to the data behind journals not just the data in the journal article. Some are wanting access to data sets. Research councils are now wanting that publicly funded research data to be made more available and shared across the communities as much as an indication that they're spending their money appropriately. With changes in research practice and technology it's now possible to make use of these data sets and collect different data sets, different researchers and extract additional information across the board. As I'm sure you were, 2011 ANZ had an international workshop and part of this came out with the conclusion that it would be a good advantage to collect journals policies on research data. What the journals and the publishers want the authors to do with that data. So Jisk, who funded George through the Managing Research Data Programme, incorporated this idea into it and asked for people to be able to look at doing a feasibility study of, is this actually sensible to do? Other aspects of the programme including making research data management programmes and management strands in various institutions so there's a bit more of an infrastructure to be developed and if the introducers are developing actually the researchers deposit data they're going to start wanting to know what the journals will let them do. So in some ways we've been calling it somewhat short and cheekily as the Romeo of the data to help people understand. So Jordan's Six Months Feasibility Study, it ran in July December last year as it was commissioned by Jisk and it was run by Centre for Research Communications Research Information Network, our colleague Paul Sturges at the University of Loughborough that's just down the road from Nottingham and Mark Ware Consulting and together we sculpt and shape a potential service that can provide ready source information for covering journal policy landscape of research data. So we did this in three stages. Sorry, I need to have my notes in the right order. Our aims are to identify the scope and format of a service to collate and summarise general data policies but also to investigate and recommend business models which just wanted the aim that it would be financially self-sustaining. So those key stages I mentioned. First, we wanted to investigate what was the current state of general policies on research data. Are there any out there? How good are they? What do they cover? That sort of thing. We also wanted to consult with stakeholders. I'm not just talking about researchers but the research managers, the funders, the publishers, support work people who support the researchers like librarians and repository staff. And as mentioned, we want to look at the business models and what service options available. So the list of review, I want to look at what have been done already in the literature. Had anyone done something similar? Did they have any recommendations and had to do the studies? These are that. In summary of the literature, general thoughts was there wasn't a great deal of literature on this area, particularly on journal policies or research data. There might be stuff about research data but not necessarily about journals having policies. However, there were some key studies and these found that a large percentage of journals lacked policies and data sharing. And those studies are the likes of McCain in 95 and perhaps more famously, Perouin and Chapman in 2008. I don't have the full references but I can get them to people if they wish. There's also no standard procedures across these from these studies indicated how a journal should create a data sharing policy or what those policies should advise. That's right. There's also this is a large degree of inconsistency. Some were very vague, some were very clear and cut off what was wanted. There's also little guidance available to the authors. However, some subject areas like biomedical science was leading the way in this area. And also sort of as a perhaps perhaps a closer little guidance, researches, data sharing habits were also quite inconsistent. So with this knowledge, we went to start looking at what policies the journals actually have. We decided to look at both the highest and lowest impact factor journals and to pick a hundred of each of these from the two subject areas covered by the Thomson Reuters Citation Index, that's science and social sciences. However, as you notice, we only have to look at 371. This is because there's actually some duplication across these two lists. Of those 371 titles we investigated, 162, which is 44%, actually had policies. In fact, there's 230 policies, which I'll explain a bit later, but it does make sense. Those are quite good subject coverage. There's 36 subject areas covered across these two lists. We did consider whether or not to contain journals we knew had policies in, but decided at the end to remove these because that could give a bit of bias and we didn't actually know where they sat on an impact factor scale. So this is a graph of who had policies. As you can see, the majority of the journals we looked at had no policy. We have some listed as unknown and that's really where we were unable to find a journal website, so we couldn't find it if they had a policy. And we decided not to go for direct contact with the journal, due to the time scale of the project. However, the worst-case were multiple policies for the journals, about 15%, and this would be where there might be a policy on data sharing, there might be a policy on data preservation, there might be a policy on the formats of the data. So it was actually the multiple policies, the data policy was spread across multiple policies of the journal. We used Pirouin Chapman's definition of strong and weak policies, which in summary is where strong policies where data to deposit is a condition of publication. For example, if you don't deposit it, you can't publish. Whereas a weak policy would merely suggest or recommend the deposit. Based on this, of the journal policies we found, nearly three quarters were weak, with only a quarter being strong. Perhaps again, not too surprising, the high impact journals were more likely to have a strong policy, and the