 Welcome everybody to this ANS webinar. We're very happy to be able to present this today. The webinar is supporting changes to the ARC funding boards and I will hand over now to Adrian to get us started. All right welcome to this webinar. It's a part of a series of webinars and events that ANS runs to support institutions really as they come to terms with finding value in research data and access to research data. This particular webinar is part of this little sub-series that we're running around the recent updates to the ARC funding guideline because they have some ramifications for research data. We're very very lucky to have some fantastic guests along today. We have Professor Brian Yates who's the ARC Executive Director for Engineering, Maths and Information Sciences. Thank you Adrian. And we also have Justin Withers who's the Manager of the Strategy Branch at the ARC. Thank you very much. Welcome Justin thanks for coming on. We also have Greg here. Greg Loughlin is the Principal Policy Advisor at ANS and I'm Adrian Burton, one of the directors at the Australian National Data Service. The plan of action for today is we'd like to hear you know what exactly what these changes are so let's get down to the facts what they are. So I think we've got a few slides from our guests at the ARC. Then I think a little panel discussion about you know why the changes have happened, you know what's the scope or what does it mean, where does it fit into the whole system. We are going to take questions as well from the audience. We have such a big audience today that it may be tricky for us to get to all the questions. We'll get to as many of those questions as we can during this session. Keep putting all the questions in that you have because even if we can't cover them all these questions are all captured as part of the presentation and we'll hang them across to our colleagues at the ARC. They can take that into account perhaps in their own sort of documentation as well. Alright so let's cut over to Justin and Brian for an overview of the changes. Okay well look thanks very much Adrian. Thanks for setting this up and inviting us to be part of it. The ARC has been thinking about data for some time and with the support of ANS and a whole lot of other people thinking about how better I guess to make use of the research data which is funded through public funding and so this has all just sort of come together in a way that we've been able to sort of put some things into the funding rules this year. First of all I should just say thank you to all of the people who are there registered for this webinar. It's fantastic to see so much interest and support in the community. Up first of all is just the bit of background so we say there that the Australian Research Council is committed to maximising the benefits from ARC funded research including through ensuring greater access to research data. Second dot point to continue to foster a culture of good data management and practices by both data generators and users so the researchers and the use and other users. The latest version of the ARC funding rules and supporting documents now further clarify the ARC's data management expectations. Some important things here to emphasise is that the ARC is not mandating open data that's something we really want to emphasise that this discussion we're having includes open data certainly thinking about what might happen that way but it is not the ARC is not mandating that all data generated as part of a search project should be made open. We're asking instead of you to just to talk about what are your plans so we say there the ARC is encouraging the researchers to consider the ways in which they can best manage, store, disseminate and reuse data generated through ARC funded research. A brief outline of the management of data is now required as part of the project description and this approach we hope will enable researchers to take into account differences that may exist between institutions, disciplines and research projects and so I guess what we mean by that is that we realise is one size won't fit everyone, one size won't fit all the different differences between disciplines so it's really important that this is a discipline based understanding of management of research data and so that's why we're trying to acknowledge the differences there between disciplines and also as we say between institutions and research projects. So at the heart of it are the funding rules for our funding scheme so on this slide we've got the discovery program funding rules and the bit that's highlighted there is the ARC sorry I should say before the highlighted bit we refer to this trade-in code for the responsible conductive research and that in turn talks about the responsible management of of data that's generated as part of a research. So we say the ARC considers data management planning an important part of responsible conductive research and strongly encourages the depositive data arising from the project in an appropriate sorry publicly accessible subject and or institutional repository. So that's the that's the funding rules there which sort of set the scene for the way that you craft your grant application. As all of you know I think when you are applying for ARC funding there are several important documents so one is the funding rules we've just talked about and the other two are the instructions for applicants and the frequently asked questions and both of those are sometimes used to perhaps clarify or give further instruction about what our expectations. So let's look at the instructions for applicants I think next. So in the instructions to applicants for the discovery project we say there we ask you to outline the plans for the management of data produced as a result of the proposed research including but not limited to storage access and reuse arrangements and so this is coming in the discovery projects under part