SSP June 2, 2011

Developing Best Practices for

Supplemental MaterialsLinda BeebeJune 2, 2011

SSP June 2, 2011

Company Logo

COLLISION OF 2 WORLDS

SSP June 2, 2011

Explosion of─ResearchDataAccrued Knowledge

Increased RequirementsFunding BodiesReporting Standards

SSP June 2, 2011

Supplemental Materials—it sounded like such a good idea. The author could expand

on their research. Science would be better

with data needed to verify or replicate study at little additional cost.

We could enhance reporting of science with multi-media.

We looked to technology to solve problems—but kept our print-centric views.

And we did it on our own—no standards or best practices.

SSP June 2, 2011

Outcomes for the author?

May get to showcase new work that would not otherwise be seen.

May also risk displaying weak work that otherwise might not be seen.

SSP June 2, 2011

Outcomes for the user?Lack of descriptive

metadataDiscoverability issuesLack of contextConcern about persistenceNo clarity on citationsSome mystery in the main

article about what is supplemental

─ a maze, maybe not value-add taken as a whole.

SSP June 2, 2011

Outcomes for the publisher?

Direct costsDiverted energies—

already crisis in peer review

Tough decisions─What is value-add?Peer review dilemma,

quality vs workload?Plan for migration?

SSP June 2, 2011

NISO-NFAIS Working Group

SSP June 2, 2011

Business Working GroupCo-Chairs: Linda Beebe & Marie McVeigh Define Supplemental Materials, structurally and functionally. Define related terms, such as data, citation, and article. Recommend methods of referencing and linking to and from

supplemental material and for providing context. Recommendations around metadata, persistent identifiers,

and citations . Recommend processes for peer review, production, and

curation. Consider permissions and accessibility issues. Recommend responsibilities for authors, editors, peer

reviewers, publishers. 

SSP June 2, 2011

Technical Working GroupCo-Chairs: Dave Martinsen & Sasha

Schwarzman Recommend metadata, persistent identifiers, and granularity

of markup needed to support practices recommended by the Business Working Group (BWG).

Recommend supports for referencing and linking to and from Supplemental Materials and for handling cited references within Supplemental Materials.

Recommend processes for archiving, preservation, and forward migration of various types of Supplemental Materials.

Recommend processes for packaging, exchange, and delivery of Supplemental Materials, taking into account variations in the location and hosting of those materials.

Recommend technical support for accessibility practices recommended by the BWG.

SSP June 2, 2011

On Different Wave LengthsDisciplines vary in use of supplemental material.Differ in style systems and culture.Readers vary in need for information—some

current awareness, some deep digging.Different approaches to underlying data.Very different approaches to delivery systems.Technology enabled, but still using print.

SSP June 2, 2011

Data One Type of Supplemental

Example of evolving ecosystem. Print world—no datasets part of article.

For some, almost synonymous with supplemental.Journal articles—indeed whole journals—devoted to

data emerging. For these data are integral content.Management of data in general not within scope of

recommended practices.Address inclusion of data when published as

supplemental (with a little aside on sharing).

SSP June 2, 2011

Illustrates Discipline Variances

Some publishers—such as AAAS and ACS—require posting of data in a publicly accessible repository for replication.

Some publishers—such as AGU—identify acceptable repositories.

Some publishers—such as APA—currently say only that authors should provide data to researchers for verification.

More calls for transparency

SSP June 2, 2011

Data Sharing—the ideal & reality

What they say: PARSE study—84% of

scientists think it useful to link data to articles.

In Psychology, 80% say they share their data.

2008—Harvard faculty voted to require faculty to deposit data in Harvard repository.

What they do: Only 25% said their data

are openly available.

Only 20% actually do.

By 2011, only a fraction have done so.

Most ethics codes call for some level of sharing.

SSP June 2, 2011

Reasons for not sharing─

It takes time, may require extensive explanations of coding or just plain clean-up.

I’m not finished—I can get more articles.

Who will curate/protect it?

Will I be credited?

They have several fears— Loss of confidentialty Potential harm to

subjects Potential faulty re-

analyis May be proven wrong Loss of control

SSP June 2, 2011

What we are saying. . .

Collaborative sharing best

practice.

Requires clear metadata and explanations.

Professional ethics around

secondary analysis.

Particular concern for studies with

human participants.

SSP June 2, 2011

Multi-Media Another ExampleFive years ago, audio or video not possible in the

article.Today still generally supplemental.BUT some now incorporating in PDFs.Executables as part of the article?Expect much more interactive content.

SSP June 2, 2011

Supplemental Today, Not Tomorrow

“. . . over time the concept of supplemental material will gradually give way to a more modern concept of a hierarchical or layered presentation in which a reader can define what level of detail best fits their interests.”

−Emilie Markus, Editor-in-Chief, Cell

Article of tomorrow may be linked chunks, not a narrative.

SSP June 2, 2011

Challenges for PublishersExpectations Quality uber alles— Peer review all. Edit to same level as

article. Maintain all links. Assure migration.

Limiting Factors People resources Financial resources Technical resources

SSP June 2, 2011

We need some order now.

SSP June 2, 2011

Defined 3 Types of ContentIntegral. Critical to understanding the work reported, but technical issues prevent inclusion in the framework.

Additional Content. Expansion of core article, added detail and context; provides layered approach for readers.

Other Related Content. Content may add to the understanding or enable replication; generally hosted by others.

SSP June 2, 2011

Recommended Practices

Selecting

Editing

Assuring Findability

Citing

SSP June 2, 2011

What we are saying. . .Selecting• Review same level• Useful, relevant, not file drawer

Editing• Publisher/Editor determine.• Provide notice if not.

Assuring Findability• Consistency• Online TOC Reference• Indexing Coverage• Don’t hide!

Citing• Within article, cite & link as for a table.• Not in reference list for integral.

SSP June 2, 2011

More Recommendations

Providing Links & Context

Preserving

Assuring Accessibility

Rights Management

SSP June 2, 2011

What we are saying. . .Links & Context• Bi-directional if possible• Links must work!• Context is essential. What is this? Why here?

Preservation• Integral same level as article• Clarity on what can do.• Encourage authors to deposit elsewhere also.

Accessibility• Should be same level as article.• Strive for ideal, recognize difficulty.

Rights Management• Treat rights same way do for the article.• No authority for Other Related Content.

SSP June 2, 2011

2 Working Groups, 2 Roles

BWG—What? TWG—How?

SSP June 2, 2011

TWG Working Group Task Forces

Metadata—have strawman DTDLinking and persistent identifiersPackaging and exchangePreservation and archivingAccessibility

SSP June 2, 2011

Next Steps

Early summer

shareBWG

Sub-groups

over the summer

TWG Fall meld and refineBoth

SSP June 2, 2011

Final Set of PracticesApproved by NISO

and NFAIS.

Shared with the

community and

refined.

Serve as a temporary roadmap.

Living document for rapidly changing

environment.

SSP June 2, 2011

We welcome ideas!NISO—www.niso.orgTo see working groups:

www.niso.org/workrooms/supplementalAlso join the Business Stakeholders’ Group at

that page.NFAIS—www.nfais.org

SSP June 2, 2011

THANK YOU!

Linda BeebeSenior Director, PsycINFOAmerican Psychological Associationlbeebe@apa.org