For an unusual way to present cybersecurity information, check out this brief game for private practice physicians and their employees. The game teaches contingency planning to protect electronic health records from fire, flood, power loss, and more: http://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/CyberSecure_103_FINAL/
Archive for the ‘Education’ Category
This has been a very interesting and positive collaborative process and has involved a number of groups and committed individuals. Encouraging the practice of data citation, it seems to me, is one of the key steps towards giving research data its proper place in the literature.
As the preamble to the draft principles states:
Sound, reproducible scholarship rests upon a foundation of robust, accessible data. For this to be so in practice as well as theory, data must be accorded due importance in the practice of scholarship and in the enduring scholarly record. In other words, data should be considered legitimate, citable products of research. Data citation, like the citation of other evidence and sources, is good research practice.
In support of this assertion, and to encourage good practice, we offer a set of guiding principles for data citation.
Please do comment on these principles. We hope that with community feedback and support, a finalised set of principles can be widely endorsed and adopted.
Discussion on a variety of lists is welcome, of course. However, *if you want the Synthesis Group to take full account of your views, please be sure to post your comments on the discussion forum <http://www.force11.org/datacitation>.*
Some notes and observations on the background to these principles I would like to add here some notes and observations on the genesis of these principles. As has been widely observed there have been a number of groups and interested parties involved in exploring the principles of data citation for a number of years. Mentioning only some of the sources and events that affected my own thinking on the matter, there was the 2007 Micah Altman and Gary King article, in DLib, which offered ‘A Proposed Standard for the Scholarly Citation of Quantitative Data’ <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/altman/03altman.html> and Toby Green’s OECD White Paper ‘We need publishing standards for datasets and data tables’ <http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/603233448430>in 2009. Micah Altman and Mercè Crosas organised a workshop at Harvard in May 2011 on Data Citation Principles <http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/datacitation_workshop/pages/welcome>.
Later the same year, the UK Digital Curation Centre published a guide to citing data <http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/briefing-papers/introduction-curation/data-citation-and-linking> in 2011.
The CODATA-ICSTI Task Group on Data Citation Standards and Practices <http://www.codata.org/taskgroups/TGdatacitation/index.html> (co-chaired by Christine Borgman (replacing Bonnie Carroll as Co-chair in January of this year), Jan Brase and Sara Callaghan) has been in existence since 2010.
In collaboration with the US National CODATA Committee and the Board on Research Data and Information<http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/brdi/index.htm>, a major workshop was organised in August 2011<http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/brdi/PGA_064019>, which was reported in ‘For Attribution: Developing Data Attribution and Citation Practices and Standards’<http://www.nap.edu/download.php?record_id=13564>
The CODATA-ICSTI Task Group then started work on a report covering data citation principles, eventually entitled ‘Out of Cite, Out of Mind’ <https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/dsj/12/0/12_OSOM13-043/_article>- drafts were circulated for comment in April 2013 and the final report was released in September 2013.
Following the first ‘Beyond the PDF’ Meeting <https://sites.google.com/site/beyondthepdf/> in Jan 2011 participants produced the Force11 Manifesto ‘Improving Future Research Communication and e-Scholarship’ <http://www.force11.org/white_paper> which places considerable weight on the availability of research data and the citation of those data in the literature. At ‘Beyond the PDF II’ <http://www.force11.org/beyondthepdf2> in Amsterdam, March 2013, a group comprising Mercè Crosas, Todd Carpenter, David Shotton and Christine Borgman produced ‘The Amsterdam Manifesto on Data Citation Principles’. <http://www.force11.org/AmsterdamManifesto> In the very same week, in Gothenburg, an RDA Birds of a Feather group <http://forum.rd-alliance.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=58> was discussing the more specific problem of how to support, technologically, the reliable and efficient citation of dynamically changing or growing datasets and subsets thereof. And the broader issues of the place of data and research publication were being considered in the ICSU World Data Service Working Group on Data Publication<http://www.icsu-wds.org/working-groups/data-publication>. This group has, in turn, formed the basis for an RDA Interest Group<https://rd-alliance.org/internal-groups/publishing-data-ig.html>.
From June 2013, as the Force11 Group was preparing its website and activities to take forward the work on the Amsterdam Manifesto, calls came in from a number of sources for these various groups and initiatives to coordinate and collaborate. This was admirably well-received and from July the ‘Data Citation Synthesis Group’ had come into being with an agreed mission statement <http://www.force11.org/node/4381>:
The data citation synthesis group is a cross-team committee leveraging the perspectives from the various existing initiatives working on data citation to produce a consolidated set of data citation principles (based on the Amsterdam Manifesto, the CODATA and other sets of principles provided by others) in order to encourage broad adoption of a consistent policy for data citation across disciplines and venues. The synthesis group will review existing efforts and make a set of recommendations that will be put up for endorsement by the organizations represented by this synthesis group.