C the project description and I think it's the very last heading that we have there after you've done the aims and background and project and all those sorts of things that the at the last heading we have there is the management of data and that's our instruction. Let's go to the frequently asked questions don't need to remind you that these are all on the ARC's website there's a web link there at the bottom of the page but essentially if you go to arc.gov.au you can find all of this information there. So this frequently asked question here is saying what information am I required to provide so we emphasize again in our answer that the ARC does not mandate open data however researchers are encouraged to consider the ways in which they can best manage store disseminating reuse the data generated. The project description requires researchers to articulate briefly their plans and in answering this question researchers need not include include extensive detail of the physical or technological infrastructure rather answers should focus on plans to make data as open access as well as possible for the purposes of verification of the conductive future research by others and the last bit in this answer is important where it may not be appropriate for data to be disseminated or reuse justification may be provided. So once again we're really it's really important to think about what's appropriate for your discipline in some disciplines the data is made available almost as soon as it's collected in other disciplines because of privacy or intellectual property reasons it may well be appropriate not to release the data for some years after it's been collected and analyzed and published. So it's really important to think about what's appropriate for your discipline. Just as a general comment I would encourage all researchers to think about this as an opportunity for describing how data management will enhance the research outcomes of your project. So I don't think about as a compliance thing but more how can it be how can I use this to show that in my discipline I'm really ahead of the game or I'm up with the game in terms of making my data available according to what's expected in my discipline. Think about it as a way that you can enhance the competitiveness of your grant application how will what I say in this section help my grant proposal to get over the line in terms of of being recommended for funding. There's a question that I had one of the presentations I gave which was is it sufficient just to know that I will comply with my institution's requirements and the answer is no while the institution will have very good plans often or very good templates for data management plans what we're really asking here is what are your plan specific for the project which you just described in this in this section what are you thinking about the research data that's going to be generated as part of that specific project. So again this is not an opportunity really for you to enhance the competitiveness of your specific research project in the way that you describe what you're going to do with the research data. All right so Justin do you have any comments on what I've said so far? You know I think throughout our documentation and whether it's the funding rules or the FAQs it's very important to remember that it's not a mandate and it's all about tailoring your data management plans and considerations specific to your your project and the type of data that may be generated from that research. We are very cognisant of the fact that different disciplines have very different data types which are produced so there is no one source that fits all and we are encouraging greater recognition and due consideration to data management but that's about as far as we can go because you can't get this way pegging around all and there's very different types of data generated. So they're the changes I'm just trying to think about the you know the audience we have here probably what they're thinking is you know what there's a new data management section that is new what goes in there and some good guidance there in the the other frequently asked question that says don't worry too much about the technology and the details of technical details of data management take it as an opportunity focus on you know how the data will be made openly accessible for the purposes of verification and for the conductive future research so that sounds like a very you know good focus particularly I assume at the beginning you're not asking people to know everything about the project and all their plans is that a fair comment? Yeah I think that's right I mean I think that we are trying to get a general description a short brief general description if that's appropriate for your discipline on on what what what you plan to do with the data so I think in the instructions of applicants again we talk about the storage access and reuse so there's sort of three key things and but we do say you know including so there might be other things that you wish to talk about as well but I think one could make fairly pithy statements about storage access and reuse and and that would be sort of sufficient again that's my suggestion of course applicants should think about what are the expectations in your discipline and so what would make your proposal competitiveness sorry competitive in terms of how you describe this and how much information you put in there? You've made that clear in the second FAQ that it does need to be customized to this project not about general matters so a risk here would be that an information management specialist or an archivist would see in the same sentence you know outline your plans for data management and think oh I see a data management plan and you haven't asked for it I'm just I'm actually trying to clarify here had you asked for a data management plan you know in our world that could be 10 pages or 15 in fact it could