Research Data Services in European Academic Research Libraries

Vol. 27, no. 1 (2017) 23–44 | e-ISSN: 2213-056X This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Uopen Journals | http://liberquarterly.eu/ | DOI: 10.18352/lq.10180 Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 23 Research Data Services in European Academic Research Libraries Carol Tenopir University of Tennessee [email protected], orcid.org/0000-0002-9056-8251 Sanna Talja University of Tampere Sanna.K.T[email protected] Wolfram Horstmann University of Gottingen [email protected] Elina Late University of Tampere [email protected] Dane Hughes University of Tennessee [email protected] Danielle Pollock University of Tennessee [email protected], orcid.org/0000-0003-3542-149X Research Data Services in European Academic Research Libraries 24 Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 Birgit Schmidt University of Gottingen [email protected], orcid.org/0000-0001-8036-5859 Lynn Baird University of Idaho lbair[email protected] Robert J. Sandusky University of Illinois at Chicago [email protected], orcid.org/0000-0002-2917-6822 Suzie Allard University of Tennessee sallar[email protected], orcid.org/0000-0001-9421-3848 Abstract Research data is an essential part of the scholarly record, and management of research data is increasingly seen as an important role for academic libraries. This article presents the results of a survey of directors of the Association of European Research Libraries (LIBER) academic member libraries to discover what types of research data services (RDS) are being offered by European academic research libraries and what services are planned for the future. Overall, the survey found that library directors strongly agree on the importance of RDS. As was found in earlier studies of academic libraries in North America, more European libraries are currently offering or are planning to offer consultative or reference RDS than technical or hands-on RDS. The majority of libraries provide support for training in skills related to RDS for their staff members. Almost all libraries collaborate with other organizations inside their institutions or with outside institutions in order Carol Tenopir et al. Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 25 to offer or develop policy related to RDS. We discuss the implications of the current state of RDS in European academic research libraries, and offer directions for future research. Key Words: research data services; data management; academic libraries 1. Introduction Advances in technology now allow for the collection, storage, analysis, and communication of increasing amounts of scientific data on a global scale (Hey, Tansley, & Tolle, 2009; Open Data Charter, 2015; Royal Society, 2012). In this environment, good research data management becomes essential to ensure transparency of scientific research, preserve data, enable reuse and reanalysis of data, and advance knowledge (Borgman, 2015; Kim, 2013; Research Councils U.K., 2015). In addition, governments, funding agencies, and publishers around the world are requiring researchers to develop data management plans and, in many cases, to make the data resulting from their research openly available (Coates, 2015; Digital Curation Center, n.d; National Science Foundation, n.d.; European Commission, 2016a,b; Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2013; Shearer, 2015; Wellcome Trust, 2010). As a result of all of these forces, research data is increasingly seen as an essential part of the scholarly record. Because academic libraries traditionally have a role in providing access to the scholarly record in many forms, it is not surprising that the management of research data is a global issue for academic libraries (Brown, Wolski, & Richardson, 2015; Chiware & Mathe, 2015; Corrall, Kennan, & Afzal, 2013; Cox & Pinfield, 2014; Diekema, Wesolek, & Walters, 2014; Kim, 2013; Si, Xing, Zhuang, Hua, & Zhou, 2015; Tenopir, Birch, & Allard, 2012; Tenopir et al., 2015b). Management of research data can take many forms, and there are a wide range of possible research data services that libraries offer, from merely helping researchers locate resources about data management planning or metadata standards in their disciplines to the creation and maintenance of full digital data repositories. To discover what types of research data services (RDS) are being offered by European academic research libraries and what services are planned for the future, an international research team funded by LIBER (Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherche—Association of Research Data Services in European Academic Research Libraries 26 Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 European Research Libraries) and DataONE (Data