Community Engagement

Maryann E. Martone, Ph. D.President, FORCE11

Community Engagement

• Community engagement is a key feature of DDICC approach, and the DDICC will be expected to foster the wide-scale collaborations and partnerships between and among key stakeholders to demonstrate feasibility of the concept.

What is FORCE11?

Future of Research Communications and E-Scholarship: A grass roots effort to accelerate the pace and nature of scholarly communications and e-scholarship through technology, education and community

Why 11? We were born in 2011 in Dagstuhl, Germany

Principles laid out in the FORCE11 Manifesto

FORCE11 launched in July 2012

Who is FORCE11?

Anyone who has a stake in moving scholarly communication into the 21st century

Publishers

Library and Information

scientists

Policy makers

Tool builders

Funders

Scholars

Science HumanitiesSocial

Sciences

FORCE11 Vision

• Modern technologies enable vastly improve knowledge transfer and far wider impact; freed from the restrictions of paper, numerous advantages appear

• We see a future in which scientific information and scholarly communication more generally become part of a global, universal and explicit network of knowledge

• To enable this vision, we need to create and use new forms of scholarly publication that work with reusable scholarly artifacts

• To obtain the benefits that networked knowledge promises, we have to put in place reward systems that encourage scholars and researchers to participate and contribute

• To ensure that this exciting future can develop and be sustained, we have to support the rich, variegated, integrated and disparate knowledge offerings that new technologies enable

FORCE11.org

• Community platform– Meetings– Discussions– Tools and resources– Blogs– Event calendar– Community projects– Working groups

• Promote interoperability– Data Citation– Resource identification

initiative

>800 members from diverse stakeholder groups

A place to come together: Data citation principles

•Resulted from a 1K challenge• 35 individuals representing > 20

organizations concerned with data citation

• Libraries• Government• Data repositories• Computer scientists

• Conducted a review of current data citation recommendations from 4 different organizations

• Arrived at a sense of consensus principles covering 8 themes

• Easy to understand-examples• Endorsed > 80 organizations

https://www.force11.org/datacitation

1. Importance2. Credit and attribution 3. Evidence4. Unique Identification 5. Access6. Persistence 7. Specificity and verifiability 8. Interoperability and

flexibility

Working groups are underway in FORCE11 and in Research Data Alliance and elsewhere that have goals and expertise relevant to the work of the DDIC; need to leverage these efforts

Revised NISO/JATS to support direct data citation

FORCE11 Working Group Strategy

• Fixed time period• Regular meeting schedule• Clear declaration of what is in scope and what is out of scope• Specified deliverable• Flexible platform: FORCE11 + Google Groups• Facilitation:

– Ms. Stephanie Hagstrom: agenda, organization of materials, minutes

– Good facilitator• Keep members on task• Provide synthesis of discussions• Prepare initial report

Resource Identification Initiative• The majority of research resources

used to produce results in scientific studies are not uniquely identifiable

• Have authors supply appropriate identifiers for key resources used within a study such that they are:– Machine processible (i.e., unique

identifier that resolves to a single resource)

– Outside of the paywall– Uniform across journals and

publishers

Launched February 2014: > 30 journals participating

Resource Identification Initiative• Two pre-meetings with editors and

publishers– Society for Neuroscience, 2012– NIH: June, 2013– Society for Neuroscience, 2013

• Designed pilot project– Entities– Procedure– Infrastructure

• Established working group through FORCE11

• Signed up partners Led by: Anita Bandrowski, Matt Brush, Nicole Vasievsky, Melissa Haendel and more

https://www.force11.org/Resource_identification_initiative

Resource Identification Pilot Project

• Authors to identify 3 types of research resources:

– Software/databases– Antibodies– Model organisms

• Include RRID in methods section– RRID:Accession#

• Voluntary for authors• Journals did not have to

modify their submission system

• Journals have flexibility in implementation

and more…

Resource IDs are aggregated from databases

• A single portal for authors

• >10 databases• One search interface• Simple directions• Prominent “Cite This”

button

• Uniform format for citation across publishers

• Help desk for authors

RII Portal

http://scicrunch.com/resources

Current Progress: RRID’s in the wild!

