Skip to main content


We are in the process of rolling out a soft launch of the RDA website, which includes a new member platform. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: Visitors may encounter functionality issues with group pages, navigation, missing content, broken links, etc. As you explore the new site, please provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Thank you for your understanding and support as we work through all issues as quickly as possible. Stay updated about upcoming features and functionalities:


Dear Claire,
Thanks for this feedback.
The Editorial Team discussed it today, and the expectation (also by the CoChairs) is few people will read the entire document – they instead will focus on the area relevant to them. For this reason, there remain some statements that occur in more than one place, because they are necessary for the cohesion of a given section.
The development of the visualisation tool/navigation tool will aid discovery through the larger document.
All the best,
Read our statement on ‘Playing Our Part during COVID-19’
Dr. Natalie Harrower
Director, Digital Repository of Ireland
Royal Irish Academy
***@***.*** | @natalieharrower | @dri_ireland
RDA COVID-19 Working Group
European Commission FAIR data expert group
European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) FAIR working group
On 4 Jun 2020, at 14:23, caustin via RDA COVID19 Coordination wrote:
Hello everyone,
All of the sub-WG’s have done an amazing job in developing incredibly useful contributions in their respective chapters, and the editorial team has done a herculean task of pulling it all together in just a few days. We are all very appreciative of the work that everyone has been able to accomplish in an impossibly short period of time.
I have also received a lot of feedback that the document is far too long. I agree.
It is very, very difficult to read this document, mostly because of the constant repetition. Nothing should be stated more than once in the document.
Shorter is better.
Longer buries all of the incredibly valuable information that is provided, and severely reduces the potential impact of the document.
* The document should be a maximum 10-15 pages, including a 1/2 to 1-page executive summary and objectives (excluding references, glossary, list of contributors, annexes). Some suggestions to easily achieve this:
* Edit across the entire document to remove all repetition;
* Edit across the entire document to remove verbiage;
* The executive summary should motivate the reader to want to read the rest of the document. The executive summary should be all original text, and not repeat anything that is written later in the body of the document.
* Move all the detailed material to annexes or supporting outputs;
* Move all text the lends itself to being displayed in a table (e.g., in 4.4), into a table. If the Table is long, move it to an annex, leaving a short summary table in the body of the document;
* Provide only chapter headings in the Table of Contents;
* Shorten Objectives of the document and move into in the 1/2 to 1-page executive summary;
* Rename the chapter ‘foundational elements’, ‘cross-cutting elements’, and pull everything out of the subWG chapters into this chapter that cuts across all themes. Shorten the text drastically where a reference can be provided that explains the concept, etc.;
* Merge overlapping themes into one of the chapters (e.g., move privacy in chp 5 to chp 10);
* Remove all ambiguous and fence-sitting language (e.g., “should,” “if possible,” etc.); and,
Thank you once again, for all of your incredible hard work that has produced such an amazing document, and keep the strength to continue.
– Show quoted text -From: ***@***.*** on behalf of Bridget Walker via RDA COVID19 Coordination
Sent: June 4, 2020 4:21 AM
To: ***@***.***
Subject: [rdacovid19-coordination] Comments on 5th Release Received – Prof. Phil Robinson
Dear all
The comments below were received and forwarded to me from Stefanie Kethers at ARDC.
I am not an RDA member, but thought I’d send very brief top-down comments.
Sorry, but the whole 124 page document is too long for my available time. I did read the Exec Summary. This is a good effort overall. Most of the things listed here have already been happening for months now across the board. However I have no idea who might be holding back, and if this will prompt them, so this concept is good. Just might be late to the party I think, but a solid effort. There is still a long way to go to share the raw data tho.
Here is my initial viewpoint, assuming that the rest of the document is really good. From my perspective, this document, like so much current thinking, seems to ignore the whole drug discovery efforts. The massive work happening before anything first hits the patient. It does not seem to measure the progress of vaccine development either. Except for ‘omics’, the document seems to start only when the drug or vaccine hits the patient. There are huge numbers (1000s) of posts on bioRxiv and medRxiv in this target development space in 3 months. Unless I missed it in my brief skimming, the RDA document has a whole section on OMICS, but none on this massive part of the effort seems to be included (molecular and cell biology or pharmacology or medicinal chemistry are not omics). It seems unbalanced in this regard. Of what use is much (certainly not all) of the rest of the RDA guides if people don’t share which drugs or vaccines or molecular targets are looking promising, before hitting clinical trials? Not just after. Share the promising targets or approaches being revealed, as well as the dead-ends? As an example, a few papers posted on papers on bioRxiv and medRxiv have impacted on my thinking and drug development effort, sometimes just from the anecdotal discussion within some.
The RDA document also feels a little anti-IP. If so, I think could be counter-productive in part (I did not check this point in detail in the 124 pager, might have misunderstood). IP is a tool to further incentivise researchers and companies that actually manufacture and deliver products. Otherwise, valuable things may not get developed or even marketed at all. The counter view that IP can be an impediment is very real, but I think it is something to watch out for, not to discourage.
My apologies if some of my comments are off the mark. I am sending only in the spirit of constructivism and our common aim of public good.
Professor Phil Robinson, BSc (Hons), PhD
Head of Cell Signalling Unit, Children’s Medical Research Institute, The University of Sydney
The University of Sydney, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health
Co-Director of ProCan – The ACRF International Centre for the Proteome of Human Cancer
Co-Director of ACRF Centre for Kinomics
Locked Bag 23, Wentworthville NSW 2145 Australia
[Courier Address Only: 214 Hawkesbury Rd, Westmead NSW 2145]
T: (+612)-8865-2915 | M: +61 (0)412-833-175 | E: ***@***.***
Bridget Walker
Office Manager Research Data Alliance
Tel: +44-07307000352, +39-3405336956
email: ***@***.***
skype: bridgetwalker

Full post:
Manage my subscriptions:
Stop emails for this post:
The Academy is subject to the FOI Act 2014, the Data Protection Acts 1988-2003 and 2018, GDPR (EU 2016/679) and S.I. No. 336/2011, EC Privacy & Electronic Communications Regulations. For further information see our website