lower impact journals were more likely to be just recommend or suggest that authors shared data. However, again, as indicated in our literature review, approaches varied between subject disciplines, with some more stylish than others. We did in fact notice, in addition to biomedical sciences, some of the chemical structure journals had more established practices. So in addition to finding out whether they had a policy, we also want to know what was in that policy. So we looked at data types and with this, what type of data did they want the author to deposit? Most of the time we found it was data sets, multimedia, other data, fairly general terms. Quite important in terms of data sets, but general was very few asking specific types of data, but those that did were actually like program code or protein and crystal structure to be deposited somewhere. We looked at where they're asking to deposit. The great percentage of the policies we looked at requested materials were put on a website, fairly general again or just journal website. However, when we did some stakeholder consultation, it was revealed that a lot of the publishers were actually quite keen on well-managed subject repositories, but few were actually specifying then in their journals to do so. When was looking at deposit? This is again quite inconsistent across the policies. 23% of the policies we looked at asked the data to be made available for peer reviewers, but not necessarily available to the readers after that point. 51% mentioned actually depositing alongside the article, and with some of these percentages, they might be ticking several of the inquiries, they might ask for reviewers and to be deposited later and available, so it's more interesting. At least one journal did allow the conclusion of an institutional website URL as an end note to the articles, as long as it was a statement there that said the data hadn't been reviewed and maybe updated. It did allow for that tying in of the data, the background data to the article. Regarding sanctions, very few, but only 22 of the policies we found made any indication that if you didn't deposit the data, you might not be published. So, we decided to look at consulting stakeholders, and these were really across the board, scholarly publishers, research funders, research administrators and positive staff, library staff and the researchers themselves, and we wanted to look at how they currently share data. Do they agree with the idea? Do they have any concerns about sharing data? Would they use a service-listed journal data policies? And for those that are around, would they be interested in assisting with this upkeep? So, we conducted 23 in-depth interviews, and these are mainly with publishers, libraries, support staff. We also had a focus group of researchers and a workshop with publishers, and we did an online survey that was directed at researchers again. And across this, it was found a complex situation, where different stakeholder groups making some assumptions about each other's views and what their actions. However, majority did support making data open, and this had quite a few benefits of doing so. For example, preserving data for the future, promoting knowledge, reducing fraudulent claims, and enabling the data to be scrutinized by the community. However, there were some concerns and barriers and caveats. The researchers were concerned about who would own the copyright to the data. Would the data be available in a form that could be valuable to shared? Spreadsheeter numbers might not make any sense to another researcher. Do they need another layer or sort of basic analysis before it can be shared? And in some cases of the researchers, particularly early careers researchers, they were concerned that making the data available before they submitted their PhD could mean their PhD was worthless. So just some of the three of the main groups and some of their comments. Researchers, they thought a journal policy bank would be quite valuable, allowing them to access whether a particular journal policy fits their form of data or data sharing ethos or the requirements of their funders. And it could be a point of reference of accessing other researchers' data. The librarians and the policy staff, those with the history of the librarianship, had really not so much knowledge about curating data, but they had similar experience with curating journal monographs collections and thought this knowledge could be transferred. However, in spite of this potential, there wasn't much happening. In the UK, since sort of that stakeholder management, the same JISC program has results in several research data management programs at the various institutions taking part. So that picture may be changing. However, they thought the librarians did think that a policy bank would be quite valuable. It would enable them to support and develop research data management at their institution and would help them gain information, provide publication guidance to the researchers that were interested. Now, publishers, obviously, wanted to look at what they thought. They thought that the audience for George was a little bit unclear. Was it researchers? Was it the publishers? Was it the librarians? However, they thought that an accessible list of information on data policies could be useful for the funders and policy staff and authors themselves, but expected researchers to ensure compliance with funds and institutional demands. So some sort of summaries of the stakeholder consultation. All of the stakeholders recognized the importance of linking between journal content and underlying data, particularly where data is stored in subject-based repositories. Those consensus about the importance of making data is freely available. How is the less unified approach about actually doing so in practice? So some of the common features came out of the stakeholder conversation of what should be in a George service. There's quite a wide-ranging specification and requirements. As you listed them all together, it's going to be quite hard to satisfy everyone fully. However, these are the five common features that came out. They wanted to clear automated and simple