Poster Session

Posters presented at the 9th Annual University of Massachusetts and New England Area Librarian e-Science Symposium held on April 6, 2017.

2017
Thursday, April 6th
8:15 AM

A Sloth of Gummi Bears: Evaluating effectiveness of research data management instruction

Rebecca Reznik-Zellen, University of Massachusetts Medical School
Lisa A. Palmer, University of Massachusetts Medical School

8:15 AM

Purpose: This poster describes an evaluation of the effectiveness of elective-based, for-credit research data management instruction at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Population/Resources: Flexible Clinical Experiences (FCEs) are short (one-week), student-driven or pre-designed for-credit courses available to third-year medical students at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. FCE 3017: Research Data Management Fundamentals is a course offered by the library that provides an overview of the basic principles and best practices for data management, with a focus on data lifecycle planning, security and ethics, organization and documentation, and data sharing. To get credit for participating in this course, students are asked to prepare a data management plan and create a poster for a fictional Gummi Bear Population Study[1] as final deliverables. The data management plans and study posters give students an opportunity to apply the concepts learned in the course. Using these products, we are able to assess how well students have integrated the learning objectives of the course.

Results: Six students have successfully completed this course. Although these deliverables tend to be brief and have a heavy tongue-in-cheek component to them, they do demonstrate that the basic concepts of research data management are understood. Data management plans show a basic understanding of the role of and different components of data management throughout the research lifecycle. Posters demonstrate a basic understanding of the importance of data documentation. At the same time, the brevity of the content for both the data management plans and the posters indicates areas where our curriculum could provide more detail.

Discussion: After examining both the posters and the data management plans created by the students of FCE 3017, we are able to identify areas where our curriculum is effective, as well as areas where our instruction can be updated and more detailed.

[1] This approach was inspired by Vasilevsky, Nicole; Wirz, Jackie; Champieux, Robin; Hannon, Todd; Laraway, Bryan; Banerjee, Kyle; Shaffer, Chris; and Haendel, Melissa, "Lions, Tigers, and Gummi Bears: Springing Towards Effective Engagement with Research Data Management" (2014). Scholar Archive. Paper 3571.

Building Research Data Services at Mount Holyoke College

Julie Adamo, Mount Holyoke College
Nick Baker, Mount Holyoke College
James Burke, Mount Holyoke College
Mary Glackin, Mount Holyoke College
Sarah Oelker, Mount Holyoke College

8:15 AM

Objective: Mount Holyoke College ranks high among liberal arts colleges in faculty research activities and has just initiated a new program in Data Science. In this context, and given the recent growth in the use of very large datasets in research, more coherent and comprehensive campus support for the management and storage of faculty research data at Mount Holyoke has become essential. This poster will describe how Library, Information, and Technology Services (LITS) at Mount Holyoke (a merged library and IT organization), strove to analyze faculty research data management and storage needs, develop policies and procedures for meeting these needs, set out support models for research data lifecycle management, and determined responsibilities for consultation and support.

Methods: In 2015-2016, a working group of MHC librarians and technologists from the Research and Instructional Support (RIS) Department began exploring the need for data services at MHC. The RIS team focussed on studying data services models at other institutions, administered a survey to learn about faculty research data practices, and finally developed a proposal for expanded data services at MHC. Also in the spring of 2016, a cross-functional team was formed to meet faculty data storage and backup needs. Ten members were drawn from multiple library and IT departments. This team developed use cases and personas to begin guiding the development of policies and procedures and planning infrastructure provisioning. Additionally, metadata librarians, research and instruction librarians, and digital assets managers planned support models for metadata creation and research data management planning.

Results: Gathering information from the faculty survey and interviews, along with background study of data services models elsewhere, gave LITS a better understanding of our users’ needs. These insights guided LITS in developing matrices of needs, services, and support responsibilities that allow us to better meet support requirements and future infrastructure provisioning for data storage and processing. LITS has also developed resources to support faculty in crafting research data management plans (DMPs) and creating metadata for archiving newly created data sets. LITS has recently arranged access for Mount Holyoke researchers to the Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center (MGHPCC) and created an MHC Data Center to provide data storage and backup on LITS maintained servers.

Conclusion: The work of the Research and Instructional Support team and the LITS cross-functional team for research data support has given us a much clearer picture of how Mount Holyoke researchers are using and managing their data and has allowed us to begin plotting a path to a more coherent and robust set of services to support them in their work.

