ORFG Advances Efforts to Improve Research Output Tracking
In June of 2022, the Open Research Funders Group (ORFG) launched a public effort to improve research output tracking. We began by publishing an open letter to the community, outlining priority areas such as persistent identifiers (PIDs) and machine readable metadata, and recommended actions for funders, publishers, infrastructure providers, and other key actors. We then opened up a survey to receive community feedback, and reported publicly on the results in September of 2022. Later that same month, we began holding regular open community calls to bring together diverse actors across the research ecosystem and discuss possible workstreams. Our community calls – four in total to date – have consistently had good engagement, with 40-50 participants per session.
Through these efforts, our community mailing list has grown to over 130 individuals, representing a variety of advocacy organizations, infrastructure providers, for-profit and not-for-profit publishers, private and public funders, research institutes, and more. The group includes organizations based in at least 10 different countries (Australia, Bahamas, Canada, Denmark, Germany, India, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, and US), and some representing an even larger number of countries through their boards and membership. We believe this represents one of the largest cross-sector and international efforts on research output tracking.
Over the course of our discussions, this community has identified the four workstreams described below. These workstreams will be co-led by community members, with support from the ORFG team in scheduling group meetings, coordinating asynchronous work on deliverables, and providing visibility into all workstreams to identify possible synergies. We also commit to regularly updating the public on the progress of these efforts, and using our extensive networks to make sure deliverables reach their intended audiences and propagate through the wider research ecosystem.
Enabling FAIR workflows: As described in the concept note, this work is inspired by DataCite’s FAIR Workflows Project, which aims to insert FAIR practices throughout the research lifecycle. The goal of this workstream is to explore DataCite’s Fair Workflows as a promising model that has made advances in this area, complemented by discussion of similar projects that may further inform FAIR practices and workflows. Specifically, the objectives are to (a) identify key points in the research lifecycle where there are gaps or barriers to implementing fully FAIR workflows, (b) identify actors (e.g., funders, publishers, researchers) who could take tangible steps at key points in the lifecycle to enable FAIR workflows, (c) reach out to those actors through our community efforts, and (d) work with them to facilitate communication between actors. provide virtual space for discussions, and outline a set of short-term and longer-term actions.
This workstream is co-led by Xiaoli Chen and Helena Cousijn from DataCite, and Kristin Eldon Whylly from Templeton World Charity Foundation. The group is currently working on a document that outlines for the first three stages of the lifecycle – grant application, grant registration, and submitting a data management plan – the key actors, potential actions they could take, and possible ‘dependencies’, i.e. what would one actor need from other actors to enable these actions. Once these three stages have been mapped as a model starting point, the group will move on to additional stages in the lifecycle.
National strategy on PIDs and metadata: As described in the concept note, the OSTP’s new guidance on ‘Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research’ includes a section on research integrity that asks federal agencies to develop plans for the collection and use of PIDs and metadata. Beyond the US National Government, many other organizations, such as universities, publishers, private philanthropies, and tool providers will be positively impacted by consistent application of PIDs and metadata. Specifically, the objectives of this work are to (a) arrive at and then present broad community consensus that can inform federal plans on PIDs and metadata, (b) promote existing good practices, standards, and initiatives, (c) recommend specific PIDs for specific use cases, (d) briefly describe how each PID meets standards outlined in NSPM-33 Implementation Guidance, (e) identify simple integrations across services and platforms that could allow PIDs and metadata to flow more seamlessly through the research ecosystem, (f) specify file formats and other features that could improve the quality and machine readability of metadata, and (g) explore pathways for translating group consensus into a potential National Standard strategy.
This workstream is co-led by Todd Carpenter from the National Information Standards Organization (NISO), and John Chodacki from the University of California Office of the President and the Research Data Alliance United States (RDA-US). The group is using template materials previously developed by RDA-US to advance this work.
Persistent identifier brief/toolkit: As described in the concept note, this work was inspired by a HELIOS + PID Community Partnership brief, authored by Zach Chandler from Stanford University. The brief outlines a number of PID services and infrastructure providers (e.g., Crossref, ORCID, ROR, etc.), and possible ways for higher education institutions to use or partner with these organizations; this latter piece is driven by Zach’s work with the ORFG’s Higher Education Leadership Initiative for Open Scholarship (HELIOS). The goal of this work is to improve on the first version of this brief, and develop it into guidance that could be used by universities, federal agencies, and private funders who want to learn more about PIDs to inform their strategies. Specifically, the objectives of this work are to (a) provide an overview of the PID providers and services currently available, with a focus on non-profit organizations, (b) briefly describe what these PID providers or services offer, (c) provide case studies that show how these PID services have helped institutions and funders solve issues related to output tracking or measuring impact, (d) provide guidance to support decision-making by institutions and funders on PID use, and (e) describe opportunities for integration or partnerships across services that would get PIDs flowing more seamlessly through the research ecosystem.
This workstream is co-led by Zach Chandler from Stanford University and Maria Gould from the University of California Office of the President. The group is currently working on version 2, HELIOS + PIDs: Recommended Guidance and Engagement Strategies.
Working group on DOIs for grants: As described in this concept note, registering grants with DOIs creates a record that not only includes the unique identifier but also ‘houses’ rich open metadata about the funding. These grant records can assist with funding attributions, uniting the diverse outputs that may come out of a funded project under a single identifier, and helping funders track and analyze the impact of their grant dollars. Our conversations with funders have identified DOIs for grants as an area of interest, but also revealed that assigning DOIs to grants currently involves several challenges. The goal of this work is to make this process easier and thereby increase adoption by funders. Specifically, the objectives are to (a) outline the value proposition for creating grant records with assigned DOIs that enable open grant metadata sharing, (b) identify and make visible the current challenges funders face in registering grants with DOIs, and explore how we could improve adoption, (c) experiment with tools to make this easier, and provide time and space for funders to provide feedback and discuss improvements, (d) explore tangible steps different actors (e.g. higher ed institutions, publishers, manuscript tracking systems, repository developers, etc.) could take to make sure grant DOIs are taken in, and that grant metadata is being used by their systems and fed easily into other systems along the research tool chain.
This workstream is co-led by Isaac Farley and Ginny Hendricks from Crossref, and Adam Jones and Catherine Mader from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. The group is currently working to draft a ‘value proposition’ document that outlines both the benefits and the potential costs for funders in registering their grants with DOIs.
The ORFG thanks the community for its engagement to date, and sends a special thanks to all of the co-leads and volunteers who have helped us shape these workstreams and define deliverables. We welcome community participation in any of the above workstreams. If you are interested in contributing, please contact the ORFG’s Community Manager, Erin McKiernan. The working groups will continue to advance their efforts, both asynchronously and through virtual meetings when necessary. We will then hold an open community call at the end of June so the groups can give brief public updates on their progress. If you are not already on our community mailing list and would like to be added, please contact us at the email above.