[jats-list] Re: Tagging user facility support - ORCID Working Group question

["Mark Doyle doyle@xxxxxxx" <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks Chuck and Tommie for your earlier reply. To be clear, this is
distinct from  (but related to) intramural funding because the "award" is
to someone outside of the funding organization, whereas intramural funding
is funding to people who work within a funding organization (for example,
an employee of NASA whose work is supported by NASA by virtue of their
employment status, but there is no explicit award). Furthermore, intramural
funding isn't always the same as being an employee of a funding source,
which makes that particular issue rather tricky.

On the specific issue I am asking about, the user facilities do issue
awards to (external) principal investigators, but it is for things like
beam time, computational time, etc. The awards have a proposal id that are
used as unique identifiers.

So both Tommie and Chuck have suggested keeping this information within
<funding-group>, but with Chuck suggesting more specific tagging to better
distinguish traditional funding from these other kinds of support. These
could be divided into separate <funding-group>'s with an attribute
distinguishing the types of support, but if we are going to add new tags,
perhaps a better container element than <funding-group> should be
entertained as well (my option #2, but with revisions).

In support of this: off-list, I had solicited input from one of the people
involved in maintaining the open funder registry. He pointed out (like
Tommie) that there are other kinds of support that may need to be
acknowledged. For example USGS provides maps and others provide physical
samples. One could easily envision the entities involved would want to be
able to easily track their contributions as well. So we would need to think
carefully about how to incorporate these kinds of things in a scalable way
that allays Tommie's concerns about an expanding list of tags. This person
also suggested not conflating funding with these other kinds of support
and, thus, expressed a preference for a more developed version of Option #2.

Let me suggest more generic tags than in my original undeveloped Option #2:
<research-support-group>
    <research-support support-type=".....">
         <support-id>
         <principle-support-recipient>
         <support-source>
        <support-description>

Would this be more palatable? I agree with Chuck that submitting this for
discussion by the Standing Committee is the most sensible thing; my
interest here is to make sure the committee has a good starting point for
their consideration. I am sure there will be a 1.2d2, so there is no need
to try to get this into 1.2d1, which I am eagerly awaiting for other
reasons! ;^)

Best,
Mark



On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:30 PM, ckoscher <ckoscher@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> This type of activity is known as intramural 'funding', which had a change
> request
> #00587 "Intramural Funding"  that was tabled by the SC.
>
> Reusing the existing <award-group> where there is no award seems wrong to
> me. It permits misuse of element like <principle-award-recipient>  or
> <principle-investigator>  where the words recipient and investigator have
> specific meaning in the domain of grants aka awards.
>
> I believe a dedicated set of tags under <funding-group> should be
> developed that makes clear the distinction between actual grants/awards and
> what might be considered  'overhead' contributions by a facility or an
> agency where the contribution may be human resources, lab facilities,
> existing data .. etc.
>
> This is probably an issue that the SC should consider addressing now (I'm
> regretting letting 000587 get tabled) .
>
> Chuck
>
>
> On 8/1/17 5:27 PM, Mark Doyle wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I am part of an ORCID working group that is working with publishers and US
>> Department of Agency national labs that provide researchers with access to
>> user facilities run by the DOE. The goal is to try and better track the
>> publications that result from research conducted at these facilities. You
>> can learn more about this effort at https://orcid.org/about/community.
>> One
>> of the questions that has arisen in our discussions is how might we best
>> accomplish the tagging of this type of support, which is distinct from
>> direct monetary funding. Before submitting a request for a change in JATS,
>> the group has asked me to consult here.
>>
>> The main concern is whether user facility usage, which does have to go
>> through a request/approval process and gets an award number, should be
>> considered semantically the same as "funding." Also, I have explicitly
>> cc'ed Chuck from Crossref because we also have concerns about how this
>> might work when publishers deposit metadata using JATS.
>>
>> 1) So one option is to simply use <funding-group> and include an agreed
>> upon new value for the award-type attribute on <award-group>, something
>> like:
>>
>> <funding-group>
>>    <award-group award-type="grant">
>>      <funding-source country="US">National Science
>> Foundation</funding-source>
>>      <award-id>NSF DBI-0317510</award-id>
>>    </award-group>
>>    <award-group award-type="facility-support">
>>      <funding-source country="US">Spallation Neutron
>> Source</funding-source>
>>      <award-id>SPS 12345</award-id>
>>    </award-group>
>> </funding-group>
>>
>> This solution doesn't require a change to JATS, but may require additional
>> facilities added to the Crossref Open Funder Registry.
>>
>> 2) Another solution would be to introduce a new container element and new
>> tags that are more specific to research facilities and non-monetary group
>> to avoid the semantic confusion over the term "funding". For example, new
>> (not fully thought out) tags could be <research-facility-group>,
>> <user-facility>, and/or <facility-award>, etc.
>>
>> This has the advantage of strongly identifying the semantics of the
>> information and perhaps could be made general enough to support other
>> kinds
>> of non-monetary support. This would of course require new tags to be
>> introduced into JATS.
>>
>> 3) Another possibility that was discussed was to somehow incorporate this
>> information using affiliation tagging, but the working group consensus was
>> that this wasn't a good approach.
>>
>> It would be helpful to have some feedback on options 1 and 2 (or other
>> suggestions!) so that the working group could make a strong
>> recommendation,
>> if needed, to the JATS Standing Committee.
>>
>> Thanks for considering.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Mark
>>
>> Mark Doyle
>> Chief Information Officer
>> American Physical Society