 Good afternoon and welcome to webinar in system supporting the ethical management of research data. My name is Paul Wong. I'm your host today. And my colleague Natasha Simon from Sunny Brisbane is co-hosting today webinar with me. This webinar is part of a webinar series in research data information integrations. The key theme of this webinar series is the concept of research data management life cycle. As you can see, we've changed the color from blue to orange because we've changed the PowerPoint template. This is our new look from Australian National Data Service. The first webinar we had about a month ago was on data management planning tools. And we have recorded those webinars and it is available on our YouTube channel. But we also have information relating to the research data information integration webinar series on our website. R2D2, not to be confused with R2D2, is really about helping the sectors to think through what needs to be done in order to have better management of research data across institution systems. So the YouTube channel that I mentioned is www.youtube.com user and data. And as you can see, we have created a playlist for the research data information integrations. And in that playlist you'll find the videos for the data management planning tools videos. For those who are interested, we also have a webinar co-host about two weeks ago with NHMRC's on human research ethics applications. And that video is also available on the YouTube channel. It's on the NHMRC channel with that address. Alternatively, you can just go into YouTube and do a search on NHMRC. So we'd like to acknowledge our partner sponsors, the Auster Asians Research Management Society, as well as the Council of Australian University Librarians. Also our sponsor, the Anchris Program from the Commonwealth Government. I'm happy to announce that our next webinar in the series is scheduled to be broadcast in late mid-July. We'll take a break from our school holidays in late June, early July. So currently it's scheduled on the 21st of July at 12 noon. Further details about that webinar will be sent out later on. The next webinar will be on data storage for research data. Just a little bit about today's audience. Very interesting to see that we begin to ask registered participants to provide details of the job title. And we did a bit of quick analysis in terms of where they're from within the institutions. As you can see, the majority of you are from the research office, in particular the integrity side of the research office, but also the reporting side, followed by library, have a strong strong too. Looking at this graph, it's interesting to note that just a variety of participants within this group and I would like to just take this opportunity to reiterate a point that I think and has been making in the past. Data management, research data management in particular is very much a shared responsibility within the institutions and the interest that has been demonstrated through our audience today show that that is indeed the case. It is a shared responsibility between research office, library, IT, as well as academics and research and policies area. So without further ado, I would like to introduce our very distinguished group of speakers today from three different universities. Dr. Gary Ellen from Griffith University, Jim Lewis from RMIT, Glenn Stinger from UniSA and Angelica from UniSA. So although I serve on a few committees with nominees from the ARC and Intermarci and Universities of Australia, I'm not speaking on behalf of those August bodies. It's only opinions I express are definitely my own. So what I do to start off with is really talking about sort of the brass tacks when we're thinking about data. So generally we're thinking about the way in which is access collected or generated and that data can be in a variety of forms. So it might be documents or survey responses. It might be test results or some sort of audiovisual, possibly a range of information. When we're talking about personal information that might be individually identifiable and these are the terms that the national statement uses. So it can be individually identifiable or re-identifiable. So we're talking about something that may be as coded where the researchers have got access to the code key and then non-identifiable. So that might be coded by an agency that's supplying it to the researchers but the researchers don't actually have the code key or all of the identifying information has been stripped out. So it's anonymous. And I think it's worthwhile pausing in terms of sensitive personal information because information is not sensitive personal just because it's humiliating or embarrassing or might expose people to risk because the Privacy Act actually defines very clearly what's considered sensitive information. The Privacy Act actually closely defines what's considered to be personal information and so when we are asking participants to give their consent that consent might be specified for a particular project or a particular use, a particular group of researchers or it might be extended in terms of future research by that team that's in a related area or it might be unspecified. It might be a general consent for the research use that they were information. And we need to think about information both in terms of when it was accessed, collected or generated. We need to think about then during the course of the research where it's being stored or how it's being communicated between collaborating with the searches and then after selling. And then finally in terms of how it's going to be disclosed or shared whether or not it's going to be added to a repository or bank in some way if it isn't actually going to be a feature of the output for research. So a single project actually might involve sort of multiples of