one of the main documents of any project so I'm assuming you're obviously making it clear that we're not talking about a data management plan in that kind of a sense no I think it would be beneficial for the project to have a data management plan but we're not asking for that to be presented in the application a reference to the data management plan and the key points that what it might contain will suffice but behind that which for the own use of the project then the institution involves best practice would would suggest that a data management plan would be for use and I think for people who are you know for whom this is new I mean there are if I can just praise Ann's a little bit I mean there are some really good support materials on the Ann's website including example data management plans the sort of the 10 page option that Adrian's talking about so that's a that's a good thing to sit behind the project but that's not we're not expecting a 10 page formal data management plan but just the synopsis and as in most things the earlier you start thinking about something that the more opportunities you have to do it better in the battle days of information management we would get finished your research project and then say oh where did I keep all that data first thing and then what would happen to it so I think it's a great thing to start to prompt people to start thinking about that right there was a question there do you want to see the data management plan or the evidence of the data management plan given space limitations and so on well part of it's again thinking about what would an assessor want to see so it's not really what the ARC wants to see but what would make your proposal competitive from an assessor point of view and if I was an assessor I would be trying to look for some of the details of what she's planning on doing not the evidence that you already have a plan but what what what is the plan what what do you intend to do how will you share the data if that's what's expected in your discipline I could think of some disciplines where if you were to say that I don't plan to share my data then that would be looked upon in a negative context if normally in that discipline data is made available so I think the answer is yes I think there would need to be some details about what you plan to do probably from a you know an archivist point of view the the focus that you've asked here on how to make things open accessible might be I don't know let's make up a term so it doesn't have any connotations you know a dissemination plan would be part of the statement here that you're talking about but you know what are our plans for disseminating and sharing and making things accessible as possible so the size obviously I mean that's another thing that we've had questions about size now I assume that goes back to choices made by the applicant the full context for a project description that's 10 10 pages yes well let me give an an answer to that I think when we asked people a year ago to talk about open access publications and so on what were their plans that way it was very interesting I think that that's been somewhat driven by the sector as well so that the responses that we we saw in applications tended to reflect what is the practice in in the current discipline best practice or otherwise so that trying to talk about plans for for publishing in an open access way I sort of anticipate the same sort of things will be here that that people may well just write a few sentences of you know a short paragraph about what's expected or what's what their plans are and I think that would be okay for most assessors and there might be some disciplines or some applications where you feel it's more important where data management's a key aspect of the proposal and you may wish to actually address it in a more forcing way but so there's a general envelope and then again as in all these things how much time do you allocate to each of the sections yes part of the art of putting in submitting a good application now so then what happens to the data management section what will become of that that information how does it flow through the the assessment last yes so a legitimate question is how does this play into the assessment process in terms of consideration by assessors and so on so there are several criteria that we have the selection criteria for assessing the research grants and there's there's not a specific criterion about data management but there are a couple of criteria where where I think the data management plays into that particular area so this is about the research project and Justin's just going to remind me what those criteria are so under the research environment for example we ask we talk there you know it's a very holistic sort of criterion but about the the plans for dissemination and and so on of the outcomes and the research data but also there's something under the feasibility and benefit criterion as well where your plans for managing your data surely address some of the issues about feasibility and benefits of carrying out the research so that I think that holistically if I can use that word the management of data plays into a number of the section criteria that are going to be used by the assessors for the correct me if I'm wrong the plan itself doesn't get a mark you know this is the best plan we have or a good plan however the information that's in there is critical to an assessor being able to make a decision let's say about feasibility in those things yes I mean this this section C of the discovery project application form a lot of the information that goes to address the these two selection criteria I mentioned come from that section in terms of the feasibility and benefit in the research environment so that's where assessors will be will be looking part of their looking will be in those areas to to get that information of which the data management section will be