An alternative access method for the same information available from the CNI-ANNOUNCE listserv.
A Conversation About the Present and the Future of Technology, Knowledge and Culture, the opening plenary from CNI’s spring 2014 membership meeting, with Bryan Alexander and Clifford Lynch, is now online:
Bryan Alexander is Head, Bryan Alexander Consulting, and Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Technology in Liberal Education (NITLE). He researches, writes, and speaks about emerging trends in the integration of inquiry, pedagogy, and technology and their potential application to liberal arts contexts. His current research interests include emerging pedagogical forms enabled by mobile technologies, learning processes and outcomes associated with immersive environments (as in gaming and augmented reality), the rise of digital humanities, the transformation of scholarly communication, digital storytelling, and futurist methodologies. Alexander is author of Future Trends in Technology and Education, a monthly report that surveys recent developments in how education is changing, primarily under the impact of digital technologies.
Presentation Materials Now Available
Check project briefing pages at http://www.cni.org/mm/spring-2014/s14-project-briefings-breakout-sessions/ for slide decks and other presentation materials. Presenters who would like their materials posted should deposit them in the meeting Dropbox folder (instructions were sent previously), or send directly to email@example.com.
Look for more announcements soon on videos of other sessions from the spring 2014 CNI meeting. To see all videos available from CNI, visit CNI’s video channels on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/cnivideo) and Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/channels/cni).
Recent talks on stewardship at scale by CNI director Clifford Lynch are now available online:
Challenges of Stewardship at Scale in the Digital Age
Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing Distinguished Speaker Series, Jan. 30, 2014
“Over the centuries, we have developed a very complex system for managing and preserving our intellectual and cultural record. This system is now under enormous strain and trying to respond and adapt to changes in how we communicate and the ways in which technology can represent various modes of communication. We are recognizing that, particularly for digital materials, much more active stewardship is required; this has given rise to a major focus on data curation in the scholarly world. In addition, many stewardship institutions are no longer economically sustainable or stable, and for a number of reasons we are entering an era where I believe transitions of stewardship responsibility from one organization to another will become increasingly commonplace. My talk will examine all of these developments in contexts that range from management of research data to art collections, and will consider social, economic and technological forces reshaping the landscape.”
Keynote Address: Sharing and Preserving Scholarship: Challenges of Coherence and Scale
CENIC (Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California) 2014 Annual Conference, March 10, 2014
“Scholarly practice in all disciplines — humanities, sciences, and social sciences — increasingly relies upon high performance computing, novel and advanced distributed sensor systems, high-speed networking and massive data resources. Our cultural and intellectual record broadly, not just the record of scholarship, is taking on new dimensions and characteristics and now exists largely in digital form; this record is essential evidence for future scholarship as well as a memory for our society. We are also seeing a series of societal changes that are placing a much greater emphasis on public access, transparency and reproducibility in these large scale records of scholarship and society. A central challenge facing the higher education, research and cultural memory sectors is how to develop the necessary strategies and supporting infrastructure to deal with these demands effectively, affordably, and at the requisite scale. In my presentation, I will explore the specifics of these challenges and briefly outline some of the responses that are emerging.”
I wanted to share the announcement of this new report from the UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) addressing payoffs from data curation and data sharing with the CNI community. It has already generated some lively discussion on more specialized lists, but because of its synthesizing nature and focus on specific benefits, I thought that it would be of broad interest, and many readers of this list might not have heard about it yet.
Beagrie, N. and Houghton J.W. (2014) The Value and Impact of Data Sharing and Curation: A synthesis of three recent studies of UK research data centres, Jisc. PDF (24 pages)
I have reproduced the more detailed announcement below.
New Research: The value and impact of data curation and sharing
2 April 2014
Substantial resources are being invested in the development and provision of services for the curation and long-term preservation of research data. It is a high priority area for many stakeholders, and there is strong interest in establishing the value and sustainability of these investments.
This synthesis report published today aims to summarise and reflect on the findings from a series of recent studies, conducted by Neil Beagrie of Charles Beagrie Ltd. and Prof. John Houghton of Victoria University, into the value and impact of three well established research data centres – the Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS), the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), and the British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC). It provides a summary of the key findings from new research and reflects on: the methods that can be used to collect data for such studies; the analytical methods that can be used to explore value, impacts, costs and benefits; and the lessons learnt and recommendations arising from the series of studies as a whole.
The data centre studies combined quantitative and qualitative approaches in order to quantify value in economic terms and present other, non-economic, impacts and benefits. Uniquely, the studies cover both users and depositors of data, and we believe the surveys of depositors undertaken are the first of their kind. All three studies show a similar pattern of findings, with data sharing via the data centres having a large measurable impact on research efficiency and on return on investment in the data and services. These findings are important for funders, both for making the economic case for investment in data curation and sharing and research data infrastructure, and for ensuring the sustainability of such research data centres.
The quantitative economic analysis indicates that:
· The value to users exceeds the investment made in data sharing and curation via the centres in all three cases – with the benefits from 2.2 to 2.7 times the costs;
· Very significant increases in work efficiency are realised by users as a result of their use of the data centres – with efficiency gains from 2 to 20 times the costs; and
· By facilitating additional use, the data centres significantly increase the returns on investment in the creation/collection of the data hosted – with increases in returns from 2 to 12 times the costs.
