OpenAIREplus workshop - notes from the breakout session

One of Copenhagen's bridges being opened, so we can sail through!

1. Funders and data policy
 * Lots of interest in the data value checklist - compare UK and Australian data value checklist
 * It's cheaper to keep data rather than recreate it
 * Can you require open availability of data brought into a project? Case by case negotiation
 * Multiple funders - which data policy will be applied?
 * CODATA preparing a toolkit for funders about open data policy
 * Role of institutional repositories? Data centres are good places to handle data pools
 * Need clear metadata!
 * How to handle data management plans once the project is over? Fund data management post-project. Should remain institutional responsibility.
 * Identifiers - need researcher identifiers, funder acknowledgements, DOIs - all to pull together project information and data
 * Are there international approached in data management plans?

2. Institutional policy
 * Most institutions don't have a policy yet because they're not easy to create
 * What other steps need to be done before policy?
 * Hierarchy - who to get involved - academic champions
 * Broad overview - what are the needs of researchers -  don't want extra admin
 * Don't contradict other policies or legislation
 * Smaller institutions don't have monet or effort to get into big data infrastructures
 * policy can guide researchers on what to do with their data
 * What should be deposited, what should be kept
 * How can we help insitutions develop data management plans?
 * Guidelines on developing data management policies
 * What kind of questions do we need to know before drafting policy?

3. Researchers and publishers
 * Current examples are life and environmental sciences
 * we need other examples in other fiels
 * Researchers need acknowledgement for their work on data - not having it stops them shring
 * Quality issues are important - need principles for peer review of research data
 * Users of data are candidates to review it
 * there are varying degrees of openness in peer-review - which will be appropriate for data?
 * What stopes researchers sharing data? Quality, promotion, confidence in the value of the data
 * We can give researchers more confidence in their data by promoting community standards
 * Change beahviour so that data management is done every day, instead of just at the beginning and end of the project.
 * Publishers can influence researchers when it comes to data management.
 * Metrics are needed, data citation, but also alt.metrics
 * Need for good examples of data management to educate researchers
 * Need a list of trusted databases/repositories
 * URLs aren't trusted, because they break!

4. Technical
 * Finland is constructing a national data catalogue, containing a mix of metadata records and data
 * OpenAIRE data model and services are using trust levels for entities and (automatic and man-made) relations
 * Need to guarantee long term data availability for enhanced publications to be trustworthy, or at least know what bits will last for how long
 * Level of trust needed to develop services to show levels of preservation
 * Services should still exist for low trust objects - e.g.g use a robot to check if the object is still there, and if not, drop the connection.

5. OpenAIREplus
 * Are there licensing restrictions for metadata?
 * Case studies of scientific communities should be published as soon as possible
 * Credit for researchers is important
 * Libraries have a role too - even if there is a fear of data management
 * Universities are very disparate - makes it hard politically to agree on data policy.