SPEC Kit 334: Research Data Management Services · 13
Origin of Research Data Management Services
Several survey questions addressed the current and
transitioning climate of support for data services at
each library and their institution. The responses sug-
gest that libraries are developing data support services
ahead of formal policy requirements of their institu-
tions. Fewer than a quarter of the 73 respondents (16,
or 22%) reported that their institutions have some form
of policy for research data management or retention
(Q1). However, those policies vary from IRB guidelines
for sensitive data to institutional records policies, with
few specifying that research data be kept and man-
aged. A third of the respondents (24, or 33%) reported
that policies are planned in the next one to three years,
suggesting a trend of institutions to keep up with ex-
panding funder requirements.
Only four libraries initiated RDM services before
2005 (Q5). The earliest reported was the 1966 library-
supported Latin American Data Bank project. Ten oth-
ers started their RDM services between 2005 and 2009.
This correlates to the early initiatives for eScience,
which was the hot topic of many papers and task forc-
es.3 For these early providers the most important rea-
sons for beginning service were researchers’ requests
for help and a library initiative to expand support of
faculty research (Q6). One reports their AUL “at the
time was a visionary in terms of DRM and initiated a
broad range of services.”
Five of the 11 libraries that started their services in
2010 also reported the influence of library initiatives.
Four others stated the main reason was the National
Science Foundation announcement that they would
begin requiring data management plans on January
18, 2011. The NSF requirement was the main reason
for 11 of the 16 libraries that started RDM services in
2011, as well.
In 2011 and 2012, ARL and CLIR/Digital Library
Federation co-sponsored the E-Science Institute, a
workshop series to help libraries develop e-research
strategic agendas. The institute is now operated by
DuraSpace and is open to non-ARL institutions.4
Forty-nine survey respondents (67%) have attended
one or both of the previous sessions seven (10%) say
they plan to attend a future session, four for the first
time (Q2). Of the 49 who have attended the institute,
40 provide some level of RDM service (82%). The four
who are planning to attend a future institute for the
first time also already provide RDM services.
The core of the survey focused on the RDM ser-
vices that support the management and curation of
research data throughout its life cycle. The following
table presents the range of RDM service categories
discussed below, with their corresponding survey
questions.
RDM Services (N=54) N %Q
Online Data Management Plan
(DMP) resources
47 87% 7
DMP training 33 61% 10
DMP consulting 48 89% 11
RDMS besides DMP support 53 98% 18
Data archiving by library 40 74% 19
Data-specific archive (other than
institutional repositories)
5 9% 21
Data Management Plans
Many libraries began their RDM service to help re-
searchers create data management plans (DMP), most
often for NSF proposals. Two and a half years since
the NSF’s DMP requirement began, and with sev-
eral other funders adding similar requirements, the
survey asked several questions to gauge the extent
to which the libraries with RDM services currently
provide online DMP resources, or training and con-
sulting on plan preparation. As seen in the table above,
47 libraries provide online resources related to data
management plans. All of those libraries include an
explanation of funding agencies’ DMP requirements
and guidelines for creating DMPs. All but a few have
a tool or resource for DMP creation and DMP template
examples. In addition to DMP planning information,
other online resources include information about digi-
tal repository services, long-term data management
and preservation, links to related campus services,
information on copyright, and workshops offered.
Most respondents are providing links to external
resources, but 70% have also created their own, and
almost half have customized others’ content. Forty-
one libraries (75%) have linked to the DMPTool, a
prominent online self-service resource for researchers
Origin of Research Data Management Services
Several survey questions addressed the current and
transitioning climate of support for data services at
each library and their institution. The responses sug-
gest that libraries are developing data support services
ahead of formal policy requirements of their institu-
tions. Fewer than a quarter of the 73 respondents (16,
or 22%) reported that their institutions have some form
of policy for research data management or retention
(Q1). However, those policies vary from IRB guidelines
for sensitive data to institutional records policies, with
few specifying that research data be kept and man-
aged. A third of the respondents (24, or 33%) reported
that policies are planned in the next one to three years,
suggesting a trend of institutions to keep up with ex-
panding funder requirements.
Only four libraries initiated RDM services before
2005 (Q5). The earliest reported was the 1966 library-
supported Latin American Data Bank project. Ten oth-
ers started their RDM services between 2005 and 2009.
This correlates to the early initiatives for eScience,
which was the hot topic of many papers and task forc-
es.3 For these early providers the most important rea-
sons for beginning service were researchers’ requests
for help and a library initiative to expand support of
faculty research (Q6). One reports their AUL “at the
time was a visionary in terms of DRM and initiated a
broad range of services.”
Five of the 11 libraries that started their services in
2010 also reported the influence of library initiatives.
Four others stated the main reason was the National
Science Foundation announcement that they would
begin requiring data management plans on January
18, 2011. The NSF requirement was the main reason
for 11 of the 16 libraries that started RDM services in
2011, as well.
In 2011 and 2012, ARL and CLIR/Digital Library
Federation co-sponsored the E-Science Institute, a
workshop series to help libraries develop e-research
strategic agendas. The institute is now operated by
DuraSpace and is open to non-ARL institutions.4
Forty-nine survey respondents (67%) have attended
one or both of the previous sessions seven (10%) say
they plan to attend a future session, four for the first
time (Q2). Of the 49 who have attended the institute,
40 provide some level of RDM service (82%). The four
who are planning to attend a future institute for the
first time also already provide RDM services.
The core of the survey focused on the RDM ser-
vices that support the management and curation of
research data throughout its life cycle. The following
table presents the range of RDM service categories
discussed below, with their corresponding survey
questions.
RDM Services (N=54) N %Q
Online Data Management Plan
(DMP) resources
47 87% 7
DMP training 33 61% 10
DMP consulting 48 89% 11
RDMS besides DMP support 53 98% 18
Data archiving by library 40 74% 19
Data-specific archive (other than
institutional repositories)
5 9% 21
Data Management Plans
Many libraries began their RDM service to help re-
searchers create data management plans (DMP), most
often for NSF proposals. Two and a half years since
the NSF’s DMP requirement began, and with sev-
eral other funders adding similar requirements, the
survey asked several questions to gauge the extent
to which the libraries with RDM services currently
provide online DMP resources, or training and con-
sulting on plan preparation. As seen in the table above,
47 libraries provide online resources related to data
management plans. All of those libraries include an
explanation of funding agencies’ DMP requirements
and guidelines for creating DMPs. All but a few have
a tool or resource for DMP creation and DMP template
examples. In addition to DMP planning information,
other online resources include information about digi-
tal repository services, long-term data management
and preservation, links to related campus services,
information on copyright, and workshops offered.
Most respondents are providing links to external
resources, but 70% have also created their own, and
almost half have customized others’ content. Forty-
one libraries (75%) have linked to the DMPTool, a
prominent online self-service resource for researchers