Observation Network for Earth) conducted a survey of LIBER academic members in the spring of 2016. The LIBER-DataONE survey, reported here, builds on earlier DataONE surveys of academic libraries in the United States and Canada (hereinafter referred to as North American) that are members of the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) (Tenopir et al., 2012, 2015b). The 2011 baseline survey found that most libraries in the sample did not yet offer RDS, but more were planning on doing so in the future (Tenopir et al., 2012; Tenopir, Birch, & Allard, 2017). The follow-up survey conducted in 2014 with this same population found very little change in the percentage of libraries offering RDS (Tenopir et al., 2015b, 2016), despite the facts that many more had planned to offer services and that a majority of survey respondents agreed that losing data jeopardizes the future of scholarship and librarians should be stewards of all types of scholarship, including data sets. Follow-up interviews with library directors who participated in the 2014 survey suggest that many factors may contribute to the level of library involvement in RDS remaining static, including lack of time, shortage of trained personnel, and absence of top-level institutional support for these activities (Tenopir et al., 2015b). Both North American surveys found that a greater percentage of larger institutions, defined by student enrollment, offered various types of RDS. Among those institutions that offered any RDS, informational and consultative services, such as providing support for finding and citing data, were more commonly offered than technical services, such as preparing data for deposit into a repository (Tenopir et al., 2012, 2015b). While the North American survey results cannot be directly compared to the results of the present study due to the passage of time and due to differences in the types of academic libraries included in the survey populations, those studies did inform the survey instrument and research questions for the current study. Because many of the European countries have been among the first to require data management plans and provision of open data, we can expect that European libraries will be leaders in RDS. This survey examines current practice and future plans for providing RDS in European academic research libraries. Research questions that drove this study were: • Are informational/consultative RDS offered by more European libraries than technological RDS, as in North American libraries? Carol Tenopir et al. Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 27 • Are more European libraries planning to offer RDS in the future than currently offering RDS, as in North American libraries? • Are there differences in RDS offered by libraries in different regions within Europe? • How are European libraries developing staff capacity for RDS? • What types of data are supported by European libraries which offer RDS? Who are European libraries collaborating with on RDS? What are the attitudes towards RDS among European library directors? 2. Related Work International surveys of researchers have found that even if researchers are willing to share data, many lack the time, expertise, and resources to fully comply with institutional or funders’ mandates for depositing data. They may require assistance with activities such as creating metadata, locating datasets, and finding appropriate places to store their data (Aydinoglu, Suomela, & Malone, 2014; Enke et al., 2012; Kratz & Strasser, 2015; Schmidt, Gemeinholzer, & Treloar, 2016; Specht et al., 2015; Tenopir et al., 2011, 2015a). Earlier surveys of researchers suggest roles for research libraries in providing support for research data management, an extension of the library’s traditional role in providing research and reference services (Si et al., 2015; Tenopir et al., 2012, 2015b; Vlaeminck, 2013). Research data services (RDS) provided by libraries vary and may include: creation and management of institutional data repositories, providing tools for data mining and visualization, training for researchers on data management activities, guidance on institutional policies, help with creating data management plans and metadata for data sets, and assistance with intellectual property and privacy issues surrounding research data, and other services (Flores, Brodeur, Daniels, Nichalls, & Turnator, 2015; Koltay, 2016; Linde, Noorman, Wessels, & Sveinsdottir, 2014; Tenopir et al., 2012, 2015b; Vlaeminck, 2013). Providing RDS in libraries takes skilled professionals as well as resources and time. Libraries vary in how well they are able to support RDS and what range of services they offer (Corrall, Kennan, & Afzal, 2013; Cox & Pinfield, 2014; Si et al., 2015). Rittel and Weber (1973) coined