part of that and again if I can just comment I think we did see comments from assessors last year about the open access publication aspects which which were in a similar way as part of this section and so assessors would read what applicants have written and take that into as part of the overall judgment against the selection criterion and indeed make comments back to the applicants it's sometimes about their their plans for open access okay so there couldn't be a two-way thing here that says you've raised this in your data management yeah section clarification or perhaps you could improve that there are suggestions that come back is up yes yes we we don't give people a chance to to what we do get them through the rejoinder but they don't get a chance to actually improve their application except in the following round of course but but certainly there may be comments from assessors about that they it might be a very good plan you know it's highly it's very much at the forefront of what's expected or it might be that there are some things that they expected should be there that weren't that's the feedback yeah and then perhaps this is looking into the future are there reporting requirements around this particular area or that's general the reporting requirements for the dissemination of data um do you draw a line between the plan let's say and the the reporting at the end or we haven't addressed that yet is it so my my thinking on that line is that we don't at this stage have a formal requirement now in our reporting for for data management we have we certainly ask for for what's happened with with the data and publications and things like that so that I could imagine that that you know we may look to say more along those lines my other comments would be that as part of the progress reports and so on that we request as part of the grant application process that in subsequent years there may well be an expectation that people will mention something about their data as part of that when I say there may be an expectation I'm not suggesting the ARC is going to ask that but it may be that assessors expect something or that or that a proposal again is more competitive if it says something about what they've done with their data management from previously funded ARC projects yeah the future builds on you know what we're doing now and in having this kind of information and having it up front in people's minds certainly builds a good foundation for future grant applications a question now about the funding rule so what you've made a statement in the funding rules about there's a renewed expectation if you like and pointing people back to the code and yeah and then strongly encouraging about depositing and so well how does that work with the funding what are the the fact that that's in the funding rules what are the ramifications so but I guess I should try to reassure people that in some way in some sense this is what we should have all been doing anyway I mean it's it's it's there part of the code of conduct so in many ways the framework is there for how we should be thinking about managing our data if anything I guess we're just nudging people a little bit to describe to us what they're what they are doing with that and yes I guess nudging people a little bit towards thinking about how to make data more accessible so that other people can reuse the data and that we get the most value out of the data which has been generated as part of the ARC funded research yes and and I think there are lots of as you've said for the integrity of science the replication of research for the reuse I suppose ARC has a special place in the research system in that you can look at the return on investment on the whole funding dollar if you like and say well by making these recommendations and changes to the funding rules we're getting a better return on investment because there's more efficient use of data or reuse from one project to the next yes I think absolutely so I mean I have to emphasize again that the ARC is not mandating open data at all but there is definitely kind of thinking you're in the world towards moving towards where possible making data more accessible more shareable so that so that we do get better value for money and it's a public investment in the research and I guess there's a public expectation that investing in the public funds should be the outcomes which are publicly accessible and as Brian said it's not just something the ARC is pushing for it is happening internationally we have had in place since 2007 we co-sponsored the responsible comeback of research which has specified responsible data management and as Brian said we're just I guess more clearly articulating the ARC's expectations and linking whatever we're putting down here links back to that code to undertake research in a responsible manner there should be due consideration given to the data managed the data generated and how it's made accessible and it's a broader expectation in society there's not something just in a research bubble this is a new world that we live in with information flows being a lot easier and so therefore greater expectations of of access and and there are machines that help us to do to reuse these things so it's a big tide that's washing over you know education media journalism you know it's it's everywhere and this is the reflection I suppose within our world of a change in expectations as you said you know from the disciplines themselves this is what great research is at the moment and it's how we can do new types of research well that's that's a really important point I mean I think as people start to think about this and embrace it I'm sure that people will see a benefit for themselves as researchers from someone else's data being made more available as well so it should be a win-win situation in those disciplines where sharing of data is the appropriate thing to do so I think we might