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

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

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 <>)