instructions on the service. Clear documentation on the service's aims, its policies and procedures. They wanted to know, for the journal policies, they wanted to know what the conditions on deposit were, would they be able to reuse, how to access, and any restrictions on the data. They wanted guidelines for recommended file and data types and metadata, policy wordings of how to write the policies, and they wanted to know where the data could be archived. Almost 8% of our respondents to our online survey, which targeted researchers, answered they would use such a centralized service that records the data sharing policies of academic journals. So it certainly was interest in the service. But the big thing is, can it be self-sustainable? So having my colleagues develop potential based on the stakeholder consultation, some three basic services are then marketed to the stakeholders, which are the more interested in. So the first one suggested was a very basic service. The minimal web interface would have an API and application program as interfaces, which would allow machine-to-machine interaction with the database. But it wouldn't be much more than that. The second was an enhanced service, that would be the same as the basic, but there would be additional data integration. So it would link through to compliance with funder policies, possibly institutional policies, and it may list recommended repositories for the deposit. Lastly, there was a devisee service that would be same as enhanced, but on top of this would be a more advisory guide, best practice for writing policies, policy frameworks, or policy language suggestions. In general, the stakeholders referred to either of the first two. However, when it came to speaking to budget holders, another quite positive idea on the start of a research management side, there were less key on providing the funding. They didn't think they could persuade the organization that this was sufficient benefit enough to want the funding. Conversely, the publishers were quite keen on funding, but they wanted a lot more in the service that actually would possibly make it impractical to start off. However, based on these three services options and stakeholder computations, a full business case was submitted to JIS as part of the feasibility study. A quick summary of the findings of the project. Regarding data sharing, it was felt that this was quite an interested subject. It was certainly a growing area. There are publishers developing data-only journals and a rough guide from some previous studies of McCain in 1995 and Pirouin in 2008. Bearing mind the different population sizes, there did appear to be an increased number of policies each time people looked at it. So it's certainly an increasing area. However, when it comes to actually sharing the information, there's a lot more floor uptake. Researchers were perhaps more likely to share with their major colleagues, but not necessarily the colleagues on the other side of the country or the other side of the world. Again, similar reasons down to the hypothetical PhD students mentioned before, the concern that other people would trump them in publications. The policies that did exist, a possible slight increase in this area, but they were still generally poor, not very clear, and they were missing in some subject areas. There's a general support for a George service, but the requirements differ between research and publishing communities. Although there are some five common features that could be some issues of how to go about it. However, the data is in an increasing area, so a George service could benefit the future in this area, and it could help build, while the numbers of policies are smaller, a bit better than the discussion and build now. So George recommended to Jisk a two-phase study, a two-phase procedure to go ahead. Phase one would be grant funded and build a simple service, focusing on getting a good data set of the policies with simple technology. Then use that to build engagement with stakeholders, build awareness, establish a need for the service, and there could still be that machine-to-machine interface with third parties creating applications on top of it, and also to further develop a self-sustaining model. Phase two would implement the self-sustaining model, and there might be a need for some additional funding before breaking even, but there could also be opportunities for grant funding research and development activities. So some final thoughts on what we found for the George service. The use base for a George policy bank would probably mainly be people on service that work within and support the research community. A lesser number of users would be publishers and funding bodies as their representatives acknowledges some use for collation of the journal data policies that we found. Such a service could provide easy access to journal data policies, provide clarity on when, where, and what to deposit, provide guidance on file and metadata formats, and help librarians and support staff to enable researchers. As I mentioned, there's currently a small number of policies available. We're talking in the hundreds, if we take into account previous studies. So building a George type service would be much simpler and likely built sturdily, if done now. A day will be an introduction of good practice now before the policy numbers increase dramatically, and no one has an idea what to do with them. So at the moment, we're waiting a decision from JISC on how to take the George concept further as they consider our feasibility study. So my recommendation to you is get involved in research data. If your institution has a research data management plan, get involved. If it hasn't, encourage the power to be, it's a good idea. So that's a few references there in short. As I said, I can provide them in full if required. So any questions? That was a really interesting presentation, and having done a very small desktop survey of journal data policies, I applaud the rigor of the work that was done by Geord and recognise it was no small task. What we might do is move straight on to Fiona and then perhaps take questions afterwards. So I'd like to