Oxford Research Data Management Pages

The University of Oxford has launched the Research Data Management Website. This thematic site has been developed by Research Services in collaboration with OUCS and OULS as part of the EIDCSR Project.


The RDM website is designed to support researchers with their research data management activities and includes information about:

• research funder requirements in the area of research data management
• services available within the University to assist researchers in this area
• guidance on how to produce a data management plan as part of a funding application
• further sources of advice and online guidance, updates and news, and tools and training available to help.

Previously, web-based information about research data management was available from a number of sites across the University but it was felt that a single source of `signposting’ information would be a valuable resource for researchers from all subject disciplines at differing stages of the research cycle, increasing understanding of the benefits of improved research data management, as well as communicating the range of services available.

The DCC´s Data Management Planning Tool

The Digital Curation Centre has developed a web-based data management planning tool to assist with the preparation of basic Data Management Plans (DMP) at the funding application stage as well as to help building and maintain a more detailed DMP during the project's lifetime.


Back in July 2009, the EIDCSR project responded to the proposed DCC Data Management Plan Content Checklist. This test version of the DMP tool seems to have taken into account the comments made:

• The objective of the tool i.e. assisting with the production and maintenance of DMPs is clear and pertinent.
• The plans can be exported into PDF and HTML so they can easily be included in funding applications, websites, etc. Moreover, the plans incorporate the DMP Online logo showing that the tool has been used which should show the evaluators that the creators have taken the time and interest to use this tool.
• The plans can be easily edited and adjusted as required if circumstances change. This makes the DMPs a living document helping to ensure its usefulness throughout the lifecycle of the project.

Some other aspects are still unclear or could be enhanced:

• In terms of encouraging researchers to use the tool, is there any effort towards convincing RCUKs to recommend their bidders using it?
• It is still unclear whether the DMP team provides support for using the tool only or they can also help with the preparation of the DMPS. In cases where there data centres are in place, some might already provide this support and therefore this could be included in the guidance element of the tool.
• Some of the information collected in the DMPs can be of great help to later on the lifecycle document the datasets that will be produced. Hence it would be convenient if these data could be exported into more reusable formats.
• Creating a data management plan from scratch can be an arduous task that could be eased off by providing examples of plans in particular areas that can help guiding and inspiring those creating new ones.
• In some cases researchers will want to create a DMP without necessarily having, or planning to have, funding from one of the research councils in the UK. This does not seem to be possible with this tool at the moment. A generic DMP that is not specific to any funding agency could be extremely useful.

Overall, this test version of the DCC´s Data Management Planning tool is shaping up nicely and there is a clear need for it. Bringing together the RCUK statements on data management, the DCC´s generic DMP clauses and guidance from a variety of reputable sources can help researchers immensely.

Response to the DCC Data Management Plan Content Checklist

The Digital Curation Centre (DCC) circulated a draft template for consultation of a Data Management Plan Content Checklist in mid-June. This checklist was intended to act as an aide for researchers when producing data management plans (DMPs). The aim of the public consultation was to obtain feedback about the draft checklist as well as desired functionality for an online tool to be developed.

The following response has been gathered from internal discussions in the University of Oxford amongst members of the JISC funded Embedding Institutional Data Curation Services in Research (EIDCSR) project.

Members of the EIDCSR project consider that the draft template represents a significant step-forward towards the support and standardization of data management plans as an integral part of an application for funding. The document covers many of the issues required to be thought of at the outset of a research project and the web-based tool might be of real benefit to researchers and those supporting the application process within Universities.

Below feedback is organized into two sections covering the checklist and the desired functionality for the online tool.

Specific feedback about the checklist

• More than a checklist where researchers can tick boxes, this seems to be a form to gather qualitative information about the research project, the plans and intentions for managing research data as well as researchers’ perceptions on issues like anticipated volumes or foreseeable uses of their data.
• In order for the sections in the document to follow the DCC lifecycle model, section 3 on access and data sharing should be placed after section 6 on short-term storage.
• Section 6.2 deals with where the data will be stored and the section is not marked bold. The media storage chosen it is a crucial aspect of data management and needs to be a core section.
• It may be worth starting this exercise from the another perspective, if such plan is going to be peer-reviewed, what practice would be accepted and what practice would fail a peer-review process?
• Some of the sections need to be unfolded to become more comprehensive. Section 2.3 could include questions about whether the data will contain personal or health information and whether consent forms will be used.
• Section 4 on data collection should be asking about who will be creating/capturing the data and in what country will this happen (different countries will have different laws for data collection and sharing).
• Section 7 should ask who will take responsibility over time for making decisions about the data when the original participants have gone and whether there is a process in place for transferring responsibility.
• Section 3 could mention access and re-use of metadata (eg harvesting) as separate to access and re-use of the actual data.
• Quality of data. Needs to be addressed too. Will the data be peer-reviewed? Is there some sort of kite-mark or indicator that data has been peer-reviewed?
• Issues such as the closure of the data store and the responsibilities should also be covered on this checklist.

Desired functionality for online tool

• It is crucial to define clearly what the aim of this interactive web-based tool will be and what it will do for researchers and those supporting them in the application process. It may be worth to discuss the functionality with researchers that currently need to provide a DMP with their applications to understand better their need as well as those from other staff involved in the application process.
• It may be worth thinking how to encourage researchers to use this online tool to generate a DMP to then include it in their application. Could they be getting a sort of “seal of approval” from DCC saying that they have use their tool and guidance to develop their DMP?
• Acceptability of the resulting checklist with funding agencies – if a funding agency supported, encouraged, or required its use there would be more chance of it being taken up
• Apart from the examples of best practice how can researchers get guidance to develop these plans if they don’ have the required expertise to fill in one of the sections? Would DCC provide the support required?
• Particular areas of functionality that such a system may need to have include:

1. The capacity to export the data so that the information can be included with the actual funding application proposal. Could it also be adapted to be used as a reporting mechanism later in the project as some of the data management actions take place. Plans may have to change because of circumstances- that sort of situation should be able to be included.
2. Examples of best practice in data management across several and distinct research disciplines.
3. Advice on: legal and ethical issues for collecting and sharing data, standards for file and metadata formats, storage options, back-up, secure archives for long-term curation, etc