"Cherish old knowledge that you may acquire new" - The Analects of Confucius

1. "Cherish old knowledge that you may acquire new" - The Analects of Confucius http://datadryad.org, http://blog.datadryad.org, http://datadryad.org/wiki dryad-users@nescent.org; Twitter: @datadryad Todd Vision – DryadUK Sustainability workshop - 4/1/2011 - The British Library

2. What is the value proposition? What is the appropriate revenue model? What is the role of funders? Publishers Journals Funders Researchers

3. Long tail of orphan data Specialized repositories (e.g. Genbank, PDB) Volume Orphan data Rank frequency of datatype after B. Heidorn

4. Source: PARSE Insight survey report, http://www.parse-insight.eu/

5. Bumpus HC (1898) The Elimination of the Unfit as Illustrated by the Introduced Sparrow, Passer domesticus. A Fourth Contribution to the Study of Variation.pp. 209-226 in Biological Lectures from the Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass.

6. Source: PARSE Insight survey report, http://www.parse-insight.eu/

7. n=3824 Source: Publishing Research Consortium, http://publishingresearch.net

8. Peer-to-peer sharing is problematic • Wicherts et al. requested data from from 141 articles in American Psychological Association journals. • “6 months later, after … 400 emails, [sending] detailed descriptions of our study aims, approvals of our ethical committee, signed assurances not to share data with others, and even our full resumes…” only 27% of authors complied Wicherts, J.M., Borsboom, D., Kats, J., & Molenaar, D. (2006). The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. American Psychologist, 61, 726-728.

9. Benefits to data archiving Modified from Beagrie et al. (2009) Keeping Research Data Safe 2

10. Brussels Declaration on STM Publishing “Raw research data should be made freely available to all researchers. Publishers encourage the public posting of the raw data outputs of research. Sets or sub-sets of data that are submitted with a paper to a journal should wherever possible be made freely accessible to other scholars” Signed by 46 publishers and 13 trade organizations, incl. Elsevier, Nature Publ. Group, Springer, Oxford U Press, Wiley-Blackwell.

11. The End • To make data archiving and reuse a standard function of scholarly communication. • The Means • Enable low-burden, inexpensive data archiving in conjunction with article publication. • Ensure individuals receive direct benefits from data sharing. • Reduce unnecessary barriers to data reuse. • Empower journals, societies & publishers in shared governance. • Plan for long-term preservation at the outset.

12. Dryad vs. Supplementary Online Materials

13. How well do we understand the value proposition? • For researchers • Dryad increases the impact of, and citations to, published research. It preserves and makes available others’ data to verify published results, to refine methodologies, and for other forms of reuse. It frees researchers from being responsible for data preservation and access. • For journals • Dryad frees journals from the responsibility and costs of maintaining supplemental data in perpetuity, and allows publishers to increase the value of their journals to its authors and readers. • For funders • Dryad provides a cost-effective mechanism to make research more accessible, and to leverage existing investments in order to enable new science.

14. Dryad as an organization • International nonprofit, with multiple institutional hosts • Governed by a Board of open size • Each partner journal appoints one (voting) representative • The full Board votes on all financial and governance matters • Executive Committee • Currently five members elected by the Board • Responsible for repository policy, short-term strategic decisions • Brings issues to full Board for discussion and vote • Institutional oversight, advisory structure both TBD • Next board meeting 7-9 July in Vancouver • Transition from interim status • Adopt initial governance model • Adopt initial cost-recovery model

15. NSF/ESA Data Sharing and NESCent Small Science workshops Beginning negotiation of Joint Data Archiving Policy Journals/societies join NESCent & others to fund Dryad through NSF 2007 2008 NSF funding for Dryad begins (lasts through Aug 2012) Repository went online First consortium board meeting Debut of integrated data submission 2009 2010 Announcement of Joint Data Archiving Plan JISC funding begins Discussions with potential charter partners 2011 JDAP (and NSF DMP mandate) takes effect Transitional funding campaign Approval of cost-recovery plan and governance structure Cost-recovery begins Transitional funding begins 2012

16. Projecting Dryad’s operating costs • Activity-based cost model, from KRDS • Includes • Management & administrative support • Storage and server hardware (incl. permanent storage) • Personnel for system maintenance • Curation and preservation • A small amount of outreach and user support • Does not include • Facilities and other institutional costs (e.g. human resources) • Repository innovation (grants, foundation support) • Special projects (grants, foundation support) • More detail in Beagrie, Eakin-Richards and Vision, iPres 2010

17. Curation 17 integrated journals

18. Revenue return • Costs are recovered upfront, in order to • allow free dissemination • assure preservation • Fees predominantly paid by journals, which may be • passed on to authors • subsidized by societies • rolled into publisher costs/revenue • Fees should be • attractive: cost-effective relative to SOM • fair: to all different types of journals • Model will surely evolve • Under control of consortium of partner journals

21. Issues with the subscription plan • Are the differences in per-article costs appropriate? • Plan B and Plan C are set based on incentives, not cost • Should there be a Plan B at all? • Should there be a greater safety buffer for Plan A? • How to accommodate • journals from developing countries? • authors from non-partner journals who lack grant resources? • Annual fee depends only on article volume • Is this the most equitable arrangement?

22. Role for funders? n=564 “this sort of open access archiving costs money and it is not clear who pays. Certainly research funding agencies seen very keen on the doing and not very keen on the paying.” H. Piwowar (unpubl.)

23. Role for funders? • Policy • Strong archiving guidelines, with enforcement • Endorsement of trusted repositories • Funding • Renewable infrastructure grants (supporting curation, maintenance, user support, business operations) • Matching funds to repositories based on deposits or reuse • Top-slicing to researchers • Waiver funds for researchers

24. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0