The synthesis group will produce a set of principles, illustrated with working examples, and a plan for dissemination and distribution. This group will not be producing detailed specifications for implementation, nor focus on technologies or tools.
As has been noted elsewhere , the group comprised 40 individuals and brought together a large number of organisations and initiatives <http://www.force11.org/node/4785>.
What followed over the summer was a set of weekly calls to discuss and align the principles. I must say, I thought these were admirably organised and benefitted considerably from participants’ efforts to prepare documents comparing the various groups’ statements. The face-to-face meeting of the group, in which a lot of detailed discussion to finalise the draft was undertaken, was hosted (with a funding contribution from CODATA) at the US National Academies of Science between the 2nd RDA Plenary <https://rd-alliance.org/programme.html> and the DataCite Summer Meeting <http://www.datacite.org/node/84> (which CODATA also co-sponsored). It has been intellectually stimulating and a real pleasure to contribute to these discussions and to witness so many informed and engaged people bashing out these issues.
The principles developed by the Synthesis Group are now open for comment and I urge as many people, researchers, editors and publishers as possible who believe that data has a place in scholarly communications to comment on them and, in due course, to endorse them and put them into practice.
Are we finally at the cusp of real change in practice? Will we now start seeing the practice of citing data sources become more and more widespread?
It’s soon to say for sure, but I hope these principles, and the work on which they build, have got us to a stage where we can start really believing the change is well underway.
A study released today suggests that hospitals, government departments, associations and other organisations involved in healthcare gain a $9 return for every dollar they invest in health libraries.
Health Libraries Inc (HLInc) and Health Libraries Australia (ALIA HLA, a national group of the Australian Library and Information Association) commissioned award-winning firm SGS Economics and Planning to survey health libraries across the nation and from this to assess the return on the annual investment in these services to their organisations.
The results provide a snapshot of the continued outstanding value of health libraries against a backdrop of significantly greater usage but declining investment. Patient and medical staff numbers and hospital expenditure are increasing, while health library budgets, space and staffing levels are decreasing. HLInc chair Jane Edwards and ALIA HLA convener Ann Ritchie said, “The investment in library and information services is small in the scheme of things just 0.1% of recurrent expenditure in Australian hospitals. The report suggests that a modest increase in spending would allow for significant incremental benefits.”
The indicative finding of $9 for every $1 invested is likely to be even higher. SGS assessed the benefits provided directly to health library users, including time saved and value of “out-of-pocket” expenses such as journal subscriptions. However, the user focus of the study omitted the return on investment in terms of patient care, and SGS said “it is highly likely that the benefits of industry libraries outweigh their costs considerably.”
This economic value assessment supports the findings of the ALIA/HLInc Questions of Life and Death, an investigation into the value of health library and information services report, published last year. Library and information service users were asked how they believed their use of the service over the last year had helped them 83% said it had helped them improve health outcomes for their patients and 76%//said it had changed their thinking and improved their diagnosis or treatment plan.
The full report Worth every cent and more: an independent assessment of the return on investment of health libraries in Australia with supporting materials: http://www.alia.org.au/news/2124/australian-health-libraries-return-investment
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1002%2Fasi.23101 (subscription required)
Data collected by social media platforms have been introduced as new sources for indicators to help measure the impact of scholarly research in ways that are complementary to traditional citation analysis. Data generated from social media activities can be used to reflect broad types of impact. This article aims to provide systematic evidence about how often Twitter is used to disseminate information about journal articles in the biomedical sciences. The analysis is based on 1.4 million documents covered by both PubMed and Web of Science and published between 2010 and 2012.
The number of tweets containing links to these documents was analyzed and compared to citations to evaluate the degree to which certain journals, disciplines, and specialties were represented on Twitter and how far tweets correlate with citation impact. With less than 10% of PubMed articles mentioned on Twitter, its uptake is low in general but differs between journals and specialties. Correlations between tweets and citations are low, implying that impact metrics based on tweets are different from those based on citations. A framework using the coverage of articles and the correlation between Twitter mentions and citations is proposed to facilitate the evaluation of novel social-media-based metrics.
Managing Scientific Data as Public Assets: Data Sharing Practices and Policies among Full-Time Government EmployeesFriday, November 29th, 2013
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi?DOI=10.1002%2Fasi.22988 (requires subscription)
This paper examines how scientists working in government agencies in the U.S. are reacting to the “ethos of sharing” government-generated data. For scientists to leverage the value of existing government data sets, critical data sets must be identified and made as widely available as possible. However, government data sets can only be leveraged when policy makers first assess the value of data, in much the same way they decide the value of grants for research outside government.
