Complying with the NSF’s New Public Access Policy and Depositing a Manuscript in NSF-PAR

In 2016 the National Science Foundation (NSF) rolled out its new online public access repository, NSF-PAR for investigators funded by the NSF to deposit their manuscripts to comply with its new Public Access Policy. The NSF’s policy and its new publications repository differ in several key ways from the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) public access policy and PMC, particularly in terms of requirements for compliance and procedures for deposit. While NIH grants may make up the majority of biomedical institutions’ research funds, the NSF is also an important source of biomedical funding, especially for career awards, research training grants, and translational research. In this webinar we will walk participants through the requirements for compliance and the process for deposit and share insights provided by the NSF Policy Office

Headache in an HIV positive patient: diagnostic challenges and approach to treatment

Headaches are a common complaint in HIV positive patients attending emergency services. A thorough understanding of the differential diagnoses, initial investigations and empirical management of this presentation is essential for the assessing physician. We discuss a case of a patient with known advanced HIV infection presenting with headache to the emergency department. Given the range of possible diagnoses, broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy was initially commenced. This was stopped when magnetic resonance imaging confirmed a diagnosis of venous sinus thrombosis. Anticoagulation therapy was started in accordance with current clinical guidelines after discussing the rationale and options for treatment with the patient. Here, we review the guidelines and supporting evidence for management of venous sinus thrombosis, and consider the challenges and strategies for engaging a patient with previous poor attendance in their ongoing care

Research Data Management and the Health Sciences Librarian

Published as Chapter 10 Research Data Management and the Health Sciences Librarian in Health Sciences Librarianship edited by M. Sandra Wood. Chicago: Rowman & Littlefield and the Medical Library Association, 2014. Link to book on publisher\u27s website. All rights reserved by the publishers. PDF of book chapter posted with publisher\u27s permission

Classifying Data Deposited by Scientists into a Library\u27s Data Repository

In 2014, a team of librarians at Brown University began a concerted effort to ingest, describe, and publish scientific data and digital scholarship into the Brown Library’s data repository, the Brown Digital Repository (BDR). The Library targeted outreach towards student, staff, and faculty researchers in the sciences to encourage them to deposit their digital scholarship, such as digital research products related to grants and data related to their publications, into the BDR. This poster presents a snapshot of the types of scholarship that were deposited by scientists during a 2-year period and classifies the nature of these digital objects. The authors looked at the total number of files deposited by scientists over this period and created a tool to classify and categorize these objects in order to characterize the nature of digital scholarship that scientists were depositing. The instrument classified these objects into several categories and subcategories based on concrete criteria. The first category described digital objects associated with a publication. Data in this category were further classified into the subcategories “underlying data” and “supplementary data”. Underlying data included files that contained the results reported in the publication, files necessary for the peer review of the paper’s reported results and/or necessary for replication or reproduction of research results, such as code that was used to analyze results. The supplementary data were files accompanying a publication, including tables, graphs or visualizations that were not able to be included in the paper or were referenced by authors. The second category was files created by student, staff or faculty researchers not related to a publication but could stand alone as scholarly products equivalent to a publication, such as research posters, animations, visualizations, or software. The last category described digital collections, and included three subcategories: legacy data, digital libraries, and grants. Legacy data were digital products published by retiring faculty or faculty nearing the end of their research careers. Digital libraries included the published collections of scientific data not associated with a single publication. These collections could be published by individual researchers, a collaborative team, labs, and/or departments, and their purpose is to make these items available for other researchers to access and reuse. Lastly, the subcategory grant data contained collections of scientific data and/or other types of digital scholarship associated with a funded-project. These collections could be published by individual researchers, a collaborative team, labs, and/or departments, and the purpose is to disseminate items resulting from sponsored research and/or make these resulting grant-funded digital objects available for other researchers and/or the public

Adapting the Library Repository to Accommodate Research Data, Publications, and Partnering with Researchers

Brown University Library originally created the Brown Digital Repository (BDR) in 2011 to serve the digital content storage and dissemination needs of its Special Collections and Center for Digital Scholarship (CDS). Since then, the BDR has evolved to serve a broader group of stakeholders, including the science librarians, who deposit researchers’ data along with the supplementary materials underlying their publications, collections of data to comply with a grant-funder’s requirements for data sharing, and faculty publications. Some university library systems have created separate repositories for data, such as the Universities of Michigan and Minnesota. However, for libraries at smaller institutions, having a separate system for images, publications, and data may not be the most-feasible or affordable short-term solution. Over the last year, Brown’s science librarians and developers have been planning to make enhancements and changes to the BDR to improve its ingest, dissemination, and overall capabilities for preserving the long-term access of research data as well as make the necessary adaptations to the way that the BDR collects faculty publications, with the aim of it being a resource to help researchers with retaining their final approved manuscripts and complying with their funders’ public access policies. These shifts, from a focus on ingesting and displaying images to a focus on data and publications have exposed many issues and challenges that librarians considering adapting their existing repositories to accommodate data and public access mandates should hear. At the same time, the Library has been working with the Brown Center for Biomedical Informatics to integrate its science librarians and repository infrastructure into grant-funded projects, such as an NLM Administrative Supplement for Informationist Services. In the second half of the session, Dr. Neil Sarkar, the Director of the Brown Center for Biomedical Informatics, and Principal Investigator on the NLM Administrative Supplement, will provide a keynote address, which will cover: (1) faculty perspectives academic libraries should have in mind while adapting their repositories for tracking and making available their faculty’s scholarly output; (2) ways libraries can develop infrastructure to partner with their faculty on research projects and grant-funded initiatives, such as clinical and translational science; (3) ways that libraries could integrate their repositories into existing systems for recording scholarly output, such as My NCBI’s My Bibliography as well as systems for displaying researcher and scholarship ontologies such as VIVO; and (4) ways that libraries can adapt their repositories to provide meaningful analytics and metrics for measuring the impact of their researcher communities

