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

["Bruce Rosenblum bruce@xxxxxxxxx" <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mark,

After reading your latest comments, my impression (without being an
expert) is that "funding", "support", and "awards" can be very complex
and also very nuanced. Even more so in a world with more OA publication
daily.

I would be willing to consider adding new elements to JATS to support
additional requirements rather than using attributes of the existing
model, but only if a much broader survey is done first to figure out the
full matrix of what constitutes  "funding", "support", "awards" or other
types of potentially similar issues that can occur for which JATS may
need metadata support. Part of that review should also consider any other
pre-existing data models for representing this kind of information, e.g.
talking to funding agencies about some of their metadata tracking.

I realize this is not a small project and it would probably require a
sub-committee within the JATS standing committee to give it a proper
analysis and vetting, but it's the much better way to go for the
long-term than just adding a few elements that meet the more specific
need you've outlined.

Best regards,

Bruce

At 02:39 PM 8/2/2017, Mark Doyle doyle@xxxxxxx wrote:

  Hi,

  Thanks Chuck and Tommie for your earlier reply. To be clear, this is
  distinct from B (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>
  B  B  <research-support support-type=".....">
  B  B  B  B  B <support-id>
  B  B  B  B  B <principle-support-recipient>
  B  B  B  B  B <support-source>
  B  B  B  B  <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"B  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>B  or <principle-investigator>B  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 consideredB  '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>

            B  B <award-group award-type="grant">

            B  B  B <funding-source country="US">National Science

            Foundation</funding-source>

            B  B  B <award-id>NSF DBI-0317510</award-id>

            B  B </award-group>

            B  B <award-group award-type="facility-support">

            B  B  B <funding-source country="US">Spallation Neutron
            Source</funding-source>

            B  B  B <award-id>SPS 12345</award-id>

            B  B </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

JATS-List info and archive
EasyUnsubscribe ( by email)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This email message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not
the intended recipient, please immediately reply to the sender or call
617-932-1932 and delete the message from your email system. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce D. Rosenblum
Inera Inc.
19 Flett Road, Belmont, MA 02478
phone: 617-932-1932 (office)
email: bruce@xxxxxxxxx
web: www.inera.com | www.edifix.com
twitter:  @eXtyles | @edifix JATS-List info and archiveEasyUnsubscribe (by
email)