the term “wicked problem” to Research Data Services in European Academic Research Libraries 28 Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 describe a complex societal problem that is difficult to solve due to a number of factors. These factors include the understanding that such problems are unique; there is no “stopping rule” or criteria to determine whether the problem has been solved; and there is neither a definitive formulation of the problem itself nor a definitive list of possible solutions, meaning that various stakeholders may have different views on each of these. The problem of research data management has been characterized as a “wicked” one, due to the sheer scale and complexity of both data and data management activities, the number of stakeholders, heterogeneity of data types to be managed, and lack of clarity on appropriate roles for stakeholders, including libraries, as well as what support services to offer (Awre et al., 2015; Cox, Pinfield, & Smith, 2016). 3. Methodology With assistance from the LIBER Board of Directors, the survey instrument from earlier DataONE surveys of academic libraries was revised and pilot tested by several European academic library directors. Based on feedback, the demographic section was shortened to better fit the European context and questions were added about type of data and subject disciplines served. Questions include demographics (size of student body population and country); RDS currently offered; RDS planned; staffing considerations; policies and procedures; disciplines served and types of data processed; collaborations; and opinions. The unit of analysis is the academic library; participants were asked to respond on behalf of their institution, with only one response per library. The survey instrument and full data set can be downloaded from the LIBER Quarterly Dataverse at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ SKNGGW. The research protocol was approved by the University of Tennessee Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Subjects with a letter of support from the University of Tampere. The survey instrument was built using the Qualtrics software and was hosted by the University of Tennessee. All analysis was done using Excel, SPSS, or R software at the University of Tennessee, University of Tampere, and University of Göttingen. The survey instrument was distributed via email by LIBER to its member institutions in February 2016. A follow-up reminder was sent two weeks after the initial email and Carol Tenopir et al. Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 29 the survey was open for approximately 6 weeks. A total of 333 of the LIBER members were identified as European university libraries; 119 responded to at least one question beyond the demographic questions, for a response rate of 35.7%. Responses are representative of the population (See Figure 1). Limitations include that libraries offering RDS or planning to do so may be more likely to have responded to the survey. Also, in accordance with IRB regulations, respondents were allowed to skip any question and leave the survey at any time, so each question may have a different number of responses and only a few questions have the total of 119 respondents. The survey instrument was only in English, perhaps limiting responses in some countries. In total, libraries from 22 countries participated to the survey. Data does not include responses from European LIBER member libraries from Croatia, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Turkey. Countries were categorized into four regions; West, East, North, and South in order to study regional differences in RDS provision. Categorization is based on regions used in the OpenAIRE project1 that aims to promote open scholarship by improving discoverability and reusability of research publications and data. East and North regions are somewhat overrepresented in our data. West and South regions are underrepresented, notably due to the lack of responses from France (See Figure 1). Fig. 1: Response rate categorized by geographic region. 14.7% 15.6% 16.5% 53.2% 19.3% 16.5% 12.8% 51.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% North East South West Response rate by geographic region Respondents (n = 109) Population (n = 333) Research Data Services in European Academic Research Libraries 30 Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 4. Results 4.1. Types of Services Offered and Planned As was found in previous surveys conducted with libraries in North America, European academic research libraries (henceforth referred to as “libraries”) are more likely to offer consultative-type RDS services than hands-on/ technological services. Consultative services frequently involve a personal client-librarian relationship and inform the client (often a student or faculty member) about such things as how to find information on data management plans, metadata standards, or data citation practices. These informational services align with traditional reference or instructional services long offered by libraries. Consultative services can also include collaboration with others on planning, projects, or training (See Figure 2). Fig. 2: Consultative RDS (labels not shown for values of <5%). 