all of those settings in terms of things like the form of the data, whether or not their personal information and the degree of which are identified and then things like the type of consent that's obtained. So we might actually have multiple settings for different data across the project but I think it's important to reiterate to everybody that just because research involves ethical sensitivities or risks, it doesn't mean that research is compromised or it's a problem. Quite often the fact that there's ethical challenges for research is actually an indicator that it's perhaps very important that it's going to make some sort of social or broader contribution and so we should be embracing when that research involves those challenges not trying to avoid them. So the fact that there are ethical concerns that's not a reason to say that the research isn't valid or to say that we shouldn't be accessing or sharing of data it just might be means that we require a bit more precautions or arrangements in place. And for individual researchers you need to be prepared for the fact that the group whip or the revealing of research might not actually be that familiar with your research design or the topic area. So it may well be that you need to sort of engage with the reviewers to explain the reasons for the search, explain what the benefits are, explain about the data sharing and be ready to justify your approach and take an educative role in terms of those reviewers. And I'm not talking about it being confrontational although it's been known to happen but there should be that sort of engaged discussion between researchers and reviewers. But you know with some careful preparation it's possible to avoid delays or problems with the research ethics review of a piece of work in the sharing of data. So when you're thinking about sort of research ethics and research integrity of data there's a few things to think very quickly. So the guidance in terms of human research ethics can be found in the national statement and in terms of research integrity it can be found in the Australian Code and both of those documents have got content on particular point when we're talking about this issue. So matters like privacy, consent and risk you'll find across those two documents. And currently there's reviews underway in terms of both the national statement and the Australian Code and I should stress that I'm involved in the review of the national statement. So there are updates going on and there's public consultations coming. So as a group it's important that you keep out your eye out for that and you have input as the reviews are going on. For those of you that may be a base outside of Australia or during a search outside of Australia there's comparable documents in other jurisdictions and in fact over the course of the last decade there's increasingly research ethics and research integrity frameworks in sort of continental Europe, in Africa and South East Asia and beyond. So you may need to actually refer to those documents in the other jurisdictions. So in terms of the frameworks, a couple of implications. One is the collection of the data and then the use of maybe sharing the data is more likely to be considered human research particularly if it's identified information and so require some research ethics review. And it may well imply to sort of existing data sources, so the material from the web or social media and hopefully your institutional frameworks give you some advice in terms of whether or not it's considered human research. And so then because of that you need to be thinking about the consent that you obtain and whether or not it's specified, extended or unspecified and what that consent allows for. You need to think about the degree to which that information is identifiable. So is it directly identified in terms of individuals? Is it possible that individuals could be identified by inference including within social media there's, sorry, social science research increasingly there's reflection on what we call internal identification. So if for instance you were talking about a group of research ethics bureaucrats and you said that you spoke to a bureaucrat that gets around in the wheelchair and is in his forties and is losing his hair, you may not have said my name but people that work in the spear will know that you're talking about me. And sometimes the internal identification can be more problematic than sort of a general population identification. So we need to be reflecting in terms of are there risks associated with the degree to which people could be identified? Are there risks associated with the release of that information? I think it's important to recognize that there will be groups of people that won't be concerned if they're identified. It may well be that there's a situation they're talking about people that are relatively senior that will be very able to look after their interests when they're concerned. But that's likely to be a project specific reflection. And tied to that there will be some participants who will demand to be identified. If you're talking about sort of activists on a particular issue maybe a condition of them providing their information is that they will be identified. So that's something that you need to accommodate. So when you're seeking consent for the research use of information there's a few things that you need to really cover. So there are things you need to include. So thinking ahead in terms of the sharing, banking and research re-use of that information. So is it going to be added to a repository? And talking about the degree to which it's going to be identifiable and really anticipating in terms of whether or not in terms of consent the degree of specificity about how that information might be used for other research or shared for other purposes. Being