Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

The History, Advocacy and Efficacy of Data Management Plans

Nicholas Smale, View ORCID ProfileKathryn Unsworth, View ORCID ProfileGareth Denyer, View ORCID ProfileDaniel Barr
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/443499
Nicholas Smale
1Research Integrity, Governance and Systems, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kathryn Unsworth
2Information Management and Technology, CSIRO, Clayton, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kathryn Unsworth
Gareth Denyer
3DVCR Portfolio, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gareth Denyer
Daniel Barr
1Research Integrity, Governance and Systems, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daniel Barr
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Data management plans (DMPs) have increasingly been encouraged as a key component of institutional and funding body policy. Although DMPs necessarily place administrative burden on researchers, proponents claim that DMPs have myriad benefits, including enhanced research data quality, increased rates of data sharing, and institutional planning and compliance benefits.

In this manuscript, we explore the international history of DMPs and describe institutional and funding body DMP policy. We find that economic and societal benefits from presumed increased rates of data sharing was the original driver of mandating DMPs by funding bodies. Today, 86% of UK Research Councils and 63% of US funding bodies require submission of a DMP with funding applications. Given that no major Australian funding bodies require DMP submission, it is of note that 37% of Australian universities have taken the initiative to internally mandate DMPs.

Institutions both within Australia and internationally frequently promote the professional benefits of DMP use, and endorse DMPs as ‘best practice’. We analyse one such typical DMP implementation at a major Australian institution, finding that DMPs have low levels of apparent translational value. Indeed, an extensive literature review suggests there is very limited published systematic evidence that DMP use has any tangible benefit for researchers, institutions or funding bodies.

We are therefore led to question why DMPs have become the go-to tool for research data professionals and advocates of good data practice. By delineating multiple use-cases and highlighting the need for DMPs to be fit for intended purpose, we question the view that a good DMP is necessarily that which encompasses the entire data lifecycle of a project. Finally, we summarise recent developments in the DMP landscape, and note a positive shift towards evidence-based research management through more researcher-centric, educative, and integrated DMP services.

Footnotes

  • Aspects of this paper have earlier been presented at eResearch Australia 2016 and 2017, and eResearch New Zealand 2018.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted October 17, 2018.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The History, Advocacy and Efficacy of Data Management Plans
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
The History, Advocacy and Efficacy of Data Management Plans
Nicholas Smale, Kathryn Unsworth, Gareth Denyer, Daniel Barr
bioRxiv 443499; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/443499
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
The History, Advocacy and Efficacy of Data Management Plans
Nicholas Smale, Kathryn Unsworth, Gareth Denyer, Daniel Barr
bioRxiv 443499; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/443499

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (3514)
  • Biochemistry (7367)
  • Bioengineering (5346)
  • Bioinformatics (20324)
  • Biophysics (10045)
  • Cancer Biology (7776)
  • Cell Biology (11352)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (6453)
  • Ecology (9980)
  • Epidemiology (2065)
  • Evolutionary Biology (13356)
  • Genetics (9373)
  • Genomics (12612)
  • Immunology (7725)
  • Microbiology (19102)
  • Molecular Biology (7465)
  • Neuroscience (41153)
  • Paleontology (301)
  • Pathology (1235)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2142)
  • Physiology (3178)
  • Plant Biology (6879)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1276)
  • Synthetic Biology (1900)
  • Systems Biology (5328)
  • Zoology (1091)