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

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

Hi Chuck,

Guidelines about how researchers should acknowledge their sources of
support are certainly required, but not sufficient. The whole point of this
effort being coordinated by ORCID is that there needs to be a more refined
way of exchanging metadata about support (specifically, user facility
support in this case), even if the source is the text provided by
researchers within their acknowledgments. Free text within <ack> doesn't
lead to a good solution. Hence the start of this thread - how best to use
JATS to capture the necessary metadata in a semantically reliable way that
doesn't interfere with (or perhaps better, that complements) other things
like Crossref's tracking of funding?

Best
Mark


On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:46 PM, ckoscher <ckoscher@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I agree, its not likely that we can expand the Crossref Open Funder
> Registry to include the many sources of non-monetary support for science.
> The registry grew out of a need to help meet the accountability
> requirements funders impose on their recipients to identify the
> publications resulting from their funding. In conversation I've been in,
> non monetary supporters are often interested in receiving credit or an
> acknowledgment.  Perhaps some guidelines around using <ack> would suffice?
>
> Chuck
>
> On 8/4/17 4:28 PM, Mark Doyle wrote:
>
>> Hi Tina,
>>
>> Thanks - actually, the email I quoted from went on to say that it would
>> not
>> be practicable to expand the funder registry to include all of the
>> entities
>> who provided the varied types of support. Their preference was for option
>> #2 suitably generalized from user facilities, not option #1 (monetary
>> funding would still be tagged within <funding-group> and kept semantically
>> separate).
>>
>> Best,
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Christina Von Raesfeld
>> tvonraesfeld@xxxxxxxx
>> <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I was about to endorse divorcing non-monetary supporters from the term
>>> "funding", but if the Funder Registry already backs the concept of
>>> "non-monetary *funders*" (below), that changes things.
>>>
>>>
>>> Whatever the final solution, it would be preferable if JATS could
>>> continue
>>> to also support the traditional article-meta/funding-group tagging for
>>> publishers who elect not to integrate the new metadata. Adoption could
>>> involve having to update many different systems and processes from
>>> submission to typesetting to rendering to syndication, which can be
>>> costly,
>>> so there may be slow or low participation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tina von Raesfeld
>>>
>>>
>>> *PLOS* I* OPEN FOR DISCOVERY*
>>>
>>> Tina von Raesfeld I Production Technical Lead
>>>
>>> 1160 Battery Street, Suite 225, San Francisco, CA 94111
>>>
>>> tvonraesfeld@xxxxxxxx I Main +1 415-624-1200 <(415)%20624-1200> I
>>> Direct +1
>>> 530-588-2603 <(530)%20588-2603> I Fax +1 415-546-4090 <(415)%20546-4090>
>>>
>>> plos.org <http://www.plos.org/> I Facebook
>>> <http://www.facebook.com/PLoS.org> I Twitter <http://twitter.com/PLOS> I
>>> Blog <http://blogs.plos.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Mark Doyle doyle@xxxxxxx <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> rrytech.com
>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 4, 2017 11:36 AM
>>> *To:* jats-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> *Cc:* ckoscher
>>> *Subject:* Re: [jats-list] Re: Tagging user facility support - ORCID
>>> Working Group question
>>>
>>> Hi Bruce,
>>>
>>> Hmm, I am not sure we should take on such a large project... But along
>>> those lines, here is some feedback from one of the maintainers of the
>>> funder registry. Their work includes analysis of "support" information
>>> that
>>> is found in the acknowledgments section of a huge corpus of journals and
>>> should be quite representative. Here are the comments which were in reply
>>> to my first email:
>>>
>>> If we really want to expand this to the full gamut of funding
>>> possibilities, I feel this is too limited as it doesnbt cover the many
>>> roles that could be identified in bsupporting scienceb
>>> We have identifiedb&
>>> B7         Grant sponsors. The most common funding body (sponsor) gives
>>> monetary funding to researchers (principal investigators) or
>>> organizations.
>>> This type of funder determines the embargo period for Green Open Access
>>> or
>>> related CHORUS sponsors.
>>> B7         Supporters. There are also supporting organizations that can
>>> give equipment, sample material, etc. to other organizations or
>>> researchers. These organizations can also be entities in the FundRef
>>> Registry and are called non-monetary funders. An example is US Geological
>>> Survey which is often mentioned in many geographical articles because
>>> scientists use USGS maps, but USGS does not provide funding for that
>>> particular article. But somehow USGS needs money to make those maps.
>>> B7         Recipients. An organization that receives a grant (or
support).
>>> In rare cases, grants are awarded to organizations, e.g. societies, that
>>> can create several projects. These organizations are often not the
>>> organizations that are part of author affiliations. This is the case how
>>> the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) provides
>>> funding:
>>> e.g. HEFCE funds Oxford University, and Oxford University provides
>>> facilities
>>> B7         Unknown/Other. Persons that are acknowledged in the article
can
>>> be linked to or work for certain organizations that can also be entities
>>> in
>>> the FundRef Registry. Example: We thank Mr. SuchAndSo (Jabberwocky
>>> University) for supplying us with a set of marked mice and Prof.
>>> ThisAndThat (Centre for Scientific Philosophy, University Amsterdam) for
>>> providing insights into what marking really means.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think a looser data model that includes some kind of descriptive
>>> elements would be helpful here (open-ended attributes and
>>> <support-description> tag for instance) given the complexity.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Bruce Rosenblum bruce@xxxxxxxxx <
>>> jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 C (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>
>>>> C  C  <research-support support-type=".....">
>>>> C  C  C  C  C <support-id>
>>>> C  C  C  C  C <principle-support-recipient>
>>>> C  C  C  C  C <support-source>
>>>> C  C  C  C  <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"C  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>C  or
>>>> <principle-investigator>C  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 consideredC  '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>
>>>> C  C <award-group award-type="grant">
>>>> C  C  C <funding-source country="US">National Science
>>>> Foundation</funding-source>
>>>> C  C  C <award-id>NSF DBI-0317510</award-id>
>>>> C  C </award-group>
>>>> C  C <award-group award-type="facility-support">
>>>> C  C  C <funding-source country="US">Spallation Neutron
>>>> Source</funding-source>
>>>> C  C  C <award-id>SPS 12345</award-id>
>>>> C  C </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 <http://www.mulberrytech.com/JATS/JATS-List/
>>>> >
>>>> EasyUnsubscribe <http://-list/209206> ( 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 <(617)%20932-1932> 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 <(617)%20932-1932> (office)
>>>> email: bruce@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> web: www.inera.com | www.edifix.com
>>>> twitter:  @eXtyles | @edifix
>>>> JATS-List info and archive <http://www.mulberrytech.com/JATS/JATS-List/
>>>> >
>>>> EasyUnsubscribe <http://-list/278005> (by email)
>>>>
>>>> JATS-List info and archive <http://www.mulberrytech.com/JATS/JATS-List/
>>> >
>>> EasyUnsubscribe <http://-list/2760583> (by email)
>>> JATS-List info and archive <http://www.mulberrytech.com/JATS/JATS-List/>
>>> EasyUnsubscribe <-list/278005>
>>> (by
>>> email <>)