careful not to embed research consent into other consent. So if you're doing research in an area like language support for international students you don't want to embed research consent into the process for a person volunteering to receive some support. Making sure that you provide details of withdrawal mechanism. So participants know what they need to do to withdraw their consent later so that the data could be removed from the banking repository. And then thinking about the mechanism by which other researchers will access that data so will it be that they're accessing it in an identified form or what's the constituents role in terms of their access. And really in terms of whether or not the other researchers will see in an identified form or not identifiable or not identifiable. Obviously it's really important to make sure that you're keeping good records. So the systems that we're talking about and the workshops in the area are examples of the ways in which you can record the information. So if you will forgive some shownless self-promotion but you don't really have any choice because I'm the one with the mic. But along with a couple of colleagues of mine, so Colin Thompson, Mark Israel and Martin Tollett from New Zealand we maintain a couple of free resources for researchers. So one of them is a resource library that includes a variety of documents and then also there's a research ethics monthly blog. So both of those talk about research ethics and research integrity. I definitely encourage you to drop by and have a look at those resources. Thank you, Gary. Yeah, there's one question. So thank you very much, Gary. We've got 78 connections on the line at the moment. Just to let you speak as presenters now. A question of what is the timeframe for the review of the national statement and which body is overseeing the review? Okay, I mean that's a really good question because first of all it's important to stress that the review bodies are including people from the ARC, University of Australia and NHMRC and various nominees. So there's a real attempt underway to make sure that it's an inclusive approach to speak to the wide gamut of research designs. The action review of the national statement, it's an ongoing rolling review. There's material that's being released progressively, so that's why last year we saw the opt-out approach to recruitment and consent was released as part of that rolling review. The next block of material which I've been involved in hopefully will appear before the end of this year and public consultation will all happen well before that. In terms of the Australian Code, I'm not sure because I'm not privy to that conversation, but I think it's close to being ready for public consultation. It's just to reiterate to the group, get involved in that public consultation. Even if you look at it and think you like what's being done, make sure you speak up to express the fact that you're happy with it because otherwise the only voices we hear are the people that aren't happy. So make sure you're involved and you speak up for useful and constructive change. No, that was excellent. Thank you. The other question is, do you think researchers are better informed about ethical issues related to data management now than they were several years ago, or did the same challenges remain? I mean, once again, that's a really good question. I mean, one of the things, if you're sort of watching the media or if you've got your Google set up, you will have seen in the last, after the last couple of months, there was the emotional contagion, social media, I might say fiasco, but problem, and there was also recently there's the OKCupid one, which has sort of highlighted the fact that it's very easy for people to run into trouble. I think that there is a growing awareness, but I think that it's really important that institutions provide resource material to support researchers. I think that we all need to work a lot harder in terms of making sure those resources are available. And I think, you know, I'm not talking about rule books. I'm not talking about a rule book about how to fill out an application form well. I'm talking about things that support the reflective practice of researchers. And hopefully that's something that we'll be seeing more of. But hey, there's a reciprocal obligation on researchers as well to abound themselves of those resources. Excellent. Thanks very much, Gary. That's all the question. Oh, sorry, there's a comment here. Can you comment on data governance and whether you think data governance needs a national approach? What is your vision for this? And before I answer, I just want to reiterate again, I'm not speaking on behalf of the ASCAA, Natio Laseo University of Australia. I mean, I think that there is an argument to have a national reference point. I'm not saying that we need a national standard that we all have to comply with, but I think that there is value to having a resource that's informing our practice. So, you know, I think that that's a space that something can usefully be done. One of the reasons why the four of us set up the Rx Web Resources was to try and encourage some of that conversation between them. Fantastic. Thank you. I'll just clarify that that question came from Dr Weeming Boone at the NHMRC. So maybe a conversation continuing there. Disclamer, disclaimer, disclaimer. Angelica and I are going to talk through research data and how it best be managed, and we're going to talk a bit about more about our systems. So what we're going to cover is the principles and approach we've taken at UniSA. I'll go into a bit how that fits into the research lifecycle, and then we'll show a demonstration of how we bring together legal and ethical information so we can effectively manage research data throughout that lifecycle. And then