Rec. 2: Mandates and boundaries for Open

[sjDCC]

The Open Data mandate for publicly funded research should be made explicit in all policy. It is important that the maxim ‘as Open as possible, as closed as necessary’ be applied proportionately with genuine best efforts to share.

• Steps should be taken to ensure coherence across data policy and issue collective statements of intent wherever possible. Stakeholders: Research funders; Policymakers.

• Policies should require an explicit and justified statement when data cannot be Open and a proportionate and discriminating course of action to ensure maximum appropriate data accessibility, rather than allowing a wholesale opt out from the mandate for Open Data. Stakeholders: Funders; Policymakers.

• Sustained work is needed to clarify in more detail the appropriate boundaries of Open, the proportionate exceptions to data sharing and robust processes for data that needs to be protected. Stakeholders: Research communities; Data services; Global coordination fora.

• Concrete and accessible guidance should be provided to researchers in relation to sharing sensitive and commercial data as openly as possible. Stakeholders: Data stewards; Data services; Institutions; Publishers.

[WietskeD]

The University of Groningen and the UMCG: We support the proposed steps, but would like to emphasis three things: 1) Replace Open Data with FAIR data, or at least mention FAIR data in this recommendation. (see also comment rec 1) 2) Encourage the scientific debate, within the different research domains, on Open Data and the application of the GDPR should be promoted. In order to come to concrete and accessible guidance for researchers. The research communities should also have an active role in this. For instance, the use of the data protection impact assessment should be promoted as a means to clarify the boundaries for Open Data. 3) To move forward to FAIR and Open Data researchers and research institutes need to have clear insight in the responsibilities for the data and on accountability. The definition of the EOSC declaration is more clear on the fact that accountability comes into play on the boundary between open and not open data. “Open access must be the default setting for all results of publicly funded research in Europe, allowing for proportionate limitations only in duly justified cases of personal data protection, confidentiality, IPR concerns, national security or similar (e.g. 'as open as possible and as closed as necessary'). https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/eosc_declaration.pdf Much work is done on this by Jo Cannatachi.

[hollydawnmurray]

F1000 position: We agree that ‘as Open as possible, as closed as necessary’ will need to be clarified and well-articulated as part of this action plan. The actions listed here go a long way towards this. On a more granular level, it is important to include who is responsible for deciding what is as Open as possible at a dataset level (researchers, data specialists, ethics committees?), and how this relates to licensing.

[ghost]

4TU.Centre for Research Data position: We agree with the written recommendations for data services. In our opinion the researcher is responsible for deciding the access level of the data-files; whereas the data service provides the appropriate infrastructure, features, and advice that enables the desired access level.

[katerbow]

DFG position: There is a general agreement on the importance to make FAIR principles a constituent part of data policies and mandates. Boundaries and limits of open data should be examined and clarified in detail, always taking into account different disciplinary practices with regard to working with data and data sharing. Furthermore, there exist different legal frameworks between various countries which may affect data sharing. Such differences need to be taken into account as a basis for any attempt to harmonize data sharing practices.

Additionally, institutional and disciplinary regulations and policies should be based on and support the FAIR-principles. It is considered extremely valuable and helpful for scientific communities to be able to act on a solid basis demonstrating the wish and the will of institutions and organisations (including commercial stakeholders) to support implementation of the FAIR-principles.

[ScienceEurope]

The Science Europe initiative on RDM policies aims to align policies among funders in Europe, thus ensuring coherence. This endeavour is undertaken in coordination with the EC and other stakeholders. Science Europe agrees with the recommendation that researchers should give their reasons if they decide not to publish their data. However, this process should not be made overly burdensome and bureaucratic.

[pkdoorn]

Among the boundaries of Open, it is extremely useful to make an explicit statement about allowed embargo periods. The RCUK Concordat on Open Research Data states: “Principle no. 4 The right of the creators of research data to reasonable first use is recognised.”

[mromanie]

ESO position "As open as possible, as closed as necessary" is a good catchphrase . We fully agree with @pkdoorn that embargoed periods have to be explicitly allowed (we would call them "proprietary periods"). In our case, the use of data is normally reserved to the creators ("Principal Investigators" in our speak) for a period of one year, which can in some cases be longer or shorter. While normally immediately broadly accessible, occasionally, metadata needs also to be embargoed.

Perhaps a common solution to data and metadata protection could be recommended.

[carrd]

Wellcome Trust position: Agree strongly with this recommendation. It might be appropriate to reword the final bullet to reflect the need to find the optimal balance between sharing whilst also safeguarding privacy. It is important to note that there are many exemplars of good practice in providing managed access to sensitive data on which researchers/studies can draw - including, for example, the work of the Expert Advisory Group on Data Access in terms of developing proportionate mechanisms to achieve this.

[gtoneill]

Confusing use of FAIR versus Open Data in the recommendations. The difference between the two terms and the choice for one of the terms needs to be explicit for all stakeholders. Adopting the slogan 'as open as possible, as closed as necessary' is fine as long as it is clear and there is consensus agreement between all stakeholders what that actually means with illustrating examples as a guideline.

[npch]

SSI position:

We agree with the axiom ‘‘as Open as possible, as closed as necessary’’ with regards to data and other outputs, including software, as code and scripts used to analyse data should also be open as the default.

We also believe that more detailed guidance is required around this, particularly with reference to how you might make metadata more open even with data that is required to be closed, and how to deal with instances of mixed/hybrid licensing of software e.g. open platform with closed plug-in as mentioned in our comment to Recommendation #1 .