Compilation of Recommendations

Details

Short Title

Rec. 17: Align and harmonise FAIR and Open data policy

Source Documnent

Turning FAIR into reality: Final report and action plan from the European Commission expert group on FAIR data

Source Document Link

http://dx.doi.org/10.2777/1524

Publishing Organisation

European Commision

Date of Publication

2018-11-26

Topic

Policy, Capacity building/ incentivisation

Addressed Stakeholders

coordination fora, research funders, policy makers, data service providers, institutions, publishers, data stewards

Keywords

FAIR, Open Data, Policy

Text

Policies should be aligned and consolidated to ensure that publicly-funded research data are made FAIR and Open, except for legitimate restrictions. The maxim 'as Open as possible, as closed as necessary' should be applied proportionately with genuine best efforts to share. Action 17.1: The greatest potential reuse comes when data are both FAIR and Open. Steps should be taken to ensure coherence across data policy, emphasising both concepts and issuing collective statements of intent wherever possible. Action 17.2: A funders' forum and other coordinating bodies at European and global level should do concrete work to align policies, reducing divergence, inconsistencies and contradictions. Requirements for DMPs and principles governing recognition and rewards should also be coordinated. Action 17.3: Policies should be versioned, indexed and semantically annotated in a policy registry to enable broad reuse within the FAIR data ecosystem. Resources mandated by policies (e.g. consent forms) should be treated the same way. Action 17.4: Data and other FAIR Digital Objects (e.g. code, models) that directly underpin, and provide evidence for, the findings articulated in published research must also be published unless there are legitimate reasons for protecting and restricting access. Action 17.5: For data created by publicly funded research projects, initiatives and infrastructures, and where action 17.4 does not apply, the default should be to make the data available as soon as possible. However, policies may explicitly allow a reasonable embargo period to facilitate the right of first use of the data creators. Embargoes should be short (e.g. c. six months to two years) based on the prevailing culture in the given research community. Action 17.6: Policies should require an explicit and justified statement when (publicly-funded) data cannot be Open and a proportionate and discriminating course of action should be followed to ensure maximum appropriate data accessibility, rather than allowing a wholesale opt-out from the mandate for Open data. Action 17.7: Sustained work is needed to clarify in more detail the appropriate boundaries of Open and robust processes for secure data handling. Information on exceptions should be captured and fed into a body of knowledge that can inform future policy guidance and practice. Action 17.8: Concrete and accessible guidance should be provided to researchers to find the optimal balance between sharing whilst also safeguarding privacy. There are many exemplars of good practice in providing managed access to sensitive data on which researchers can draw.