The qualitative analysis indicates that:
· Academic users report that the centres are very or extremely important for their research, with between 53% and 61% of respondents across the three surveys reporting that it would have a major or severe impact on their work if they could not access the data and services; and
· For depositors, having the data preserved for the long-term and its dissemination being targeted to the academic community are seen as the most beneficial aspects of depositing data with the centres.
An important aim of the studies was to contribute to the further development of impact evaluation methods that can provide estimates of the value and benefits of research data sharing and curation infrastructure investments. This synthesis reflects on lessons learnt and provides a set of recommendations that could help develop future studies of this type.
Key areas for further research include: extending such studies to newer data centers and lower levels of aggregation (e.g. data sets), conducting follow-up studies to track the evolution of value over time, drilling down in the key impact areas of reuse and efficiency, and further development of the methods (e.g. refining the questionnaires and better integrating the estimates into a single overview).
The synthesis report
Beagrie, N. and Houghton J.W. (2014) The Value and Impact of Data Sharing and Curation: A synthesis of three recent studies of UK research data centres, Jisc. PDF (24 pages)
About the authors
Neil Beagrie is Director of Consultancy at Charles Beagrie Ltd, an independent management consultancy company specialising in the digital archive, library, science and research sectors. Neil is an internationally recognised expert in research data management and digital preservation and was Principal Investigator for the Keeping Research Data Safe (KRDS) research projects and the international consultant to the US National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP). He has published extensively on data curation and digital preservation issues. Further information including published articles and recent talks are available from www.beagrie.com.
John Houghton is Professorial Fellow at Victoria University’s Victoria Institute of Strategic Economic Studies (VISES). He has published and spoken widely on information technology, industry and science and technology policy issues, and he has been a regular consultant to national and international agencies, including the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. John’s research is at the interface of theory and practice with a strong focus on the policy application of economic and social theory. Consequently, his contribution tends to be in bringing knowledge of research methods to bear on policy issues in an effort to raise the level of policy debate and improve policy outcomes. In 1998, John was awarded an Australia Day Medal for his contribution to industry policy development.
Contact neil and john.houghton
One of the questions that comes up repeatedly is about the genuinely new applications that very high speed (eg gigabit) networks can enable, as opposed to the role of these networks in just aggregating large numbers of much slower individual connections. Not only is this a critical issue in networking within the research and education community, but the question is at the heart of many policy discussions about broadband to the home (and what constitutes sufficiently broadband connectivity). It is also linked to closely to some of the questions that the American Library Association has explored about the need for high-speed connections supporting public libraries.
This recent blog post on the very helpful computing community consortium offers a very interesting list of some example applications:
At the CNI Spring Member Meeting earlier this week, Karen Smith-Yoshimura from OCLC and Micah Altman from MIT gave a wonderful presentation of the work of the OCLC Registering Researchers Task Group (see http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/registering-researchers.html ). We should have the materials from their talk available soon, along with other sessions from the Spring meeting.
As part of this presentation, Karen drew attention to a very recently released draft report for comment from this group, which I wanted to highlight for the CNI community, since it is integral to the issues involved in the CNI focus on network-based factual biography. The direct URL for the report is
for some additional background.
Karen is looking for comments by April 30.
The schedule for CNI’s spring 2014 membership meeting has been posted: www.cni.org/go/cni-spring-2014-schedule
Also posted recently to the meeting website (www.cni.org/mm/spring-2014):
*Project briefing abstracts
*Complete schedule of events for download (PDF)
We will be posting meeting updates from the CNI Twitter account (twitter.com/cni_org) using the hashtag #cni14s and we encourage other twitterers to do the same. The meeting opens next Monday, March 31, and will be held at The Ritz-Carlton in St. Louis, Missouri.
We look forward to seeing you next week!
From our colleague at the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI):
Greetings, just writing with a quick reminder that there is still time to register for the ELI online focus session on faculty development (April 1-3, noon to 3:30 ET each day).
To develop the focus session, the ELI reviewed nearly one hundred faculty development practices from nearly as many institutions. The Focus Session will present the best practices across those institutions. We are targeting the topic of faculty development throughout 2014, as we feel it is pivotal to the institution’s moving forward in its teaching and learning mission.
We realize it’s difficult to reserve that much time in a week. Mindful of that, we will be recording every session and these recordings will be available to all registrants immediately after the Focus Session concludes. Hence no matter what your schedule might be, you won’t have to miss a thing!
We hope you can join us! If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Director, EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative
Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good
1150 18th Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036
direct: 575.448.1313 | main: 202.872.4200 | fax: 202.872.4318 | educause.edu<http://www.educause.edu/>
Our colleagues at NISO invite CNI members to comment on this draft.