welcome Fiona Murphy, who has been involved in a sister project to Geord, but also has some experiences in her role from Wiley as well. So Fiona, I think we should be able to see your screen now. Yeah, can you? Yes, beautiful. Thank you. Yeah, it says showing screen here. Okay, right. I'll take it away then. Thanks. I'm going to say it. Good morning, everybody. And obviously, good afternoon to most of the people here. And thank you very much for inviting me to speak to you today. I just wanted to say I'm going to talk a bit about some of the things that I've been doing around publishing research data and also sort of touch on some other things that are going on as well. I wanted to start though with just a couple of what and why slides just to make sure that we're all maybe starting from the same starting point. So here you go. So what do we mean by publishing data? I think it's analogous to but not precisely the same as publishing primary data. I'm just trying to get your square a bit smaller because it's really massive and I can't actually see my slides very well. There we go. There we go. It's not precisely the same as publishing primary research. In Safari's primary search app, it's generally a finished product whereas the data underlying it is often raw or in various states of partial process. So data should also be and now I can't. It should be permanently or long-term archived in a reliable repository and I put reliable in quote marks because I think that can be a problematic concept all on its own. Should be allocated to persistent identifier. I would say DOI but I think there are also problems around doing the nature of different kinds of data sets which can mean that a URI or even a web link is the only thing that's possible in certain cases and there should be a critical level of metadata to allow discoverability to enable people to find a particular data set and to know what it is that they're looking at. And then the why? Why would we publish data? Well there's a very good reason to provide academic credit to the scientists, particularly the kinds of scientists who traditionally haven't been able to accrue publications and the status and career paths that go along with that. And also the publication path is one which is known within research communities and could be incorporated into current research and proposal grant workflows. Hopefully it ensures that the data set is uploaded to again a trusted repository and you can have some reliance on archiving and curation practices and again I think that's something that's emerging as a need for more sort of general and better understood best practice or standards and accreditation rules. I've got peer review processes and this is another thing that I think, I'm sorry I couldn't switch my Skype off if that's annoying people, I hope it's not too bad. It's peer review. I think that's another part of the data publication process which is again analogous to the primary research piece but it's also not exactly the same. It's something that people have a great deal of issue with because of the size of potential data sets, the time, the skill that might be required to actually manage a peer review and the fact that it's quite one known that reviewers are already under a great deal of strain and time pressure. So that's an potential sort of pain point in the process. Publication of data, again if we're saying that it would then become more discoverable, more permanently available then hopefully it would then be more visible to people who aren't necessarily in the know immediately to be able to find and reuse. And transparency, it should also support the movement towards accountability to the public and to the funding agencies given that a lot of money does get spent in research and you want to see what it is you've got. And that felt, that's the other really good reason why you'd want to publish the research because it's the way that the research data, it's the way that the wind is just generally blowing. Many of you are probably aware that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy had a big meeting last week about public access for the new research and they spent half the time talking about data as opposed to just the regular standard research output. Science and Open Enterprise report came out at the end of 2011 I believe and it's a very interesting report and it does make the case that science and all kinds of research should be open up to people that pay for it and anyone that wants to use it and people should be able to find their way around it and in fact it's, I've heard the reports made also speak and he makes a very clear case that librarians are our key to this new paradigm. And Horizon 2020 is another one I just picked is the EU's programme that's the European Union's programme for research innovation. They've got a budget that was 80 billion euros, I think it might have been cut a little bit, but they're absolutely placing a top priority on opening up research and then allowing us a facilitating and the capacity to build data set knowledge to be able to find interoperability and synergies and to drive new insights and business models and growth and jobs and generally they see this as being really key to Europe's long-term viability and prosperity. So what do publishers do? Well one of the things that we can do I guess is our sort of knee-jerk reaction to most things is start a new journal. So Geoscience Data Journal is a partnership between Wiley and the World Meteorological Society and it's also been supported by NUC which is the Natural Environment Research Council in the UK in particular the British Atmospheric Data Centre has been very helpful giving us a lot of time and people's space to work through how we might set this up and make it work. As you can see we publish short data papers which are cross-linked to and which site data sets that have been deposited in an approved data centre in the waters DOI or another permanent identifier. I've also put a little description here of what we believe a data article is and why it's a good thing to do as you said you see it's the when, the how, the why the data was collected and what the data product is