• >170 articles have appeared to date

• 29 journals• >650 RRID’s

•3 removed by typesetting

•95% correct• RRIDs drove

population of the Registries

• RRID’s provide stability for volatile resource providers

Chemicon – out of business, >8 yr

Millipore – just joined Merck, URL

still works

Millipore / Chemicon not a company

Database available at: https://www.force11.org/node/5635

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Post-PilotPre-Pilot

Antibodies Organisms Tools

Increased identifiability of resources after the Resource Identification Initiative Pilot

Why was the RRI a good pilot project?• Identified a clear problem and proposed a possible solution• Engaged the stakeholders in a set of pre-meetings and

requirements gathering• Gained consensus on a path forward• Launched broadly across multiple resource types and journals• Engaged the practicing research community in its execution• Produced an open data set that can be independently evaluated

for successes and failures– Would authors provide RRID’s?– Could authors provide RRID’s?– Can publishers implement this scheme?– What infrastructure is necessary?

Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran University of OxfordAmarnath Gupta University of Clifornia, San DiegoAnita de Waard Elsevier Research Data ServicesCarol Bean Stanford UniversityChris Mungall LBNLDavid Eichmann University of IowaEduard Hovy Carnetie Mellon University, Language Technologies InstituteHarry Hochheiser University of PittsburghIan Fore US National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of HealthJeffrey Grethe University of Clifornia, San DiegoMark Musen Mark Musen, Stanford UniversityMaryann Martone University of California, San DiegoMelissa Haendel Oregon Health & Science UniversityMerce Crosas IQSS, Harvard UniversityMichel Dumontier Stanford UniversityPaolo Ciccarese Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolPhilippe Rocca-Serra Oxford e-Research Centre, University of OxfordPuneet Kishor Creative CommonsSatrajit Ghosh MITStephanie Hagstrom University of California, San DiegoSusanna-Assunta Sansone University of Oxford and Nature Publishing GroupTim Clark Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolWilliam Gunn Mendeley

FORCE11 BioCADDIE Community Outreach Group

Join us: https://www.force11.org/group/biocaddie/cewg

Questions for community input• What are possible models for a DDI? • What are existing efforts, both

national and international, that can be used to inform the creation of a DDI? How can we work with them?

• How much curation is needed and by whom?

• What are the use cases? Who needs a DDI?

– Researchers– Funders– Administrators– Industry

• What are the issues surrounding access to data?

If PubMed had been built after the internet and search engines matured, how would it have been built?

Opportunities for engagement

– Task forces and pilot projects• Announcements and recruitment: FORCE11 interfaces with many national and

international efforts across disciplines• Smaller pilot projects

– Website http://www.biocaddie.org• Discussion forum• Working space for Task Forces• Pilot Project RFA’s• Webinars and blogs• Social media: Twitter, Google Plus, Facebook

– Meetings, workshops• FORCE2015• Hackathons

– Challenge prizes• 1K challenge prize• BioCreative

#biocaddie

Under construction

Beyond the PDF

• Conference/unconference where all stakeholders come together as equals to discuss issues– Publishers– Technologists– Scholars– Library scientists

San Diego, Jan 2011 ...... Amsterdam, March 2013........ Oxford, January 2015

FORCE2015

https://www.force11.org/meetings/force2015

BioCADDIE-FORCE2015 workshop

• Sunday, Jan 11th

• Theme:– Research Objects Writ Large

• What systems of identification, containers and citation are needed for identifying and tracking research objects across the different stages of the research data lifecycle

– Suggestions? Based on this workshop, what would be the best use of FORCE2015?

• Models for a DDI• Defining a biomedical data ecosystem

– Domain Analysis– What is already working/not working– Gap analysis

Challenge Prizes

• To remain nimble and take advantage of skills and opportunities within the wider community, we will offer a series of open challenges for which we will award prizes to incentivize participation. These will take the form of small ($1K) and large ($10K) challenge prizes to be awarded to members outside of the consortium.

FORCE2015; where else? BD2K collaborations?

Moving forward

• What are our priorities for the coming year?– Which mechanism is best for gaining community contribution for

each?• How would you like us to gather use cases?

– Existing repositories– Hackathons– User sessions– Monitoring existing forums: Biostars, Research Gate, Google Plus

• How will interactions with the other BD2K centers be handled?

• Do we want to target other meetings for engagement?