Implementing a Case-Based Research Data Management Curriculum

OBJECTIVE: The Lamar Soutter Library of the University of Massachusetts Medical School is working with partner librarians at MBL-WHOI, Northeastern, Tufts and UMass Amherst on a NN/LM NER grant to author online modules and develop additional Research Data Management (RDM) Teaching Cases based on the UMMS/WPI Data Management Frameworks. The goal is to create an online curriculum to support these institution’s researchers’ data management (RDM) practices. METHODS: The criteria for module content were developed by an evaluation expert using the NSF data management plan requirements. To develop additional RDM Teaching Cases librarians conducted semi-structured data interviews with researchers. The librarians transcribed and coded these interviews using a validated RDM planning instrument to categorize the projects’ RDM challenges. The librarians then authored case narratives based on the data interview, highlighting these authentic challenges along with a set of discussion and comprehension questions to support learner outcomes. RESULTS: Currently there are seven modules in addition to the RDM Teaching Cases being authored by the project partners. The first drafts of the Module content and Teaching Cases are due for completion in spring 2013. CONCLUSIONS: A Data Management Curriculum and RDM Teaching Cases will provide libraries with an educational resource for teaching best practices and supporting their student and faculty research. These educational materials will help to provide researchers and future-researchers with valuable lessons to improve the management of their data throughout the stages of their projects, and will encourage them to see the relationships between managing their data and sharing their data in the future

A Sample of Research Data Curation and Management Courses

Objective This paper identifies a sample of research data curation and management courses available at American Library Association-accredited Library and Information Science (LIS) Programs in North America. Methods This sample was identified through a content analysis of LIS program course descriptions and syllabi (N=58). Using a framework of research data management and curation competencies, the team gathered a sample of research data curation and management courses offered between fall 2011 and summer 2012. Results Only 13 (22%) of LIS programs currently offer a course focused on the management and curation of research data. Conclusion Although the literature supports LIS professionals adopting new roles and engaging in eScience and data management, most LIS data-related programs do not have a separate course solely focused on research data management. More LIS programs will need to adapt their curricula in order to help students and practicing professionals develop the needed competencies in research data curation and management

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

Objective: In response to the growing interest and adoption of eScience roles by librarians, those from the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, New England Region (NN/LM NER) and an Associate Fellow from the National Library of Medicine collaborated to build an eScience Thesaurus. The Thesaurus will introduce librarians to terminology and concepts in eScience, point to relevant literature and resources on data and digital research topics, and provide links to interviews with librarians and experts working in eScience-related roles. The eScience Thesaurus is a starting place for librarians to find the vocabulary to research the background, resources, and tools necessary for developing their capacity to provide eScience-related services. Methods: The Associate Fellow completed a review of eScience-related literature to identify the seminal publications for the originations of these terms and concepts as they apply to libraries. Next, the Associate Fellow worked with the NN/LM NER to compile an environmental scan of resources that would be useful and applicable for librarians, and created a scope document and record structure. The team interviewed prominent librarians working in eScience roles and experts that have created digital tools and services used by the library community. Finally, the team sent the Thesaurus records out to five members of the advisory and editorial review boards from the eScience Portal for New England Librarians for evaluation. Results: The eScience Thesaurus is now hosted on the eScience Portal for New England Librarians’ website. It provides a comprehensive list of more than 50 different terminologies and concepts, with links to seminal and relevant literature, resources, grants, and interviews on a variety of eScience-related topics. Conclusion: The eScience Thesaurus is an evolving resource; as the field expands and more eScience-related terms are adopted by the library and information science community, the Portal will enable its users to electronically submit new vocabulary and records to the Thesuarus, thus preserving it as a go-to eScience resource for librarians

Collaborative Assessment and Survey Administration: A MISO Survey Case Study

The Managing Information Services Outcomes (MISO) Survey was originally developed in 2005 at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania, USA by staff from a consortium of higher education institutions to assess library and technology services using a single instrument. Since then, the survey has grown and changed under the collaborative management of an all-volunteer team of library and IT professionals from various participating institutions throughout the United States. The survey has been implemented at 171 institutions. This chapter reviews the guiding principles, ongoing partnerships, and the value of working across departments, across campuses, and across cohorts of participating institutions to leverage local expertise, reduce costs, and create a culture of collaboration and assessment. In an environment where libraries are increasingly dependent on information technology, assessing library services in the context of IT brings layered intelligence to data-informed decision making. -- Chapter 9, p. 17