and it's a way of pulling together all the parts of the project, the output that would enable you to reproduce the ability and also reuse ability. So I've put a slash page here of what the article looks like and I want to just draw your attention to the fact that there we've got the DOI of the article itself but we've also put the DOI of the data set up there on the front page. We thought it was really important to have it sitting up there amongst the front matter really prominent so that people can see how it relates to the article overall. I do want to mention as well that we also put the DOI in the reference list because we're wanting to support the general citation of data sets and we're also mindful of the Thomson data citation index which is being pulled together at the moment and we want to make sure that we support whatever working workflows that they eventually come up with. So I've got here on the left a picture of the workflow as we as we envisaged it at the beginning and as you can see there's it's pretty complicated there are a lot of processes and there are a lot of parts where without the the researcher has almost been kind of battered between say the publisher and the editorial process of the primary research paper but also the repository and and the data set itself and we felt that you know this is a potential barrier to people really picking up and and running with them with this sort of publication so we've started you know isolating trying to name the the issues we felt with key ones and so there was a workflow and cross-linking issue the journal and the repository need to be able to speak to each other. We need to know something about the repository in order to be able to work with it including you know whether it's whether it's going to be here next year you know what what happens to a data set that that goes into that repository. I thought that it was intrinsic to calling something a journal is that there should be peer review again as I mentioned earlier peer review of of data sets is it's it's a big ask and people aren't really clear what it is they're supposed to do and and just just generally I think Jane touched on it as well that you know people you know researchers they are being sort of slightly pushed towards behaving in this sort of way but they're also having to operate in the real world where if you've if you've painstakingly compiled a data set you don't want just to think about achieving any any credit yourself and it's important to be able to to engage with people and answer questions and address concerns and and adapt as as required so we felt that that also boiled down to the need for and a lesser understanding of how this sort of publication a journal and a repository would would interact in which case we started working on the prepared project that's where that came in and again like like George it's a it's disk funded and they're managing research data strand so I've put up some here the the key partners and the contact details of the project leads and as you can see we're coming towards the the end of our cycle so when we've got some outputs and we've got some some finals and including like to point out so one of one of our work packages one of the one of the areas we've been investigating is repository accreditation because clearly if you've got a data paper at the data set there needs to be a very you know a strong durable link but there are a lot of questions that that you know we we have to find we have to know on an individual basis if repository is trustworthy but we then we need to have some way of of sealing that of publicizing that and of generally ensuring we don't have to keep duplicating that work every time every time we either start a new journal or another publisher wants to work with that repository so we were looking to to see how to start pulling pulling that inside information together as you can see we've put a list of the characteristics that we we've been looking at around the accreditation and the how you assess whether repository is is good to work with and we've actually we're in the process at the moment of finding some some recommendations which I'll give people a note of how to to interact with in a moment which is the second key area of our study was the peer review of data and as you can see we had that we had a workshop a couple of months ago and we decided that we had three recommendations and they'd need to connect data review data management planning so to to basically pull the data management plan which hopefully happened the much earlier in the process with the review which then happens at the end so you can connect what was the what was the project what supposed to achieve what was the what was the data that was supposed to come out and how was it supposed how was it supposed to be collected or or used or assessed we wanted to show that there's two sets of reviews there could be a scientific review there could be a technical review and these both needed to be reflected in in the curation and the information that was in held about the data set so and we also wanted to connect the processes of of the data review with the article review and as you can see we've we've got a formal document for comment which is up on that URL there and there's also a mail list they serve their data publication email address which it is very easy to to join and to comment on and we'd be very happy if you were to do that you can also find if you join the list and then go back through some of the previous posts and you can also find the material around the the repository accreditation so most recently we were looking at cross-linking and workflows so we just had the work workshop on on that one and so I've just put the some preliminary findings from that the loudest voice actually was as I was touching on before the need for there to be some sort of central registry of broker and that's partly I think also related to the accreditation issue but it's also to do with the fact that at the moment all the the links are bilateral and any information that's sent between them is largely manual and and that's it's just not going to be workable to try and and build that up if