go over to our questions we've got quite a few here now I'm going to apologise in advance we may not get to them all what sort of waiting does the data management information have currently there is no waiting assigned specifically to the data management plan but as I said it plays into several of the selection criteria the information in the plan the only way in which you can prove some of the criteria yes yes without the plan itself having a particular weight yes yeah you can enhance your project description by providing an adequate description of the why you're going to manage the data another question we have will you be giving assessors any instructions about data management in the assessors pack yes we are we always have an assessor handbook which is provided to the assessors electronically and as part of that assessor handbook we have been discussing how best to describe the ARC's direction or in data management and so there are some proposals to include some some guidance there for assessors yeah we had another related question there that was asking about the issue of the assessors diverse views on on data and whether they will all bring the same reaction that they'll be as diverse as the applicants I suppose and exactly and again I think that that will certainly pick up discipline differences so that so that you know there will be assessors in one discipline who perhaps are strongly in favor of whatever I don't mean to favor it but supportive of a particular plan which has been discussed whereas another discipline that might be inappropriate I think look I think you're right assessors will have different views different assessors will have different views about the actual research project and that will include the the plans for management of the data and consistent I suppose viewer always balancing consistency with the sort of what the assessors as a group come up with well the ARC strongly believes in peer assessment that's that's a really crucial part of all that we do so if if someone's worried about what their peers are thinking that's that's a valid you know thing to be thinking about but in the end it's your peers that are assessing your your research project I think I might just a comment I'd make is I think it's it's very appropriate very targeted because the differences between disciplines are quite fundamental in some disciplines they survive by sharing data and others some of the primary data doesn't make a great deal of sense without the context so I think having a discipline focus I really believe that is a good good message so we have a question might actually be related the ARC in 2013 mandated publications being deposited in a repository why didn't you mandate that data be deposited in the same or similar repositories we have thought we have thought we have thought about it but I guess it comes back to the fact that the data generated across disciplines is very very different and it's very very difficult for us to mandate how that data should be stored in common ways when the data can be so different in the type and also the size so whilst on paper it seems quite a simple concept that we can mandate the publications be made open access after a talking period when you look at it in a more detail when it comes to data generated it's not a one-size-fits-all model so at the moment as far as we are prepared to go is to encourage that the applicants and institutions give discipline specific project specific considerations the one which they're going to manage the data that they generate and there is mention of highly encouraging depositing in publicly accessible repositories yes and I suppose that goes back to your point about this is not a mandate so that's a bit different I suppose there is a real reason you know that publication is a public thing it's inherently public and they're all the same you know they're text-based journals 99% the same and so therefore a blanket policy seems to cover that space quite nicely I suppose the principle people are asking here you know this is also publicly funded so why is it not you know mandated to be publicly deposited I think that's because the things we're talking about here are quite heterogeneous they're not all PDFs and websites from nature they are lots of different things and some of them have been created to be made public some of them have been created not to be made public and so therefore just taking that blanket view would not have been positive for a step you know there's so much difference there how would you make a rule that since everything has to be there already you just come up with five big exceptions to that rule and you know it's no longer a blanket mandate all right it's a lot some public publishers are now actually requiring that the data behind the published journal article is required to be made public as well so it's not just a push from government there is an expectation from across the sector from the publishing area of wealth that the publication produced from research can be supported with the data as well plus one is one that I'm aware of most recently that have required that the data behind an article basically able to be provided as well so there's a direct line of sight between a research output in the form of publication and the data supporting it and when it comes to the data generated from a research project there may be a whole box sets of data that aren't actually haven't been utilized yet or the publisher so very difficult to demand date but all data generated should should be made absolutely all right what exactly do the panel mean by making data more accessible is it actual access or through dissemination or with the panel or is it yes well that's that's actually a good point because in the end it's it's the panel of assessors or the external assessors that you have for each application and then the panel from the College of Experts it's what's what's expected there so that