SPEC Kit 334: Research Data Management Services · 21
questions, but that did not eliminate problems with
respondents misinterpreting concepts and definitions.
Several of the metrics of service, such as the extent of
data management plan assistance and archive use,
were particularly difficult to define and ask in ways
that yielded precise responses. We recommend that
further studies involve case studies, and focus on
particular topics such as archiving or staffing, since
we presented our respondents with a particularly
long and complicated survey. We greatly appreciate
their efforts to complete our survey, and hope these
results will be a useful benchmark and basis for in-
spiration in this new and expanding field of research
library service.
Acknowledgements
We would like to sincerely thank the following indi-
viduals and groups for reviewing our survey instru-
ment: Andrea Denton, Mike Furlough, Brian Gunia,
Patricia Hwse, David Lowe, Karl Nilsen, Susan Payne,
Lizzy Rolando, Jennifer Ward, Jonathan Wheeler,
Lynda White, Stephanie Wright, the Canada Institute
for Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI), and
the E-Research Working Group. We would also like to
thank the authors of the e-science report for providing
helpful background and context for the report and for
advising us what we ought to consider including in
the RDM services survey. Tim Dilauro, Johns Hopkins
University, provided his perspective and expertise in
developing the survey instrument. Finally, we’d like
to thank Wendy Mann of George Mason University
for arranging a space at the Fenwick Library for the
University of Virginia and Johns Hopkins University
authors to hold in-person meetings.
Endnotes
1 For a sample see the references in the Selected
Resources section of this SPEC Kit.
2 http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/
publications/escience-report-2010.pdf
3 See heading “Key Papers in the Development of
RDMS” in the Selected Resources section of this
SPEC Kit.
4 http://www.arl.org/
focus-areas/e-research/e-science-institute
5 See White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) Feb. 22, 2013 memorandum on open
access to funded research data and publications.
6 Dataverse is in relatively widespread use
as a repository for specific disciplines and
research centers, but only one library reported
being directly involved with a Dataverse
implementation.
7 Attendance at an E-Science Institute workshop
noted earlier in responses to Question 3 was
another influential training resources for many
respondents.
questions, but that did not eliminate problems with
respondents misinterpreting concepts and definitions.
Several of the metrics of service, such as the extent of
data management plan assistance and archive use,
were particularly difficult to define and ask in ways
that yielded precise responses. We recommend that
further studies involve case studies, and focus on
particular topics such as archiving or staffing, since
we presented our respondents with a particularly
long and complicated survey. We greatly appreciate
their efforts to complete our survey, and hope these
results will be a useful benchmark and basis for in-
spiration in this new and expanding field of research
library service.
Acknowledgements
We would like to sincerely thank the following indi-
viduals and groups for reviewing our survey instru-
ment: Andrea Denton, Mike Furlough, Brian Gunia,
Patricia Hwse, David Lowe, Karl Nilsen, Susan Payne,
Lizzy Rolando, Jennifer Ward, Jonathan Wheeler,
Lynda White, Stephanie Wright, the Canada Institute
for Scientific and Technical Information (CISTI), and
the E-Research Working Group. We would also like to
thank the authors of the e-science report for providing
helpful background and context for the report and for
advising us what we ought to consider including in
the RDM services survey. Tim Dilauro, Johns Hopkins
University, provided his perspective and expertise in
developing the survey instrument. Finally, we’d like
to thank Wendy Mann of George Mason University
for arranging a space at the Fenwick Library for the
University of Virginia and Johns Hopkins University
authors to hold in-person meetings.
Endnotes
1 For a sample see the references in the Selected
Resources section of this SPEC Kit.
2 http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/
publications/escience-report-2010.pdf
3 See heading “Key Papers in the Development of
RDMS” in the Selected Resources section of this
SPEC Kit.
4 http://www.arl.org/
focus-areas/e-research/e-science-institute
5 See White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) Feb. 22, 2013 memorandum on open
access to funded research data and publications.
6 Dataverse is in relatively widespread use
as a repository for specific disciplines and
research centers, but only one library reported
being directly involved with a Dataverse
implementation.
7 Attendance at an E-Science Institute workshop
noted earlier in responses to Question 3 was
another influential training resources for many
respondents.