31.9% 35% 36.6% 43% 43.8% 45.8% 53.7% 66.3% 76.8% 11.7% 31% 24.8% 23.4% 25.7% 24.3% 24.2% 16.8% 12.6% 12.8% 10% 14.9% 9.3% 12.4% 11.2% 7.4% 7.4% 8% 8.9% 8.4% 7.5% 36.2% 16% 14.9% 15.9% 14.3% 11.2% 12.6% 8.4% 8.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Direct participation with researchers on a project (n=94) Creating web guides (n=100) Providing reference support for finding and citing data/sets (n=101) Outreach & collaboration with other RDS providers (n=107) Consulting with staff or students on metadata stds. (n=105) Consulting with staff or students on data mgt. plans (n=107) Training colleagues on RDS (n=95) Involved in policy development/ planning related to RDS (n=95) Discuss RDS with others on campus (n=95) Consultative research data services (RDS) Yes Within 12 m. Within 13–24 m. More than 24 months No Carol Tenopir et al. Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 31 The activities currently conducted by the greatest number of libraries (76.8%) are “discussing RDS with others on campus” and involvement in “policy development/planning related to RDS” (66.3%), which may indicate that many libraries are still in the planning stages or that RDS requires intense ongoing discussion and policy-making. However, less than half (40.9%) of libraries say they currently have policies relating to RDS. A majority of libraries (53.7%) also answered that they provide training for colleagues on RDS. For all but three services—creating web guides, direct participation with researchers on a project, and providing reference support for finding and citing data/sets—the number of libraries reporting they currently offer the service exceeds the number of libraries who plan to offer it in the future, though almost all libraries currently offer or plan within two years to offer most types of consultative RDS listed. The one exception is that currently less than a third of the libraries have services that involve direct participation with researchers on a project, while another third have no plans to offer such services in the future. Directly working with researchers might be considered more of a hands-on activity and may require more intense and time-consuming commitments by library staff than just helping researchers locate information. Technical/hands-on RDS are currently offered by fewer libraries, although with the exception of “deaccessioning”, a majority of libraries currently offer or plan to offer some sort of technical RDS. As was found in North American surveys, more European libraries are planning to offer than are currently offering various types of technical RDS. The lower and slower up-take of technical services compared to consultative services may reflect the fact that these services require a substantial investment in time, resources, and new technical knowledge (See Figure 3). In the earlier North American surveys, few libraries said they offered many technical services. An exception in European libraries however, is managing or participating in managing technology infrastructure that supports RDS. When asked this question separately, almost two-thirds (63.8%) of libraries say they currently manage or participate in managing technology infrastructure that supports RDS. When asked a follow-up question about what types of management they provide, over three-quarters (78.3%) of those say they are providing data storage. Other types of infrastructure support are offered by fewer of these libraries and include tools for data analysis (23.3%), virtual community support (31.7%), and other (23.3%). The more than one-third (36.2%) of those libraries that do not manage or participate in managing technology Research Data Services in European Academic Research Libraries 38 Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 will remain if more libraries begin offering more types of RDS are potential questions for future research to explore. European libraries are supporting RDS for various types of data, with the majority of those that maintain research data archives archiving both qualitative and quantitative data. European libraries also reported differences in their level of involvement in providing RDS to staff and students from various of disciplines. The specific sources of these differences, potentially including how the RDS