your assessors in your discipline may well expect a certain thing in terms of accessibility actually being able to make the the data available through some repository or it might be that the data needs to be disseminated in some way so it's really again a very disciplined specific answer but I think at the very least the the data should be made accessible as it's in the repository as in repositories if someone's looking for what they can find it I don't think at this stage there's an expectation from us that you actively disseminate the data that's generated but there needs to be reference points to enable people to locate their data and access it if not yeah exactly and there is a growing infrastructure of repositories and registries where these things can be deposited and registered as a public item and then you know discovery and active publication again it's a slightly different world from general publications I think it's from this a follow-up there what about confidential confidentiality and such issues well I have to say that's an easy one to answer because we are asked the applicants to describe what are their plans for data management and if it's not appropriate for the data to be disseminated then we would expect you to to say that and provide a brief justification in one sense is a great that's a good thing about basing on this all on the code code says as part of your research you need to be here you need to respect confidentiality and all those things so in one sense your data management plan if there is confidentiality involved it needs to address that so yes we're going to be proactive in the way in which we respect you know the privacy of people as well as you're balancing any data sharing aspirations another question it seems like they are using data management as if it means data dissemination can we get their definition of data management yes okay so I think I would go back to saying storage access and reuse so so you're right maybe now discussion maybe we haven't been focusing on access recently but and but it is about storage and reuse as well so storage access and reuse you have to be careful I mean that's that we're suggesting that it include those items it might include other aspects as well of managing the data and the it was the FAQ kind of focus that says we're not necessarily talking about the story you know all the technology behind the storage and the technical details of format migration and curation and etc at this point but what you can be sure about is my intention to deposit or publish or share in a particular community move on yeah there's an next question is it appropriate to add any data management related costs storage curation etc to the project budget so my my thoughts would be that uh so we do allow people to specify publication costs so any of our costs that allow that are allowed in our budget table as part of the proposal have to be well justified and have to be well justified not just in terms of this is a you know competitive cost by market standards but more why is this cost required for this particular research to be carried out how will this cost this budget item enhance the research so that's what I would say to this question is that yes I can't think off the top of my head why it wouldn't be allowed to be specified but it would need to be well justified as to why this is important to enhance the research outcomes we kind of unlines the facts tangentially there that we talk a lot about data reuse and dissemination etc there is a good deal of data management practice that really just reaps benefits to the project itself so in order to do really good research right in lots of fields you need to have you right on top of the the data during the project itself otherwise you won't have the world's best research you won't have and having done all that for perhaps for you know egoistic reasons there are some altruistic you know benefits that that can be added on there so you know in one sense these costs are required in order to do excellent research and having done excellent research will be in a very good position you know with a thorough handle on the data for that you know second phase of data to sharing and data dissemination all right another question if you fail to follow your data management plan and therefore are in breach of your ARC award what happens well it's interesting I I'm again I think I'm going to answer it not from a compliance legalistic point of view I think we have seen again with with um open access publication a sector driven response to to that um request or suggestion for requiring open access publication so it's really the sector itself has has responded the assessors have responded saying well look I don't really think that the what this person plans to do is really sufficient in terms of making their publications accessible or whatever or something like that and I could imagine the same thing with data management that at least at one level the sector will respond and and say well look this is sufficient this is not sufficient this is exemplary whatever so that we'll have a broad response from the sector in terms of what people are doing with their data and if you draw a parallel between the reporting requirements for open access publications and the informal report if you um there are any journal articles that failed to be made openly accessible you can justify erosion as to why that's the case so if your data management plan went off track um it would be an expectation in the final report to explain why that was the case and if the if the explanation was acceptable as ARC would take that at face value I'd probably so at this stage I can't speak across all projects it'd have to be on a um project by project basis but there wouldn't be um ramifications if there could be a logical and justified reason reason as to why that has occurred so we do look at the final reports in the ARC and certainly as Justin