Notes on EPFL Data Policy

# Notes on EPFL Data Policy ###### tags: `meeting`, `data`, `champions`, `policy`, `feedback` ## What is missing? * First sentence: Not everyone is familiar with the EPFL "Open Access Policy". I suggest to refer to it somehow (footnote or bibliography). Also personally, I am not familiar with it and this may be a good thing to introduce to the DC community next time. * Definitions section: "Open Data" & "Open Research Data". * It is not clear what happens if a PI or a researcher fails to fulfill his RDM responsibilities. Funding agencies may punish that, but should EPFL also monitor and impose penalties? If so, what would be the body or entity within EPFL that would enforce it? * How would EPFL measure and track this policy's effects? Maybe EPFL should engage to write a periodic report with stats to track progress. * I find recommendations / requirements are very vague: "ensure quality of their research data", "appropriate repository", "appropriate technical infrastructure", "appropriate access to research data".... I feel this will add more questions for people using the policy: what is appropriate? Perhaps it needs to be spelled out so there is less confusion. * ... * ... ## What surprises you? * There is an explicit paragraph about the Data Champions (I'm assuming as a stakeholder?) but no one else (especially the Library). In general, referring to EPFL when talking about responsibilities is too vague: we don't know who in EPFL is responsible for what. I'm not sure if it's better to specify in such policies - to be discussed. * ... ## What institutional support needs to be mentioned in the policy? * Tech transfer maybe? Especially for patentable things or those that are generated by an industry-academic partnership. It is not clear if the embargo period would be enough for these situations. * ... ## Anything else? * The 1 year period for embargo: is there a specific reasoning for the choice of 1 year? * "EPFL encourages its researchers to deposit the final version of their DMPs into an appropriate repository (discipline-based or institutional).": is there an institutional one already? Potential problem related to that: part of the DMP may relate to data that are not supposed to be open or confidential. * Not sure this is directly related to this specific policy. But wouldn't it be a good idea that EPFL plays a part in the general Swiss Open Data initiative? See: https://opendata.swiss/en/organization * Would EPFL provide the resources for the 5-year retention period of research data and records? * It is a bit confusing that there is a minimum 5-year retention period, then a 10-year recommended period is mentioned. * It's not clear what is expected after the 1-year embargo: should all data then be public? Is it 1 year after the end of data collection, or 1 year after the end of the project? In some cases there are particular reasons why 1 year is too short an embargo - would there be any flexibility? Whose responsibility would this be to enforce? * It is quite nice to have a definition that does not include the word "data" in the first line to avoid misconceptions of what data are. Some examples: https://libguides.macalester.edu/data1, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjlkreI3tnrAhUeWRUIHW-RBkgQFjADegQIBhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnerc.ukri.org%2Fresearch%2Fsites%2Fdata%2Fpolicy%2Fdata-policy%2F&usg=AOvVaw07_MX5YUVY9RXp2Wcs405P * Is an "EPFL research project" one that is led by someone based at EPFL, or includes someone from EPFL as a collaborator? Clarity here is important to ensure everyone is aware of their responsibilities. * Who is the intended audience? * ...