finally, I'll go through where we're going next with this capability. So the first thing with the principles and approach is that wherever possible we've tried to minimize administrative overhead. The way that research and research data are moving means that more will be asked of researchers to support the sharing of research data. So wherever we can, we should try and reuse information and reduce those overheads for the researcher. We're also trying to do that for the support staff that support them. The other principle is that we are trying to maximize flexibility. So we use dynamic content wherever we can. An example of that is that we have an online human ethics application form which our research is used to apply for ethics approval. We also support both physical and digital data. So the systems we've created aren't just about digital data. They're about physical objects and also about primary materials, whether that be an artwork or blood samples, etc. We can point to where they are as well as pointing to the locations for digital data. The other important point with the digital data is that we allow for different versions of the same data. I'll give you an example. So if we have data that's non-identifiable data, that will have different conditions attached to it to the identifiable data. So I've stolen an earlier version of Ann's life cycle diagram and that maps with our approach to managing research data. But we collect information throughout that life cycle so at the end we can dispose of it, archive it, etc. Our system, we have a research data management framework which sits in the centre of all this. The one exception that it doesn't touch is the reporting to funders because that is managed through our research administration systems. But everywhere else it touches each element of the cycle, I should say. So what does it look like? Research master is our research administration system and that's where we have, for example, online human ethics applications and manage the research activities. Research details are passed through to our data management planning system and then metadata is passed to our research metadata system which in turn puts information up to research data Australia. But importantly, we only pass that metadata that is releasable. So for various reasons, researchers may have information they don't want to share until they've completed their research project. So that's why I put the caveat on there that it has to be releasable. Below we have a data access portal and again the research metadata that's releasable is passed to the data access portal and there's a link from and back to our data access portal when data can be made open. So I wanted to show you what our data management planning system actually looks like. The first thing is a project details screen. Normally this would be pre-populated from Research Master but for the purposes of this webinar we've pre-populated a project which allowed the flexibility for information to be entered as a project before it gets into Research Master and also for data to come across from Research Master. So in here we can enter all the standard sort of information about the research project. Importantly down the bottom here there's a confidentiality setting so that if for whatever reason the project has to be confidential either for contractual or because of some other condition that the researcher wants to manage. We then have information about the legal aspects of the activity which is in our IP storage and security. So in here we can put in what conditions are in the project contract and that may be a funding agreement, contract or other legal document. So here we can summarise the information that we get from that. So we get the ownership of the data in this case so I've clicked that it's solely owned by the university but we can add other parties to this as well. So we could say jointly owned by the university and add other organisations. We can also say that the data created by the project is subject to particular intellectual property conditions and that includes both the project IP but also importantly in my view background and third party IP in that it provides a record of those aspects related to the research project. We then have the rights and restrictions and this is where we can set licensing conditions relating to that research project. So for example up here I've put a conditional access with access to the data and ethics approval. So this particular project we're assuming requires can include some participant surveys or something along those lines. We then have the ability to add embargoes and we can add multiple embargoes. What we do as a default is we set the embargo to be completion of a project plus one year just to allow enough time for the researchers to complete their publication activity and to basically do any housekeeping they need to do on the data before they share it. Now the embargo can be just because we've set it to the length of project plus a year. If the researcher has a need we can actually change that embargo period so that the metadata for example can be released. And finally related to ethics for a retention tab. And in this retention area we can identify how long as a minimum the data must be held. So for example by default it's set to five years. And I should say that these conditions are driven by both the Australian Code and also the legislative requirements of the State of South Australia. So the record keeping requirements of the State of South Australia are taken into account in here. If for example I select a clinical trial then the retention period is set to 15 years. However if I set that it also contains gene therapy for example then the retention period is set to permanent. So in this way we're trying to keep it as simple as possible but for example this retention