–Joan Lippincott, CNI
NISO Releases Recommended Practice on Demand-Driven Acquisition of Monographs for Public Comment
The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) is seeking comments on the draft recommended practice Demand-Driven Acquisition of Monographs (NISO RP‑20‑201x). Launched in June 2012, the NISO Demand Driven Acquisition (DDA) Working Group was charged with developing a flexible model for DDA (also referred to as patron-driven acquisition) that works for publishers, vendors, aggregators, and libraries. The draft Recommended Practice discusses and makes recommendations about key aspects of DDA, goals and objectives of a DDA program, choosing parameters of the program, profiling options, managing MARC records for DDA, removing materials from the consideration pool, assessment of the program, providing long-term access to un-owned content, consortial considerations for DDA, and public library DDA.
“Libraries have embraced DDA because it has the potential to rebalance the collection away from possible use toward immediate need,” stated Michael Levine-Clark, Associate Dean for Scholarly Communication and Collections Services at University of Denver Libraries and NISO DDA Working Group Co-chair. “It is important that, regardless of the model used, the program be sustainable for publishers, vendors, and libraries, that there is some free discovery without triggering purchase, and that discovery is integrated in some way with other tools in use by the library. This Recommended Practice addresses all those issues and more.”
“The guidelines in this draft Recommended Practice will allow libraries to develop DDA plans for both electronic and print books that meet differing local collecting and budgetary needs while also allowing consortial participation and cross-aggregator implementation,” explained Barbara Kawecki, Director of Sales, Western U.S. at YBP Library Services and NISO DDA Working Group Co-chair. “Although DDA has been adopted primarily by academic libraries, greater interest in and use of DDA by public libraries is expected in the future and these recommendations should work equally well for them.”
“The DDA Working Group conducted focus groups and surveyed a wide variety of existing users of DDA prior to developing their recommendations,” said Nettie Lagace, NISO Associate Director for Programs. “We are interested in feedback on this draft Recommended Practice from organizations already involved with DDA as well as those just getting started or considering a DDA program. This feedback will be used to make any needed revisions to the document before final publication of the recommendations.”
The draft recommended practice is open for public comment through April 24, 2014. To download the draft or submit online comments, visit the Demand-Driven Acquisition Working Group webpage at: www.niso.org/workrooms/dda/
Technical Editor / Consultant
National Information Standards Organization
A new, comprehensive resource on ETDs is now available. CNI’s Joan Lippincott served as a reviewer on the project. A link to the document is included in the announcement below.
The ETD Lifecycle Management project is pleased to make available the Guidance Documents for Lifecycle Management of ETDs. The full suite of Guidance Documents is freely available from Educopia Publishing (http://www.educopia.org/publishing/gdlmetd) and can also be obtained from the Networked Digital Library of Theses & Dissertations – NDLTD website (http://www.ndltd.org/resources/manage-etds).
About the ETD Guidance Documents
Written by ETD program experts from several established and well-respected academic institutions (see below), the Guidance Documents are geared towards the full range of stakeholders in ETD programs from administrators to graduate schools to librarians to vendors. The Guidance Documents cover a range of curation topics that span the lifecycle for ETDs.
• Guidelines for Implementing ETD Programs – Roles & Responsibilities
• Guide to Access Levels and Embargoes of ETDs
• Briefing on Copyright and Fair Use Issues in ETDs
• Guidelines for Collecting Usage Metrics and Demonstrations of Value for ETD Programs
• Managing the Lifecycle of ETDs: Curatorial Decisions and Practices
• Metadata for ETD Lifecycle Management
• Guide to ETD Program Planning and Cost Estimation
• Guide to Options for ETD Programs
About the Document Authors & Editors
The Guidance Document for Lifecycle Management of ETDs have been authored by ETD program experts from the University of North Texas, Virginia Tech, George Washington University, Boston College, Indiana State University, Pennsylvania State University, and University of Arizona. The documents were edited by representatives from the Educopia Institute, the MetaArchive Cooperative, and the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
About the Project
Funded by the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and led by the University of North Texas, in partnership with the NDLTD and Educopia Institute, the ETD Lifecycle Management project is promoting best practices and improving the capacity of academic libraries to preserve ETDs for future researchers.
Director, Center for Digital Research & Scholarship
Services (formerly Digital Library & Archives)
Professor, University Libraries
Today, the US White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a directive to federal agencies that own or support scientific collections calling for improved management and access to these collections.
The announcement is at
and the directive itself is at
A short quote from the directive that provides some sense of the scope:
Therefore, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) hereby directs each Federal agency that owns, maintains, or otherwise financially supports permanent scientific collections to develop a draft scientific-collections management and access policy within six months. Agencies should collaborate through the IWGSC [the Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections] while developing these draft policies to reduce redundancy and identify opportunities for common requirements and standards. The end goal will be a systematic improvement of the development, management, accessibility, and preservation of scientific collections owned and/or funded by Federal agencies.
The requirements below are intended to apply to institutional scientific collections owned, maintained, or financially supported by the U.S. Government. This policy applies to scientific collections, known in some disciplines as institutional collections, permanent collections, archival collections, museum collections, or voucher collections, which are assets with long-term scientific value. Materials assembled specifically for short-term use, sometimes referred to as “project collections”, and not intended for long-term preservation, do not fall under this policy, but such collections should be reviewed periodically and carefully to ensure that they should not be considered institutional collections.