you can imagine in a world where a lot of data sets are being cited and you're wanting to collect catch capture information who's cited what has a an article sizes data set has a a data paper pulled together you know multiple data data sets and and then cited them that we just you know they could be sitting in different data centers and they we just can't keep a track on that manually I think something on the lines of at the cross web cross ref brokerage maybe something around Thompson Reuters and the ISI might be a possibility but it feels that people to be incentivized to publish data sets we need to be able to collect the the certations and that then needs to be done in a manageable way as we said so data citation I think is also emerging as a currency that that's understood amongst researcher communities and the in fact data data citation is like publication of data it's analogous to but not exactly the same as as primary research if you can imagine if you've got a long-term observation data set in in the atmospheric sciences a data set could be could be cited and then the same data set could be cited a year later and it will in fact be a different data set so there there's a certain amount of of something being fixed and yet not fixed which you certainly don't get with primary research articles but the concept of citing data set is something that I think many of us are are familiar with so I also wanted in the interest of fairness and to mention you know obviously while I'm not the only scientific technical publisher and we also I'm also aware of and in fact applause for the fact that many many publishers are exploring this this area and I think it's a sign of its of its growing importance and people just realizing that that that this is going to be critical for for underpinning scholarly communication going forward so this I just want to put a few journals and publications down here to to illustrate that and where this is by no means exhaustive we actually do have quite a good list on the prepared website that was one of the things that we we did was to pull together a list of of data journals which again people are welcome to have a look at but a system science data is an edu publication it's it's open access it's been going for about four years and it's it's fairly similar to Geoscience Data Journal it has an open peer review system and at one point it was also publishing supplementary information which which we decided we didn't want to do I think they've now they've now tightened up their their criteria scientific data from nature was announced very recently and I think that that was that was a real signal I think of of the importance that this topic's starting to starting to assume the the scientific data is going to be publishing what then they've turned data descriptors which I think are pretty much data papers data articles but I mean it hasn't yet formally launched so I think that's just the space to watch and get more information about as we go forward. Geoscience by MedCentral is very much a life of medical sciences it's a big data project and that Geoscience also undertakes to hold the data set as part of of the publication and faculty of a thousand research a thousand research this is another quite new entrance into the field again there's it's they have open and open peer review which is also post publication which is another one maybe to have a look at it's also in that the life sciences medical biomedical sciences and but it's also build up partnerships with some of the data centers such as FIGSHA which will take your uninteresting data sets and allocate to DOI they're interested in publishing negative results to to just generally build the the the canon of scientific technical knowledge so I also thought it might be useful to to mention a couple of things that you can go and do you know after this session you can have a look at our site which has got quite a lot of information about the work packages and the output that we're conducting and also as a blog and you know you know you're the mailing list as well and very very welcome to join or interact with that more widely there's a GIST mailing list which relates back to the website I mentioned earlier and that's that's quite interesting that that's very international that's got a lot of librarians data center managers publishers have interested researchers who are all trying to to engage around this and it is picking up I think on a lot of the things that are going on that the other organizations are are engaged with research data reliance again is quite another question new initiative which I know and is is very involved with and which I think is at a point where it's it would be quite interesting quite quite useful to to to at least engage with joining some of the mailing lists because there are a lot of working groups which are just getting off the ground at the moment some of them around things like data publication data citation capacity building and so forth so and the very least you know it's you can keep an eye on what's going on was by by being aware of them the World Data System is another international organization which is encouraging a membership again I'm aware that the Australian Antarctic Data Center is is certainly a member and the Stregan Bureau of Meteorology but it's generally it has a mission to you know support the best practice of stewardship creation research data and and you're invited to support the mission you can become an associate member which doesn't involve paying any money but which does involve you have been called to the table to to actually engage with and support the policies as they're emerging as they work through and it's with it with an idea of joining things up and supporting interoperability and not reinventing the wheel as well I think that there is a potential issue with there are so many things going on at the moment that people could well be working in isolation and and say reinventing the several different places at once but I think research data reliance the World Data System are very much looking to see what's already out there and what's what's good practice where the low where the low hanging