period information is used by our IT department to make sure that the records are retained. And then just below that this is where we can record where the data created by the project is stored. So in this case firstly there's a physical location which for example I've chosen the three-draw filing cabinet which happens to be in a particular building on a particular floor in a particular room. Similarly a URL for this example I've chosen a SharePoint site. So just to remind you this shows you again the framework that we've created and where we're going from here is that we want to make the relationship between online ethics and the data management planning system more integrated. So to do this we intend to create a cross-link which will allow for example if there's a data management plan that that can be the information from the data management plan can be used to populate the human ethics application so that they don't have to, the researcher doesn't have to re-enter that information. Conversely if they've entered information in the human ethics application we want to import that into the data management planning system so that we don't have to double enter that. We have held off on this cross-link because of the changes that have been made with the Human Research Ethics application form. Thank you. Thank you for asking me to talk today. I've probably come from a different approach compared to our previous two presenters that I'm more systems based person. What I want to take you through today is a trial that we're putting together here at RMIT that we think might help academics actually deal with the issue of data storage. With most higher education providers in Australia we have a data storage policy and the honest is very much on the academic to comply with the policy they're expected to complete their data plan etc. but very little support is actually provided to the academic to comply with the policy. Again as with most higher education providers in Australia we have software, in our case it's Redbox which is meant to assist the academics in actually bringing together their data around their research projects, their outputs and their actual data they've used underpinning the research. But at the moment Redbox the way we've implemented here at RMIT requires the academic to go in and pour this information together and most of our academics quite likely tell us that they've got better things to do. So our plan is to actually assist them actually bringing this stuff together. At RMIT we use Research Master to capture all information regarding our funded research projects and for us it provides some very rich metadata. And the chief investigators on the project the fund source the amounts awarded the description of the research LFLR codes descriptions of the research etc. And whenever a research agreement is signed at RMIT that's whether it's competitive or contract a record is created in Research Master by staff in our research innovation portfolio which is equivalent of research offices I suppose around Australia. What our teams also do is they open up what's called work breakdown structure in the SAP system which is essentially a research account and this is where all of the finance information is actually processed and our view is that our research office staff can also allocate storage space at this point. As our colleagues at UniSA we use Research Master to capture all information regarding our funded research projects and for us it provides rich metadata so we know who the chief investigators are where our funding sources are from the amounts awarded descriptions of the research, the fields of research etc. So whenever a research agreement is signed at RMIT and it goes through a process of being signed by a DVCR and I and this is whether it's competitive or contract research a record is created in Research Master by staff in our research innovation portfolio which is essentially the same as a research office anywhere else. And what we also do is we also open up a research account in our SAP system which is called a work breakdown structure here at RMIT and what we've been thinking about is really our research staff can also be allocating storage space at the same time. So what we're intending to do is with a very small sample of academics and that's our most recent ARC linkage recipients we're going to run a bit of a trial using CloudStore which is run by Arnett where the research office will actually allocate storage for these projects. The advantage being one that CloudStore offers 100 gigabytes of data per academic and very easy to use. So we can drop and drag into folders it's web-based and it's transferable. What we'll then do is we'll record that URL in Research Master. So then what we do has we've actually matched the metadata up to where the storage is actually or the data is actually being stored. We can then push this back into Redbox etc and then at least we know from any given particular research project at least the ARC linkage ones will know where the actual data is stored. So our plan is to at least try this with our ARC and NHMRC funded research and then hopefully roll this out as a growing or something that we can roll out into other types of research. So we'll be very interested to see how our trial progresses. It would be a bit of a change for our academics who are used to basically storing their data where they feel they'd like to. It's stored in all sorts of weird and wonderful places since we've done a few audits around the place and so what we hope to do is actually change the culture a little bit one to maybe put a bit of trust in the research office that we're not trying to do anything evil with their research or anything with the data but at least that first step of being able to curate it and know where it is. So for us it's the start of