needs of researchers from various disciplines differ and to what extent those needs are being met by sources other than the library for researchers in European universities are questions for future research. Research data services require library staff who are knowledgeable and have the opportunity to learn new skills. Many libraries are providing opportunities for staff to learn more about RDS, while some are hiring new staff for these duties. If libraries reassign staff or hire new staff for RDS, an unanswered question for future research is what library services are being eliminated to accommodate new RDS? Library directors realize they cannot solve the “wicked” problem of research data by themselves; libraries collaborate with many internal and external partners. Collaboration across campus and with other institutions is vital as many European libraries are working on developing policies or discussing how to offer the best range of RDS. These discussions will be ongoing as more libraries plan to collaborate and develop RDS in the future. A majority of European library directors recognize the growing importance of research data and are looking for solutions that fit their institutional needs and priorities. Some libraries are further along in providing and planning research data services and will likely take leading roles in ongoing discussions. The academic library is by its nature a critical stakeholder in research data preservation and management now and into the future (Cox & Pinfield, 2014; Koltay, 2016). Future research will show if and how libraries expand their RDS over the next few years, how they will reshape their services to add these new RDS responsibilities, how they customize services to meet the needs of different subject disciplines, and whether technical RDS expands as a typical offering. The future will bring new opportunities and challenges related to RDS and libraries. Carol Tenopir et al. Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 39 Acknowledgements This article is based on a report commissioned by the LIBER Board. We wish to thank the LIBER Board, Kristiina Hormia-Poutanen, President, for their support and assistance at all stages of the project. This study could not have been done without the assistance of DataONE (NSF #0830944, William Michener, Principal Investigator) and the members of the DataONE Usability & Assessment Working Group. References Awre, C., Baxter, J., Clifford, B., Colclough, J., Cox, A., Dods, N., …, Zawadzki, M. (2015). Research data management as a “wicked problem”. Library Review, 64, 356–371. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://doi.org/10.1108/ LR-04-2015-0043. Aydinoglu, A. U., Suomela, T., & Malone, J. (2014). Data management in astrobiology: Challenges and opportunities for an interdisciplinary community. Astrobiology, 14, 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2013.1127. Borgman, C.L. (2015). Big data, little data, no data: Scholarship in the networked world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Brown, R.A., Wolski, M., & Richardson, J. (2015). Developing new skills for research support librarians. Australian Library Journal, 64, 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00 049670.2015.1041215. Chiware, E., & Mathe, Z. (2015). Academic libraries’ role in research data management services: A South African perspective. South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science, 81(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.7553/81-2-1563. Coates, H. (2015). Publisher policies. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://www. ulib.iupui.edu/digitalscholarship/datasupport/publisher_policies. Corrall, S., Kennan, M.A., & Afzal, W. (2013). Bibliometrics and research data management services: Emerging trends in library support for research. Library Trends, 61, 636–674. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2013.0005. Cox, A.M., & Pinfield, S. (2014). Research data management and libraries: Current activities and future priorities. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 46, 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000613492542. Cox, A.M., Pinfield, S., & Smith, J. (2016). Moving a brick building: UK libraries coping with research data management as a ‘wicked’ problem. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 48, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000614533717. Research Data Services in European Academic Research Libraries 40 Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 Diekema, A.R., Wesolek, A., & Walters, C.D. (2014). The NSF/NIH Effect: Surveying the effect of data management requirements on faculty, sponsored programs, and institutional repositories. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(3–4), 322–331. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.04.010. Digital Curation Center. (n.d.) Overview of funders’ data policies. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/policy-and-legal/ overview-funders-data-policies. Enke, N., Thessen, A., Bach, K., Bendix, J., Seeger, B., & Gemeinholzer, B. (2012). The user’s view on biodiversity data sharing: Investigating facts of acceptance and requirements to realize a sustainable use of research data. Ecological Informatics, 11, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2012.03.004. European Commission. (2016a). Guidelines on open access to publications and research data in Horizon 2020. Version 3.1, 25 August 2016. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/ oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf. European Commission. (2016b). Guidelines on FAIR data management in Horizon 2020. Version 3.0, 26 July 2016. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://ec.europa.eu/ research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oadata-mgt_en.pdf, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2012.03.004. Flores, J.R., Brodeur, J.J., Daniels, M.G., Nicholls, N., & Turnator, E. (2015). Libraries and the research data management landscape. In J.C. Maclachlan, E.A. Waraksa, & C. Williford (Eds), The process of discovery: The CLIR postdoctoral fellowship program and the future of the academy (pp. 82–102). Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources. Hey, T., Tansley, S., & Tolle, K. (2009). The fourth paradigm. Data-intensive scientific discovery. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Research. Kim, J. (2013). Data sharing and its implications for academic libraries. New Library World, 114, 494–506. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-06-2013-0051. Koltay, T. (2016). Are you ready?: Tasks and roles for academic libraries in supporting Research 2.0. New Library World, 117, 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/ NLW-09-2015-0062. Kratz, J. E., & Strasser, C. (2015). Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data. PLoS ONE, 10(2): e0117619, n.d. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117619. Linde, P., Noorman, M., Wessels, B., & Sveinsdottir, T. (2014). How can libraries and other academic stakeholders engage in making data open? Information Services & Use 34(3/4), 211–219. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ ISU-140741. Carol Tenopir et al. Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 41 National Science Foundation. (n.d.). Dissemination and sharing of research results. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). (2013, 22 February). Increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_ access_memo_2013.pdf. Open Data Charter. (2015, September). International open data charter. Retrieved December 15, 2016 from http://opendatacharter.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ opendatacharter-charter_F.pdf. Research Councils U.K. (2015). Guidance on best practice in the management of research data. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/ documents/rcukcommonprinciplesondatapolicy-pdf/. Rittel, H.W.J., & Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730. Royal Society. (2012). Science as an open enterprise. Retrieved December 15, 2016 from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/ sape/2012-06-20-SAOE.pdf. Schmidt, B., Gemeinholzer, B., & Treloar, A. (2016). Open data in global environmental research: The Belmont Forum’s open data survey. PLoS ONE, 11(1), e0146695, 1–29. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146695. Shearer, K. (2015). Comprehensive brief on research data management policies. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from: http://www.science.gc.ca/default. asp?lang=En&n=1E116DB8-1#_ftn3. Si, L., Xing, W.M., Zhuang, X.Z., Hua, X.Q., & Zhou, L.M. (2015). Investigation and analysis of research data services in university libraries. Electronic Library, 33, 417–449. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-07-2013-0130. Specht, A., Guru, S., Houghton, L., Keniger, L., Driver, P., Ritchie, E. G., …, Treloar, A. (2015). Data management challenges in analysis and synthesis in the ecosystem sciences. Science of the Total Environment, 534, 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2015.03.092. Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K., Aydinoglu, A.U., Wu, L., Read, E., … , Frame, M. (2011). Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PloS ONE, 6(6), e201101, 1–21. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021101. Tenopir, C., Birch, B., & Allard, S. (2012). Academic libraries and research data services: Current practices and plans for the future [White paper]. Association of College and Research Libraries. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://www.ala.org/acrl/ sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/whitepapers/Tenopir_Birch_Allard. pdf. Research Data Services in European Academic Research Libraries 42 Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 Tenopir C., Dalton, E.D., Allard, S., Frame, M, Pjesivac, I., Birch, B., …, Dorsett, K. (2015a). Changes in data sharing and data reuse practices and perceptions among scientists worldwide. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0134826, 1–24. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134826. Tenopir, C., Hughes, D., Allard, S., Frame, M., Birch, B., Baird, L., …, Lundeen, A. (2015b). Research data services in academic libraries: Data intensive roles for the future? Journal of eScience Librarianship, 4(2), art. 4, 1–21. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2015.1085. Tenopir, C., Hughes, D., Allard, S., Frame, M., Birch, B., Baird, L., …, Lundeen, A. (2016). Academic Libraries Follow-Up Dataset [Data set]. Oneshare. http://dx.doi. org/10.15146/R39G6F. Tenopir, C., Birch, B., & Allard, S. (2017). Academic libraries and research data services dataset [Data set]. Oneshare. http://dx.doi.org/10.15146/R3FG6P. Vlaeminck, S. (2013). Data management in scholarly journals and possible roles for libraries – Some insights from EDaWaX. LIBER Quarterly, 23, 48–79. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.8082. Wellcome Trust. (2010). Policy on data management and sharing. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-positionstatements/WTX035043.htm. Note 1 For lists of countries by OpenAIRE region, see https://www.openaire.eu/ regional-offices. Carol Tenopir et al. Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 43 Appendix 1 Table 3: Consultative RDS based on region. Consultative RDS Region Yes No, but plan to No Consulting with academic staff or students on DMPs West 34 (60.7%) 19 (33.9%) 3 (5.4%) East 5 (27.8%) 8 (44.4%) 5 (27.8%) North 4 (19%) 13 (61.9%) 4 (19%) South 6 (50%) 6 (50%) 0 (0%) Consulting with academic staff or students on meta/data stds. West 31 (56.4%) 20 (36.4%) 4 (7.3%) East 6 (33.3%) 6 (33.3%) 6 (33.3%) North 4 (19%) 12 (57.1%) 5 (23.8%) South 5 (45.5%) 6 (54.5%) 0 (0%) Outreach and collaboration with other research RDS providers West 30 (55.6%) 19 (35.2%) 5 (9.3%) East 2 (11.1%) 7 (38.9%) 9 (50%) North 11 (52.4%) 9 (42.9%) 1 (4.8%) South 3 (25%) 8 (66.7%) 1 (8.3%) Creating web guides/aids for data/ sets West 25 (49%) 18 (35.3%) 8 (15.7%) East 3 (17.6%) 8 (47.1%) 6 (35.3%) North 5 (25%) 14 (70%) 1 (5%) South 2 (16.7%) 9 (75%) 1 (8.3%) Directly participating with researchers on a project West 20 (40%) 13 (26%) 17 (34%) East 3 (21.4%) 5 (35.7%) 6 (42.9%) North 6 (30%) 6 (30%) 8 (40%) South 1 (10%) 6 (60%) 3 (30%) Providing support for finding and citing data/data sets West 25 (47.2%) 23 (43.4%) 5 (9.4%) East 5 (29.4%) 7 (41.2%) 5 (29.4%) North 4 (20%) 12 (60%) 4 (20%) South 3 (27.3%) 7 (63.6%) 1 (9.1%) Discussing research data services RDS with others West 43 (86%) 5 (10%) 2 (4%) East 7 (50%) 3 (21.4%) 4 (28.6%) North 18 (90%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) South 5 (45.5%) 5 (45.5%) 1 (9.1%) Training colleagues on RDS West 30 (60%) 15 (30%) 5 (10%) East 4 (28.6%) 6 (42.9%) 4 (28.6%) North 13 (65%) 5 (25%) 2 (10%) South 4 (36.4%) 6 (54.5%) 1 (9.1%) Involved in policy development related to RDS West 40 (80%) 8 (16%) 2 (4%) East 4 (28.6%) 6 (42.9%) 4 (28.6%) North 14 (73.7%) 3 (15.8%) 2 (10.5%) South 4 (36.4%) 7 (63.6%) 0 (0%) Research Data Services in European Academic Research Libraries 44 Liber Quarterly Volume 27 Issue 1 2017 Table 4: Technical RDS based on region. Technical RDS Region Yes No, but plan to No Providing technical support for RDS West 24 (45.3%) 25 (47.2%) 4 (7.5%) East 5 (29.4%) 3 (17.6%) 9 (52.9%) North 5 (25%) 7 (35%) 8 (40%) South 4 (36.4%) 7 (63.6%) 0 (0%) Deaccessioning/deselection of data/sets West 7 (13.7%) 18 (35.3%) 26 (51%) East 0 (0%) 3 (20%) 12 (80%) North 0 (0%) 4 (20%) 16 (80%) South 0 (0%) 4 (36.4%) 7 (63.6%) Preparing data/sets for deposit West 19 (36.5%) 21 (40.4%) 12 (23.1%) East 3 (18.8%) 4 (25%) 9 (56.3%) North 1 (5%) 12 (60%) 7 (35%) South 2 (18.2%) 7 (63.6%) 2 (18.2%) Creating or transforming meta/data for data/sets West 19 (35.8%) 21 (39.6%) 13 (24.5%) East 3 (16.7%) 7 (38.9%) 8 (44.4%) North 3 (14.3%) 10 (47.6%) 8 (38.1%) South 2 (18.2%) 7 (63.6%) 2 (18.2%) Identifying data/sets West 18 (33.3%) 24 (44.4%) 12 (22.2%) East 4 (22.2%) 7 (38.9%) 7 (38.9%) North 1 (4.8%) 14 (66.7%) 6 (28.6%) South 5 (45.5%) 6 (54.5%) 0 (0%) Selection of data/sets West 16 (32%) 18 (36%) 16 (32%) East 2 (14.3%) 5 (35.7%) 7 (50%) North 1 (5%) 10 (50%) 9 (45%) South 3 (30%) 7 (70%) 0 (0%)