Developing Data Information Literacy with the Institutional Review Board

Alyson Gamble, New College of Florida

8:15 AM

Purpose: This poster examines the initial development and integration of instruction about data information literacy on a small, liberal-arts college campus in collaboration with the Institutional Review Board.

Setting/Participants/Resources: The Jane Bancroft Cook Library at New College of Florida has a science librarian serving as a member of the Institutional Review Board.

Brief Description: While serving as a member of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the librarian noticed a lack of campus knowledge and consensus about data management standards. Partnering with fellow IRB members and the Office of Research Programs and Services, the librarian developed instruction for students and faculty about data management. This poster describes the librarian’s analysis of the issue, planning process, selection of methods, design of materials, and review of an in-person workshop.

Results/Outcome: Collaborating with other members of the IRB, the librarian analyzed IRB proposals for lack of attention to data management, then developed materials and presented an in-person workshop based on this analysis. To further campus knowledge of data management, the librarian has developed a pre- and post-workshop survey for participants and will be developing an e-learning module for use on campus.

Evaluation Method: To determine a need for data information literacy on campus, IRB proposals for twenty projects were evaluated with regard to their data management strategies. Data security, privacy, retention, sharing, and publication were considered. Fourteen of the twenty, or 70%, of the proposals required revisions based on a lack of adequate attention to data management.

eScience Thesaurus 2.0

Tess Grynoch, Lamar Soutter Library, University of Massachusetts Medical School

8:15 AM

Objective: The eScience Thesaurus (http://esciencelibrary.umassmed.edu/professional-educ/escience-thesaurus) is an online resource which connects and defines concepts, services, and tools relevant to librarians supporting eScience research. A Thesaurus’ term’s record also showcases relevant literature, resources, and video interviews with librarians working in the field of eScience. The original eScience Thesaurus was created by Kevin Read in 2013 and there have been many developments in eScience which prompted a revision of this valuable resource. To update the eScience Thesaurus, one of the current Library Fellows at the Lamar Soutter Library revised the methodology employed by Read, Creamer, Kafel, Vander Hart, & Martin (2013) to review the eScience literature and develop a list of new terms for the Thesaurus.

Methods: To identify new terms, the Fellow replicated the search strategy used by Read et al. (2013) and limited the search to articles since 2013 and subsequently tagged relevant articles with their prominent topics. The prominent topics outside of the current terms in the thesaurus were suggested as possible new thesaurus topics. On top of identifying new terms, the Library Fellow suggested current terms that could be merged with other terms in the thesaurus. Both the current thesaurus terms and new proposed thesaurus terms were evaluated by the eScience Portal Editorial Board for inter-coder reliability.

Results: Of the 55 terms currently in the eScience Thesaurus, 10 were identified for merging. After reviewing the eScience literature, the Library Fellow suggested 47 terms for the Editorial Board to review and members of the Editorial Board added 12 terms to the list which were reviewed by the whole group as well. Of the 59 total terms suggested, 23 were chosen as new terms to be added to the eScience Thesaurus.

Conclusion: The next steps in the eScience Thesaurus’ revitalization are creating records for the new terms, including literature citations, resources, and interviews with subject experts; and sending out groups of the revised and new term records to the Editorial Board and additional eScience subject experts for review. Look for the new and updated eScience Thesaurus coming soon!

Read, K., Creamer, A., Kafel, D., Vander Hart, R.J., & Martin, E.R. (2013). 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. Journal of eScience Librarianship, 2(2), 53-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2013.1049

Expanding Data Management Service Boundaries at Johns Hopkins University

David S. Fearon, Johns Hopkins University

8:15 AM

Johns Hopkins Data Management Services (DMS), part of the JHU University Libraries and one of the first such services in the US, is now in its sixth year. As we continue to explore and expand boundaries of our research data management service, this poster summarizes new collaborative and boundary-crossing projects over the last year. Our offerings of data archiving are expanding to earlier research stages through our collaboration with the Center for Open Science's Open Science Framework (OSF). DMS offers user support and is working with developers with JHU Library's Data Management Division to build APIs and workflows for adding an archival preservation stream for researchers' OSF collaborative projects. Our department offers training on several data management topics. A new addition is an online training on data management planning which is publicly available on our website, dms.data.jhu.edu. We also offer one of our trainings for licensed access by other institutions, on the topic of protecting and de-identifying shared human subjects data. Finally, we note our website's resources on the topic of preserving and archiving research software, produced by our CLIR-sponsored postdoc, Fernando Rios.