has said we would look at that and look to see whether or not the reason is given as sufficient and acceptable and I think there's an expectation for grants if there is something that goes terribly wrong throughout the course of the grant that the ARC is notified it'll be up to the individual project manager in to decide whether the moving off track from the data management plan was sufficient enough reason to contact the ARC and no throughout the process but at the very least at the final report stage we'd be talking about will the new assessor's handbooks be released prior to D.P. Decra submissions closing I assume that's discovery yeah and the discovery projects in the Decra so the assessor handbooks at this stage are not released to the applicants or more widely we do at this stage they are given to the assessors at the time that they accept proposal to assess so the assessor handbook and the proposal go along hand in hand so that's our plan at the moment and the assessor as I've already said the assessor handbook will certainly be released to the assessors obviously. We have a technical question here I might just go through thanks for the discussion this is well it's a pleasure the funding rules A1032 says the final report must address compliance with ARC open access policy as detailed at 11.5. 11.5 covers compliance with the open access policy and the obligation relating to research data and data management are we thinking that reporting specifically against management of data could form part of the final report in the future? Yes so I think that's right I might have said I think in previous answer that you know I was going to answer it not from the compliance point of view but I think it's clearly pointed out by that question and as Justin's previous answer the final report is in fact the place to to address that that compliance issue and to say whether or not the data has been managed as you intended and and indeed whether or not the data is going to be reused shared whatever and there may be reasons why it's not going to be shared or released and that's where the final report would need to address that. So someone from a historian's point of view how do you recommend that historians working from archival sources which are already curated in libraries and other collections put under data management so I suppose if I try not to understand the question they're saying they are using data that's curated by somebody else as an input into the project perhaps they're not doing data management on that on that or how does it apply? Well I think that comes to data is not being generated by the research project so I would think would be suffice to say the data is being sourced from some other open accessible data source and there are as we continue to point out different disciplines specifically in which data can be managed and treated and if that data that's used for that research project can be linked back to the source where it is available I think that would be sufficient. Yeah so I'm not a historian and so my first thing to say would be go and ask a historian what's the expectation in your discipline for that data? Absolutely that's why in a sense you're making such a that the data management needs to be really tailored to the specific discipline that it comes from. Yeah and in one sense that's not just an issue for historians across all sorts of other areas the government departments provide the reference data from Bureau of Meteorology or Bureau of Statistics for Social Science so you think I was supposed to give a refer to that. There's a possibility that there'd be some value add from a project that might be a derived after or something like that and perhaps that's where the divide comes in. Yeah well I mean there are disciplines of course where perhaps the development of a script or a computer program or something that is analysing that data that that script or program itself becomes some kind of primary source that might be made publicly available or not as as deemed by that discipline so yeah so even that might be become some of the data in one sense which is made available. I think one of the you know bigger picture principles the fact is by making data open it's less likely that the data would be duplicated or have to be restored somewhere else or regenerated so it'd be silly to have to not make your data available and someone else does a very similar research project and could use that same data that was made publicly available so and collect the same data so we'd hate to see a situation where data is replicated or the same data is replicated or stored in various places so we'll link back to where the data source is. So another question here. Wouldn't curated data collections be counted as scholarly output for ARC and era purposes? At this stage it's not for era 2015. I understand there are some discussions that are occurring between the excellent research for Australia side of the ARC and in particular about how that may be incorporated into future eras but for era 2015 that's not the case. I suppose the general principle there is there's an encouragement how do we what's the incentive that makes the system be self-sustaining the organizations and the individuals involved you know feel that there's some kind of an incentive and I think that we've pretty good first step here but in order to make it a sustainable system it's not based on compliance you know the proper reward feedback system needs to be there. Do you have any time for one more? Okay would the ARC want to have some statement of verification and availability for reuse from data custodians where data is not generated but reused by researchers so that's in context of the historians using digital art. That's an interesting question. I think certainly the reuse of data the statement about reuse may well be something that enhances the value of the project or subsequently and the value of the research feeding