a very long and hopefully fun ride but I'm sure we'll be having some scary moments along the way and that's it for me. Thank you Jim. So the first question is will you store human participant data in cloud store? This is one of the things we're looking at in terms of the, so one of the things we are doing is we're going to meet with Arnett to talk about storing data but we think we probably could. We do know that it is being used currently for a lot of research projects around the place but obviously too we want to make sure that anything we can put up there is secure. The next question, when does the trial finish? Do you plan on sharing your results? Yes, we'd like to share the results. The trial is starting now so we've only got, as I said, we only had eight ARC linkage recipients in the last round which we thought was a nice little group to work with. So we're in the process at the moment actually putting together the, we've actually sort of written up the process of how we think this will work and then basically the agreements for linkage projects normally take a little bit longer due to the participation agreements being signed off so we expect to probably be later in the year when the research actually starts. That's at the point that we'll actually be allocating the storage on CloudStore and then yes, we're definitely happy to share the results of how that goes. Thank you. Does this mean that a successful pilot would lead to RMITs during all research data on CloudStore? That is something that's potential at the moment. Probably what we're worried to sit in is just the concept of would academics be happy with us allocating storage space? CloudStore is a very quick solution for us because it's in the cloud, we can actually allocate the, as in we as in the research office can allocate the storage on behalf of the academic and it doesn't involve us having to invest the infrastructure. We do have to see whether we'd actually run out of storage space on CloudStore and we also need to figure out what we would do with RMIT stops, etc. But the plan is at least to have a system where all data storage is allocated centrally by the research office. Thank you. Will there be any business to business connectivity between CloudStore and Research Master at RMIT or is that a manual workflow? At the moment it's a manual workflow. Thank you. How are issues of data privacy and security managed in CloudStore? The same thing again, it's the CloudStore to give it something similar to Google Drive so that the academic actually gets control who has access to the data. At the moment, our main point of having this record centrally is so we just at least know where the data is and again this is the issues we have to negotiate as we go forward. But our first protocol, what we actually want to get out of the trial is will academics use it and also can we actually have a system where centrally a research office would know at least where all the data is stored for a given research project. And who decides what's stored in that CloudStore location? Is the chief investigator responsible or will all data relating to the project be mandated? Yep. I think again this is probably what we're looking at our policy. We're not expecting researchers to use CloudStore for their transitional data. We just do want it at the end of the project so whether that's just the data they do the analysis on etc. Primary materials, we probably haven't gone down that path yet. But the plan is that the chief investigator would be the person responsible for ensuring that the data is actually in CloudStore. Thanks. And could CloudStore be used to make data publicly available at the end of the research project? As we understand it does connect up to things like TARDIS so there is the potential of bringing that data back down and I suppose that's the next step we're looking at as well is working with our various areas. I suppose our point of view is as long as we know where it is it then can be distributed to where it needs to go. There's a question. Our academics I think this is from Sharon Wise at UTS. Our academics use CloudStore via their own initiative. Is there a management console where you can allocate space? This is what we've been sort of playing with the last couple of weeks is basically setting up our own accounts and seeing and sharing and etc. This is one of the things we're optimistic we can't edit out is I'm actually getting that administrative space sorted out for us. Is the data stored in CloudStore physically located in Australia and governed by Australian legislation and privacy requirements? Yes it is. That was a major concern for us. Great answer there. Question to Jim but also to the other panellists. Is there a role for the library in this project? Definitely for us from our point of view we're not in the business of actually pushing the data out etc. So that next step of getting the data into a repository or putting that data out, that doesn't really sit now in it. So definitely there's a role for us with the library and we're actually very close to the library with that sort of model. So for instance our publications repository the publications will come through our team and collected for ERA and other purposes but then we actually push that data through for the repository where they manage the repository side of things and we'll be seeing that our research data will be traded in the same way. Would any of the other panellists like to comment on the role of the library and the work that they do? I'd say in thinking about professional development and support for early career researchers and HDR candidates I think actually the library's got an extremely important role. I think it's very important to have a good partnership between the ethics and integrity team and the library because quite often they're on