fruit is and to to actually build from there and and support the things that are already happening so in the future a little bit of a blue sky moment and hopefully I'll know a lot more about the future tomorrow because there's a there's actually a meeting in Oxford I've put the program there we're hoping to have at least some of the sessions broadcast or recorded but hopefully there'll be a Twitter feed as well and and what we'll try and make sure there is some recent outputs that come out from that more generally I think the sense that the stakeholders in this in scholarly communications are we're in we're in a shifting landscape I think it's really important that that we speak to each other that we're adaptable and I think that there's there's so much to do that there should be space for for all of it within that and I think that the journals and scholarly communications are going to start really changing in the not too distant future and I think there'll be there'll be more enriched content there'll be more tools for query I think things like copyright and ownership are going to become they're going to they're going to adapt they're going to change not going to say they're not less not so much important but I think they're going to be important in a different way and that's it thank you very much fantastic thank you so much Fiona firstly for getting up such an early hour to connect us but really for leaving us with a great deal of options as to how we can connect and communicate with not only with your initiatives but many others it's of great interest to all of our Ann's partners and to other people who will interact with this resource well and truly beyond this so thank you for your your input we've also got a number of questions that have come in that are both addressed to both yourself and jane so might start if we may start with Dave Connell who's waited patiently to ask the question of of of jane he was referring to a slide that you had raised earlier jane and I think that was referring to the survey that you'd undertaken as part of your project yes the whole study happened in July and December last year so the the journal the survey of the journal policies we were sort of beginning of that such a period I think through to about October November and the online survey of the stakeholders was on November December at the time so we are aware that things we have happened since the project finished right thank you very much for answering the question and jerry's got a few questions here as well uh yep so one of the another question for jane was around your business case to jisk and um when you the timing when you might expect to receive a response on that uh I'm afraid we don't really know uh we talk sooner than later um and so jisk has undergone quite a bit of restructuring lately so that's delayed a lot of their decision-making process um so I'm afraid I don't know okay we'll just have to watch with interest and I'm sure it'll come out in the appropriate lists as well and certainly if we find a fact here I think I will try and put up on the uh blog that I believe you put up at towards the beginning I do apologize for missing that for my slides that's fine I thanks for that jane um another question uh probably really for Fiona was um around the data citation um where we where we saw on your um screen splash um some metrics that you were capturing there for the geoscience data journal uh well all metrics perhaps um can you talk to us a little bit about how you're I guess trying to integrate the data citation aspects into the geoscience data journal um that's what I think so um well there's a lot of work being done around data citation at the moment um so what we thought was important was that um when we are at when we when we've got the um the data article the um data set or data sets uh which which it's being based on um should be in the reference list um to um support um the data citation index as it as it emerges um that sort of thing uh is that that what you mean um we mentioned alt metrics um with all the um open access journals geoscience data is open access we we um collect and publish um the download information as well um in fact as a as a company Wiley's just we've just started um a pilot scheme with with um alt metric um not around this journal I'm for it I'm afraid but around um you know a pilot in sort of about 10 journals um to to take that the full alt metric service you know where you're compiling um you know influence around you know blogging and tweeting um and so forth as as well as um citations and downloads so that makes sense yeah it does and I guess perhaps what that suggests is that we can expect that alt metrics may be may grow in I guess their influence over time as well as more formal sort sort of citation um indices as well I think so have you seen um just in the last week or two um there's a petition called Dora that's that's been springing up um and it's actually quite a large number of of um people that work on journals um including alt metrics um groups um to um and it's a call to funders to place less emphasis on the impact factor and on the citations yeah so um people come across that um and you you can sign up for you know to support it we can sign up for more information um but I think that um that that is something that will that will increasingly you know gain currency you know from the funders and then in the end that their people that drive the behavior no it's interesting how these metrics are evolving over time yeah thank thanks for that Fiona it's great uh we don't have any other questions that are posted but we're very aware that uh many people may have questions in the near future so all we would like to do is to be able to thank you both very much for attending our data journals webinar today Jane and Fiona uh it's a great privilege for us to hear from you both and we're sure that any questions that do arise in the future we can uh most definitely steer them towards you both so thank you very much of course please do yeah please send them on yes certainly will okay thank you very much for attending everybody and we're looking forward to connecting with you in the near future