into future research and so on so I think in a sense saying all of that may well be something that adds to the again to the competitiveness of this particular search proposal. I guess verification is not something that we are we're mandating at all but again it might be in as much as saying well yeah the person really is going to do what they say oh there are real customers out there who want to reuse the data which I'm going to generate so again that that might be something which plays into increasing the competitiveness of the actual application. The assessors might see that and say yes this is I acknowledge this. Thank you very much for all that input from the audience. There's so many questions there we haven't been able to cover them all but we will capture them all and we'll make sure that we'll get a copy across the ARC so that they can think about some of the things that have been taken up and we'll certainly take them into account in the ANS program as well. Just 10 seconds I mean that's a really good point that the ARC does put up the answers to frequently asked questions and we will certainly take all of the questions which you people have put to us today and go back and look at those and see if we need to respond further. Good I was asked to talk a little bit about what ANS might be doing to support these changes so we've got a series of webinars and events and this is the very first of those. There'll be a series of these we're thinking during this grant submission period there'll be a bit of a flurry about that management of data section in the application so we'll have a flurry of this you know perhaps once every two weeks really in a forum the next ones will be forums for exchanging you know what are you doing at your university we'll probably get a couple of people to come in and just give an informal presentation of what they're doing and then we'll open it up for discussion so really information sharing we'll continue that series into the into the future as we all come to grips with okay well for example once you get the grant and then what you know when when does the real serious data management start how does the university start to take up its responsibilities providing repositories there's you know a whole set of things you know what do we do about data publication data citation all those other things we will continue to have our webinar series really targeting those kind of issues supporting material is the other thing that we're bringing into play here we have a set of stuff already on the ANS website about data management data management planning roles of a university in in the new you know data intensive world so help yourselves to those we will also have a sort of a solution part to the website that we're developed that addresses the particular changes that are happening happening right now around preparing these statements for grant applications so that we'll be developing on the ANS website so keep your eye on that and we're also providing consultancies to all the research organizations around Australia anyone who's an eligible for an eligible institution for applying for these grants are also a key stakeholder for ANS so we are ready to supply one-on-one advice or virtual meetings or telephone calls to anyone in the institution that would like to discuss or get further advice so we have ANS sort of liaison people at all universities around Australia can start to use that little network we're starting those things so just put up a few URLs we've got some stuff on data management but particular things about the funder requirements there's an email address at the bottom if you want to contact anyone at ANS and just use that contact at ANS before I get off that support I just ask everyone not to lose the bigger picture here where there's a rule change here that as we said is really reflecting a societal change and a change in what we hope that research new research can come out of this new pool of data that will be creating from the output of research and that really what we're trying to do in collaboration with the organization with all the research organizations is to situate your research organization to be able to make your research data more valuable so that it helps your collaborations that it helps your new grant applications that it helps the profile of the organization as a as a special infrastructure that you have at your university and that this is really trying to ANS is really trying to partner with you to help make new research happen because you have more valuable data and that's quite clear in the in the sort of changes to the funding rules that we're really trying to you know maximize the value of research through these kind of changes so apart from the small changes of the the application form where really hope to continue our partnership with all the research organizations in Australia to really realize the value of your research data so we have these upcoming webinars there's have a look at our events calendar there there's all sorts of interesting things coming up so go to this url here at ans.org and there's webinars in this particular series will be added shortly but we have an existing set of things to support the Australian universities thank you very much to our guests today it's been a great pleasure to have this discussion thanks to Brian Yates and Justin with us from the ARC thanks thank you great let's hope the you know the beginning of our conversation and I think you know the ARC has shown that it's in here for the long journey with research and research data and this is the the start of an engagement no just thank you Avian too thank you for all the support that ANS has given the ARC in discussing all of this and information if you have on the website thank you and thanks to the audience and thanks for the amazing input from everyone to the discussion thanks all and we'll see you next webinar thank you thank you