Subject: Re: [jats-list] Re: Tagging user facility support - ORCID Working Group question From: "Mark Doyle doyle@xxxxxxx" <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:56:40 -0000 |
Indeed - so something along the lines of option #2 is needed (we are in agreement!). Mark On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:32 AM, ckoscher <ckoscher@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ok, but since 'support' is not 'funding' using funding-group is not the > way to solve this. > chuck > > On 8/8/17 9:29 AM, Mark Doyle wrote: > >> 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/J >>>>>> ATS/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/J >>>>>> ATS/JATS-List/ >>>>>> EasyUnsubscribe <http://-list/278005> (by email) >>>>>> >>>>>> JATS-List info and archive <http://www.mulberrytech.com/J >>>>>> ATS/JATS-List/ >>>>>> >>>>>> EasyUnsubscribe <http://-list/2760583> (by email) >>>>> JATS-List info and archive <http://www.mulberrytech.com/J >>>>> ATS/JATS-List/> >>>>> EasyUnsubscribe <-list/278005> >>>>> (by >>>>> email <>)
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [jats-list] Re: Tagging user fa, Mark Doyle doyle@xxx | Thread | [jats-list] Primary and Secondary M, franziska.buehring@x |
Re: [jats-list] Re: Tagging user fa, Mark Doyle doyle@xxx | Date | [jats-list] Primary and Secondary M, franziska.buehring@x |
Month |