We argue that legislators should also remove structural barriers to interoperability by funding technical infrastructure according to issue clusters rather than administrative programs. As developers attempt to make government data more accessible through portals, they should consider a range of other nontechnical constraints attached to the data. We find that agencies react to the large number of constraints by mostly posting their data on their own websites only rather than in data portals that can facilitate sharing. Despite the nontechnical constraints, we find that scientists working in government agencies exercise some autonomy in data decisions, such as data documentation, which determine whether or not the data can be widely shared. Fortunately, scientists indicate a willingness to share the data they collect or maintain. However, we argue further that a complete measure of access should also consider the normative decisions to collect (or not) particular data.
The latest issue of the Journal of eScience Librarianship (JESLIB) has just been published! It is available at http://escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/vol2/iss2/.
Table of Contents
Volume 2, Issue 2 (2013)
Re-thinking Our Professional Identity in Light of New Responsibilities / Elaine R. Martin
Common Errors in Ecological Data Sharing / Karina E. Kervin, William K. Michener, and Robert B. Cook
Opportunities and Barriers for Librarians in Exploring Data: Observations from the Data Curation Profile Workshops / Jake R. Carlson
The Political Economy of Federally Sponsored Data / Bart Ragon
E-Science in Action
Gathering Feedback from Early-Career Faculty: Speaking with and Surveying Agricultural Faculty Members about Research Data / Sarah C. Williams
Building an eScience Thesaurus for Librarians: A Collaboration Between the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, New England Region and an Associate Fellow at the National Library of Medicine / Kevin Read, Andrew T. Creamer, Donna Kafel, Robert J. Vander Hart, and Elaine R. Martin
Thoughts on “eResearch”: a Scientist’s Perspective / Amanda L. Whitmire
Are you interested in submitting to JESLIB? Please refer to author guidelines at http://escholarship.umassmed.edu/jeslib/styleguide.html
Elaine R. Martin, Editor, and the Editorial Team Journal of eScience Librarianship
Presenter: Kate Flewelling, Outreach Coordinator, NN/LM MAR
Where: Free, Online
Dates: February 6 – 20, 2014
Three required webinars:
- Thursday, Feb. 6, 2014: 10 – 11 am (ET) / Common Mistakes and Finding Funding
- Thursday, Feb. 13, 2014: 10 – 11 am (ET) / The Proposal
- Thursday, Feb. 20, 204: 10 – 11 am (ET) / The Budget and Finishing Touches
Summary: Designed for beginning grant proposal writers, this class presents a general overview of the grant and funding processes as well as the level of detail required in a successful proposal. Each component of the grant writing process will be addressed, including: documenting the need; identifying the target population; writing measurable objectives; developing a work plan, an evaluation plan and dissemination plan.
The course will consist of three-1 hour Adobe Connect webinars and a planning assignment. Participants who complete all requirements will be eligible for 4 MLA CE.
Check out the Fall 2013 issue of our newsletter, The MAReport: http://nnlm.gov/mar/newsletter/.
- Library Collaboration and Advocacy / Barbara Epstein
- Update on NN/LM National Outreach Initiatives / Renae Barger
- Member Spotlight: Providing Advocacy and Education for the Behavioral Health Needs of Older Pennsylvanians / Rebecca May-Cole
- MAR Announces the 2013 National Medical Librarians Award / Pinnacle Health System
- Training First Responders on the Use of NLM Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Information Mobile Applications / Michelle Burda
- Health & Wellness: Not Just @ Your Library / Lydia Collins
- ClinicalTrials.gov: A Resource for Patients, Clinicians, Researchers and Librarians / Kate Flewelling
- What is PubMed Health and Why Would I Ever Use it? / Missy Harvey
NOTE: We encourage you to subscribe so MAReport will be delivered to your inbox.
A series of DOCLINE training webinars will begin next week with:
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
When: 1 pm (ET)
It’s recommended that you have access to DOCLINE to take the class (the hands-on component of the class requires you to log-in to your DOCLINE account to complete the interactive exercises.)
The classes are FREE. To login all you need do is key in your name and Enter as a guest. You will receive instructions for the audio portion after entering the room. Captioning will be provided.
You are eligible to receive 1 MLA CE credit for each class by participating in exercises.
For additional information about classes: http://nnlm.gov/mcr/education/docline
Test your connection prior to joining the class: https://admin.acrobat.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm.
Presenter: Missy Harvey, Technology & Communication Coordinator, NN/LM MAR
Date / Time: December 17, 2013 / 1 – 2:30 pm (ET)
Summary: This class is for community college librarians to learn more about how their students can research the health literature, find consumer health information, and to learn about mobile apps/social media to find what they need. The class includes introductions to PubMed and MedlinePlus.