NOTE: This is the review page for the original review. The proposers responded to this review and TAB approved the revised proposal on November 15th and recommended it be sent to Council for endorsement.
Interest Group Title: Data policy standardisation and implementation IG
Group Page: https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/data-policy-standardisation-and-imple...
Proposers: Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Natasha Simons, David Kernohan, Simone Taylor
Date Received by TAB: 9 February 2017
Date Review Completed: 21 March 2017
Date Revised Charter received:13 September
Date ReReview Completed: 15 November 2017
TAB Reviewers: Paul Uhlir, Wenbo Chu
Summary: This is appropriately structured as an RDA IG at this stage. The many objectives listed are too broad for a WG or WGs, but the further focusing of this topic is the reason for the IG. The membership for this group is waiting on its approval, but the co-chairs are from a rather geographically narrow area (UK and AU). The overall proposal needs revision to help rectify the missing individual membership and organizational relationships. Also the periodic phone calls should be expanded to include all interested members, not just co-chairs and made at least monthly.
Focus and Fit:
(Are the Interest Group objectives aligned with the RDA mission ? Is the scope too large for effective progress, too small for an RDA effort, or not appropriate for the RDA? Overall, is this a worthwhile effort for the RDA to take on? Is this an effort that adds value over and above what is currently being done within the community?)
The IG's objectives are very well aligned with the RDA mission, focusing on the policy aspects of research data sharing that support research publications. The overall scope may be too large and certainly is too large for an RDA WG. However, since this is an IG for now, it is appropriate for addressing the priority objectives on the list, as stated, in the next half year or year. That objectives are:
(Map and) "facilitate greater understanding of the landscape of research data policies across disciplines, institutions and learned societies"
"Help define a common framework for research data policy allowing for different levels of commitment and requirements and disciplinary differences that could be agreed by multiple stakeholders."
It is a worthwhile effort to pursue, although care must be taken not to engage in redundant and uncoordinated issues and activities to RDA and other research data activities, particularly if the IG goes on to form more targeted WG(s) to address particular issues.
(Does the initial membership list include sufficient expertise, and disciplinary and international representation? Are the people involved in the Interest Group sufficient to make tangible progress? What individuals or organizations are missing?)
No. Aside from an initial set of co-chairs, there is no initial membership listed. Although the co-chairs are very knowledgeable and experienced individuals in this general area, they may be too geographically narrow. The membership is non-existent so the proposal cannot be approved until there is a list. The heavy interest and citation of UK-based sources may make this too narrow a project geographically for the RDA. This needs to be addressed before the IG is approved, but the P9 breakout meeting and other interactions will hopefully rectify this deficiency.
Impact and Engagement:
(Is it likely that the Interest Group will engage the intended community? Is there evidence that the research community wants this? Will the outcome(s) of the Interest Group foster data sharing and/or exchange?)
The individuals and the organizations to which they belong most likely know the right people in the community and can therefore be presumed to engage with the right people. There is no direct evidence, other than the 3 citations given, that "the community" wants this IG and WGs; however, having been involved in data policy work for over 30 years, I know that there is never enough thinking about such issues and activities to help address them. The outcomes of the IG are expected to lead to one or more WGs, all of which are likely to be pertinent to data sharing objectives.
Recommendation: Charter is Sufficient _X_; Charter Requires Revision __; Charter is Rejected __
The submitted revisions have addressed TAB's concerns and recommendations sufficiently. The revised charter has been recommended for Endorsement by TAB.