All posts by Lutfi Bin Othman

The Research Data Sustainability Workshop – November 2024

Uncategorized, , ,

The rapid advance of computing and data centres means there is an increasing amount of generated and stored research data worldwide, leading to an emerging awareness that this may have an impact on the environment. Wellcome have recently published their Environmental sustainability policy, which stipulates that any Wellcome funded research projects must be conducted in an environmentally sustainable way. Cancer Research UK have also updated their environmental sustainability in research policy and it is anticipated that more funders will begin to adopt similar policies in the near future. 

In November we held our first Research Data Sustainability Workshop in collaboration with Cambridge University Press & Assessment (CUP&A). The aim was to address some of the areas common to researchers with a focus on how research data can impact the environment. The workshop was attended by Cambridge Data Champions and other interested researchers at the University of Cambridge. This blog summarises some of the presentations and group activities that took place at the workshop to help us to better understand the impact that processing and storing data can have on the environment and identify what steps researchers could take in their day-to-day research to help minimise their impact.  

The Invisible Cost to Storing Data 

Our first speaker at the workshop was Dr Loïc Lannelongue, Research Associate at the University of Cambridge. Loïc leads on the Green Algorithms initiative which aims to promote more environmentally sustainable computational science and has developed an online calculator to check computational carbon footprint. Loïc suggested that the aim is not that we shouldn’t have data, as we all use computing, just that we should be more aware of the work we do and the impact it has on the environment so we can make informed choices. Loïc emphasised that computing is not free, even though it might look like that to the end user. There is an invisible cost to storing data, whilst the exact costs are largely unknown, the estimates calculated for data centres suggest that they emit around 126mt of CO2 e/year. Loïc furthered explained that there are many more aspects to the footprint than just greenhouse gas emissions such as water use, toxicity, land use, minerals, metals and human toxicity. For example, there is a huge amount of water consumption needed to cool data centres, and you often find that cheaper data centres tend to use larger amounts of water. 

Loïc continued to discuss how there are a wide range of carbon footprints in research with some datasets having a large footprint. The estimate for storing data is ~10kg CO2 per tb per year, although there are many varying factors that could affect this figure. Loïc pointed out that the bottom line is – don’t store useless data! He suggested we shouldn’t stop doing research, we just have to do it better. Incentivising and addressing sustainability in Data Management Plans from the outset of projects could help. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is predicted to help to combat the impact on the environment in the future, although as AI comes at a large environmental cost, whether any benefit will outweigh the impact is still unknown. Loic has written a paper on the Ten simple rules to make your computing more sustainable, and he recommends looking at the Green DiSC Certification which is a free, open-access roadmap for anyone working in research (dry lab) to learn how to be more sustainable.

The Shift to Digital Publishing 

Next to present was Andri Johnston, Digital Sustainability Lead at CUP&A. Andri discussed how her role was newly created to address the carbon footprint within the digital publishing environment at CUP&A. In publishing, there has been a shift from print to digital, but after publishing digitally, what can be done to make it more sustainable? CUP&A are committed to being carbon zero by 2048, aiming for a 72% reduction by 2030. As 43% of all their digital emissions for the wider technology sector come from digital products such as software, CUP&A have been looking at how they can create their digital products more sustainably. They have been investigating methods to calculate digital emissions by looking at their hardware and cloud hosting, which is mostly Amazon Web Services (AWS) but they use some Cambridge data centres. Andri explained how it has been hard to find information on AWS data centres emissions and knowing whether your users use a fixed line or cellular internet network connection (some cellular network towers use backup diesel generators which have a higher environmental impact) is hard to pinpoint. AWS doesn’t supply accurate information on the emissions of using their services and Andri is fully aware that they are using data to get data!

Andri introduced the DIMPACT project (digital impact), where they are using the DIMPACT tool to report and better understand the carbon emissions of platforms serving digital media products. Carbon emissions of the academic publishing websites at CUP&A have reduced in the last year as the team looked at where they can make improvements. At CUP&A, they want to publish more and allow more to access their content globally, but this needs to be done in a sustainable way to not increase the websites’ carbon emissions. The page weight of web pages is also something to consider; heavy web pages due to media such as videos can be difficult to download for people in areas with low bandwidth so this needs to be taken into account when designing them. The Sustainable web design guide for 2023 has been produced with Wholegrain Digital, and can be downloaded for free. Andri mentioned that in the future they need to be aware of the impact of AI as it is becoming a significant part of publishing and academia and will increase energy consumption. 

Andri concluded by summarising that in academic publishing, they will always be adding more content such as videos and articles for download. It is likely that researchers may need to report on the carbon impact of research in the future, but the question on how best to do this is still to be decided. The impact of downloaded papers is also a question that the industry is struggling with, for example how many of these papers are read and stored. 

