Policy Writing Data Repository Experiences Temple University Librarians
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
1 recomendación•613 vistas
The document summarizes discussions from a policy writing meeting for a data repository at Temple University. It identifies the librarians involved and discusses developing policies around issues like file sizes, embargoes, withdrawals, viruses, IRB approvals, and what the university press can do with deposited works. Other topics of discussion included data ownership, intellectual property, available storage space, and legal obligations and approvals needed. A pilot program was proposed to test initial policy drafts and help answer additional questions that arise.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a Policy Writing Data Repository Experiences Temple University Librarians
Similar a Policy Writing Data Repository Experiences Temple University Librarians (20)
Último
Último (20)
Policy Writing Data Repository Experiences Temple University Librarians
- 1. Margaret Janz, Science & Engineering Librarian Gretchen Sneff, Head of Science & Engineering Library Leanne Finnigan, Cataloging & Metadata Services Librarian Fred Rowland, Reference & Instruction Librarian Policy Writing for a Data Repository Experiences at Temple University Image by LaurMG: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frustrated_man_at_a_desk_(cropped).jpg
- 2. Background
- 3. Technical Development Digital Library Initiatives Service Implementation Various Librarians Teams Delphine Khanna Head Katherine Lynch Senior Applications Developer Steven Ng Applications Developer Leanne Finnigan Cataloging & Metadata Services Stephanie Geffert Biomedical & Research Services Fred Rowland Econ & Religion Kristina DeVoe Journalism & Communication
- 4. Other People’s Policies ◉ File sizes for self-deposit ◉ Embargoes ◉ Withdrawal ◉ Viruses ◉ IRB approved ◉ Publishing journals Katherine Orze Virtual Intern
- 5. Employee Manual 11.20 Policy for Misconduct in Research and Creative Work “… Interfering with, misappropriating, stealing or destroying equipment, supplies, or other information including, but not limited to: data, text, works of art or authorship or databases, which either belong to others or over which others have primary usership….” Data Ownership Policy Union Contract Side Letters 2. Intellectual Property …“The University and TAUP agree to meet and discuss regarding issues related to copyright.” Serendipity
- 6. Policy Wish List Meeting (I used this to click anyone who went off topic)
- 7. Should we allow embargoes? How is this different from Computer Services options? Policy Wish List Meeting But don’t increase barriers to adoption! Let’s encourage good practice! How much space do we have? Should be cap individuals’ space? Should we cap individual file size?What can the Press do with what’s deposited? We should get more cross-campus administrators on board!
- 8. This Is Not Legal Advice ◉What rights can we assign the things deposited? Whatever we want to do ◉What can we do with what’s deposited? Whatever we say we’ll do ◉What legal obligations for preservation/long term? Whatever we say we’ll do ◉Does Legal Counsel need to approval final policy? Probably
- 9. ◉ Draft of Pilot Policies & Terms complete! ◉ Send to all the groups for review ◉ Get test group in there Where We Are Now
- 10. Lessons Learned Every question answered leads to more questions. Uncertainty will never go away completely That’s what pilots are for!
Notas del editor
- We're both involved with developing research data services for the University. In this talk we will share our experience developing a policy document for Temple's data-focused institutional repository. We hope our "lessons learned" will be useful for those of you planning a repository -- and, if you've already built one -- we hope you will be inspired to share your stories with us!
- Temple University is a public research university with 17 schools and colleges and 38,000 students, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We're excited to be moving into a brand new library building in 2018. The push for a data-focused institutional repository at Temple came out of a meeting of the Library's nascent research data services group in the fall of 2014. A meeting with our Office of Research confirmed that they shared our interest in an IR -- as a way to promote and increase the discoverability of our faculty's various 'products of research.'
- The head of our Digital Libraries Initiatives department, Delphine Khanna, decided that we should do a Hydra instance for a pilot repository. We created two teams -- one for development and one for service implementation. One of the tasks for the service team -- that Margaret leads -- is to draft the policy for the pilot, and also for the larger, full-scale implementation of the repository.
- The first thing the Service Team did was look at a number of policies in place at other institutions. These were collected by our virtual intern, Katherine Orze. Even though we had a pretty good idea of what to include, looking at these policies brought up things we hadn’t thought about (like What if someone tries to use the repository as a platform to publish a journal?) and offered different responses to problems we hadn’t yet solved (like different ways to deal with embargoes).
- In addition to those policies, we happened upon a number of university policies and official documents that mentioned or were related to research data. One important find was the lack of a data ownership policy. I impulsively decided to call Legal Counsel and ask them who owns our researchers’ data. It turned out, like most institutions, the university owns it, but they are in the process of rewriting that policy. Because of our conversation, they became aware of the Library’s interest in this area and my new found contact assured me he’ll keep us in the loop as that policy is developed. We’re still exploring how these other examples shown might affect us.
- After reading the internal and external policies, the Service Team put together a wishlist of things we would want to see addressed in our own policy. We don't have any authority to declare official policy ourselves, so we called a meeting with our larger administrative group to go through the list line by line and see what we could and couldn’t do.
- Despite all the preparation we’d done, there was still a lot of discussion about many points. Some of these were issues of storage space, how we could encourage best practices without creating barriers to adoptions, how our service would differ from Computer Services storage options, whether more cross-campus administrators needed to be on board before we could move forward, and what the University Press can do with what’s deposited. Our lesson here was that there would always be uncertainty and debate. At some point we just had to say “Can we say this: yes or no?” and move on without further philosophical discussion. We didn’t get through the whole list, so our next steps from this meeting were to have another meeting to finish going over it and to take legal questions to Legal Counsel.
- When we met with Legal Counsel, we asked four basic questions and got four basic answers -- that you can see here. Then we had an interesting, far-reaching discussion for an hour -- we're still waiting to see if we get billed!. A caveat -- what we present here today is merely our understanding of what was said and should not be confused with their actual legal advice! A main take away was "Don’t Make Promises You Can’t Keep." We were also interested to hear that our University claims ownership on a case-by-case basis and that they believe that funder/publisher policies will generally will take precedence. The lawyer we spoke to had an expectation that people would click through agreements both on deposit and download – and he expressed concern about the files in the repository not being ADA compliant. We’re still investigating our responsibilities there.
- After our meetings with our administrative group and with Legal, we had enough information to write the draft policy for the pilot project. After this conference we’ll be sending it to our administrative group for review and then have our guy in Legal take a look at it. And then – finally- we can get a test group for the pilot.
- We’ve learned a lot so far. Some of our key take aways in addition to what we’ve already discussed are the importance of having an elevator speech: I repeatedly had to explain what we're doing to stakeholders - sometimes unexpectedly when I wasn't planning on talking about it. It’s great to include as many stakeholders as possible, but the more people who get involved, the more questions you will have. At some point you have to decide you have enough answers and press GO. Having this pilot project gives us the opportunity to test the policy along with the technology and services. I’m sure more questions will arise. Our lessons may not help you avoid your own headaches, but we hope hearing about our experience will help you prepare for them as you go through similar processes.
- Our lessons may not help you avoid headaches, but hope to prepare you for them.