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

["Christina Von Raesfeld tvonraesfeld@xxxxxxxx" <jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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<mailto:tvonraesfeld@xxxxxxxx> I Main +1 415-624-1200 I
Direct +1 530-588-2603 I Fax +1 415-546-4090

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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 doesnt cover the many roles that could be
identified in supporting science
We have identified
7         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.
7         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.
7         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
7         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<mailto:bruce@xxxxxxxxx>
<jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jats-list-service@xxxxxxxxxx
errytech.com>> 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<tel:(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<tel:(617)%20932-1932> (office)
email: bruce@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bruce@xxxxxxxxx>
web: www.inera.com<http://www.inera.com/> | www.edifix.com
<http://www.edifix.com/>twitter:  @eXtyles | @edifix
JATS-List info and archive<http://www.mulberrytech.com/JATS/JATS-List/>
EasyUnsubscribe<-list/278005> (by email)

JATS-List info and archive<http://www.mulberrytech.com/JATS/JATS-List/>
EasyUnsubscribe<-list/2760583> (by email<>)