Hybrid Data Services Librarians A concept for integrating a data services librarian into an existing role

Zachary Painter, UMass Dartmouth

8:15 AM

Objective: To demonstrate how to incorporate a data services librarian role into another role for a library, often where staff or workload limitations are prohibitive for hiring a specialist.

Method: An R2 university which until recently was not a DRU, attempted to combine a traditional research and instruction liaison role to a subject specialty and a new data services role. The university, needing a subject specialist for a prominent set of disciplines, but also needing a librarian to handle the new demand (or expectation) for data services, combined the two roles into one position. Changes were made to the role of the outgoing librarian to accommodate the new data services role, while an essential body for reference and instruction was not lost to the department.

Results: The initial structuring of duties has been managed without much issue. Selecting facets of data services to provide to the campus, rather than trying to contribute the entire corpus of data services, has effectively managed the workload of one staff member who also works normal reference, instruction, and liaison shifts within the library.

Conclusions: Libraries with limited staffing abilities need not fear the inability to hire a full time data services librarian, so long as someone on the staff is willing to take the responsibility. The distribution of labor, while perhaps an addition to the workload of a staff member, need not be arduous or difficult provided that the individual(s) have a clear plan for how to provide the needed services for a campus.

Librarians, funders, and the 2013 OSTP Public Access and Open Data Memoranda

Thea Atwood, University of Massachusetts Amherst

8:15 AM

Funding agencies have largely incorporated into their documentation methods to increase public access to research, as laid out by the Office of Science and Technology Policy’s 2013 memoranda. As such, librarians and scientists are at a critical point of change in practice and standards, including data management planning, transparent research processes, and disseminating data as widely as possible. This poster provides an overview of the OSTP guidelines and the responses to these guidelines by the NSF and the NIH. Based on this overview, there are clear areas where librarians can help improve how scientists respond to and comply with the Public Access policies, and some suggestions for future steps are provided. With a better understanding of the memoranda, and examples of areas where we can engage and improve practice, librarians will be prepared to provide policy-based guidance and advocacy at their own campuses.

Library support for clinical and translational research: research data management and data science

Kate Nyhan, Yale University
Melissa Funaro, Yale University
Denise Hersey, Yale University

8:15 AM

Objective: Librarians supporting Yale's CTSA grantee, the Yale Center for Clinical Investigation, found that research data support is needed at multiple stages in the clinical research lifecycle. This poster highlights the research data needs of clinical and translational research staff and resources that medical librarians can leverage to support them.

Methods: Through discussions with project managers, we identified some eighteen research support needs which are presented by clinical and translational research projects, and which library resources can meet. Several of these research support needs are related to research data management and data science.

- A "sink-or-swim" style of research training, in terms of everything from literature searching to research data management

- Confusion about data sharing requirements from funders and journals

- Questions about how best to measure certain outcomes, which can be answered, in some cases, with reference to Common Data Elements

- Missing or incomplete preregistrations, which are important because preregistration is an important tool to promote transparency

- Questions about identifying sites, through Census data and GIS, where diverse study participants could be recruited

Results: We are developing cross-training for librarians, and workshops for CTSA staff, to meet these needs.

Conclusions: We hope that, after iterating versions of these workshops with CTSA staff, we will be able to share helpful insights about library support for translational research in the context of data management and data science. These findings will also inform our approach to data management training for residents and clinicians, as well as students.

Tackling New Federal Agency Public Access Mandates at the University of Arizona

Ahlam A. Saleh, University of Arizona
Christine Kollen, University of Arizona
Dan Lee, University of Arizona
Scott Pryor, University of Arizona
Lori Schultz, University of Arizona

8:15 AM

Objective: In 2014, federal agencies began releasing their implementation plans in response to the 2013 White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research policy memorandum. The University has in place an established Data Management support service, which has addressed new data requirements. However, in early 2016 the University of Arizona Libraries (UAL) and Office of Research, Discovery & Innovation (RDI) convened to discuss how the university can help researchers address these new growing federal agency mandates on manuscripts and data.

Methods: By the summer of 2016, a collaboration of UA Libraries and the office of RDI formed the University of Arizona Public Access Working Group.

Results: Since receiving its charge, the working group has continued to meet on a regular basis.

Thus far, the group activities have included scheduled campus informational sessions and the development of guides and a resource page.

Conclusions: Next steps include expanding the list of entities covered to go beyond federal agencies. Additionally, the working group will soon start conversations with faculty stakeholders on developing a robust Open Science infrastructure and ecosystem for the University of Arizona.