the front line for providing advice to those researchers so things like them identifying a reputable place to be publishing their work or thinking about a data repository. I think the library can play a very important role. In our particular case we're effectively a triumvirate so the library are involved so we put together the research project information but then that's passed to the library to basically help assist researchers with enriching with their data set information and also through the life of the project so in other words when the project completes with the researcher to finalise their data to then we look at open access etc so it's very much a joint venture, a three-legged stool if you like between our IT area the research office and library. Thank you and there's a question also for Glyn and Delica you mentioned you would like to link you would like to better integrate ethics with data management plans do you envisage the process of doing this for example will the ethics application be completed at the same time as the data management plan or how do those things link? As I said in the presentation I think if the data management plan should logically occur before the ethics application if researchers have done their data management planning however we've got to allow for the possibility that's not the case so we're taking it from either direction if there's a data management plan then that can be the information from that data management plan can be imported into their ethics application and we do that by linking through their project the other way is if they don't yet have a data management plan we can extract the information from their ethics application and use it in our data management planning system Thank you very much a question from Jackie Stevens at Notre Dame not an ethical related question per se we are looking at research management software at the moment will Research Master not provide a storage solution as well question if not is there any software to manage workflow, storage and archiving I'm wondering figshare.com I thought CloudStore has limitations on archiving I can answer firstly with respect to Research Master they can provide a link to a storage location but they're not even really a document store so that's not really the role that Research Master provide it's purely an administrative system yeah so we certainly don't see us doing that it's more of a like Jim said provide having a URL link to the location okay thank you anyone else want to comment on that there's a question for Jim is your pilot a joint venture with Arnett we're off to meet with Arnett to see basically to take those next steps but I mean that's something we've just been pushing out ourselves at the moment in the research office and basically just playing around in CloudStore in-house here and pretending we're researchers ourselves and setting up our own sending stories to each other and uploading into it so we're obviously going to meet with them and keep them aware of what we're doing but it's our own initiative okay thank you is CloudStore data encrypted in transit on Cloud again these are the questions that we need to talk to to Arnett about okay thank you question for Glen again is you know your SA using an in-house developed data management plan integrated with Research Master or some independent solution no it's definitely an in-house developed data management planning system and it is integrated with Research Master as well as our human resources system okay thank you I just wanted to say but we do pass through to Redbox and Mint so Redbox and Mint does harvest data from the system as well okay thank you we've actually come to the end of the list of questions so if you've participated today and you think of a question later or I've missed yours in the pod because there are a lot of them that came through please contact Paul and we can pass the question on to the panelists sorry one more sorry just came through what are your views on requirements for researchers to release their data as part of publication I've got a view in terms of that so I mean we are seeing journals increasingly saying that they want to see the data and that's part of that so I guess the verification process I think if the ethics is looked after I think it's actually a good thing if we're talking about participants of a vulnerable or if we're talking about risky research basically having the data available to others I think there's strong ethical arguments to sharing but if a journal is asking for it just thinking through that sort of confidentiality sort of things and the ethics is just really important we provide support for the attachment of data sharing of data as part of the publication process and we look at it being a data set to support that publication so it may not be could well be part of the broader data set or a number of data sets that relate to the project but we allow for the fact that the researchers can pull that together to support their publication but really it's up to the researcher and the ethics approval etc to manage that release together with us. Basically the same thing that the two previous speakers just mentioned one of the things we are looking at long term now is actually trying to capture the whole life cycle of research so when we're looking now at again if I use the ARC example we know where the data is actually stored what we're also starting to do now is relate our publications back to the funding source so I think in time I can see a situation where what we want to be able to do is measure research from idea probably through to impact and all the steps along the way and I think relating publications back to projects back to data sets will be something that we'll be doing here at RMIT. Thank you all our panel members. Thank you for attending today's webinar.