Digital Preservation: Promising for the Environment and Scholarship  

Alicia Wise who is Executive Director at CLOCKSS gave us an overview of the infrastructure in place to preserve scholarship for the long-term. This is vital to be able to reliably refer to research from the past. Alicia explained that there is an awareness to consider sustainability during preservation. When print publishing was the main research output, preservation was largely taken care of by librarians, in a digital world this is now undertaken by digital archives such as CLOCKSS. The plan is to prepare to archive research for future generations 200-500 years from now!

CLOCKSS was founded in the 1990’s to solve the problem of digital preservation. There is a now a growing collection of digitally archived books, articles, data, software and code. CLOCKSS consists of 12 mirror repository sites located across the world, all of which contain the same copies. The 12 sites are in constant communication, using network self-healing to restore the original if a problem is detected. CLOCKSS currently store 57.5 million journal articles and 530,500 books.  

CLOCKSS are a dark archive, this means they don’t provide access unless it is needed, such as when a publisher goes out of business, or a repository goes down. If this happens, the lost material is made open access. CLOCKSS have been working with the DIMPACT project to map and calculate their carbon footprint. They have looked at the servers at all their 12 repository sites to estimate the environmental impact. It became clear that not all their sites are equal. The best was their site at Stanford University, where the majority of the CLOCKSS machines are located. Stanford has a high renewable energy profile, largely due to their climate and even have their own a solar power plant! They also have a renewable, recirculating, chilled underground water system for cooling the servers. The site at Indiana University was their worst performing as this is supplied by 70% coal. The estimated carbon emissions at the Indiana University site is estimated to be 9 tonnes of carbon per month (equivalent to a fleet of 20 petrol cars). 

Alicia explained that most of the carbon emissions come from the integrity checking (self-healing network). CLOCKSS mission is to reduce the emissions, and they are looking into whether reducing the number of repository sites to 6 copies could still predict preservation will be available in 500 years’ time. They are reviewing what they need to keep and informing publishers of their contribution so they can consider this impact.  

Alicia summarised by saying that it appears that digital preservation may have a lower carbon footprint than print preservation. CLOCKSS are working with the Digital Preservation Coalition to help other digital archives reduce their footprint too (with DIMPACT), they are finalising a general tool for calculation of emissions that can be used by other archives. They don’t want to discourage long-term preservation, as currently, 25% of academic journals are not preserved anywhere. This risks access to scholarship in the future. They want to encourage preservation, but in an environmentally friendly way. 

Preserving for the future at the University of Cambridge 

There are many factors that could impact data remaining accessible now and over time. Digital Preservation maintains the integrity of digital files and ensures ongoing access to content for as long as necessary. Caylin Smith, Head of Digital Preservation at Cambridge University Libraries, gave an overview of the CUL Digital Preservation Programme that is changing how the Libraries manages its digital collection materials to ensure they can be accessed for teaching, learning, and research. These include the University’s research outputs in a wide range of content types and formats; born-digital special collections, including archives; and digitised versions of print and physical collection items.  

Preserving and providing access to data, as well as using cloud services and storing multiple copies of files and metadata, all impact the environment.  Monitoring usage of cloud services and appraising the content are two ways of working towards more responsible Digital Preservation. Within the Programme, the team is delivering a Workbench, which is a web user interface for curatorial staff to undertake collection management activities, including appraising files and metadata deposited to archives.  This work will help confirm that any deposited files, whether these are removed from a storage carrier or securely uploaded, must be preserved long term. Curatorial staff will also be alerted to any potential duplicate files, export metadata for creating archival records, and create an audit trail of appraisal activities before the files are moved to the preservation workflow and storage.  

Within the University Library, where the Digital Preservation team is based, there may be additional carbon emissions from computers kept on overnight to run workflows and e-waste (some of the devices that become obsolete may still have a use for reading data from older carriers e.g. floppy disk drives). Caylin explained that CUL pays for the cloud services and storage used by the Digital Preservation infrastructure, which means you can scale up and scale down as needed. They are considering whether there is a need for an offline backup and weighing up if the benefit to having such a backup would outweigh costs and energy consumption.  

Caylin discussed what they and other researchers could do to reduce the impact on the environment: use tools available to estimate personal carbon footprint and associated costs of research; minimise access to data where necessary to minimise use of computing. Ideally data centres and cloud computing suppliers should have green credentials so researchers can make informed choices. There is a choice to make between using second hand equipment and repair equipment where possible. At Cambridge we have the Research Cold Store which is low energy as it uses tapes and robots to store dark data, but the question remains as to whether this is really more energy efficient in the long term.   

What could help reduce the impact of research data on the environment? 

The afternoon session at the workshop involved group work to discuss two extreme hypothetical mandated scenarios for research data preservation. It allowed the pros and cons of each scenario to be addressed, how this could impact sustainability and problems that could arise. We will use the information gathered in this group session to consider what is possible right now to help researchers at the University of Cambridge make informed choices for research data sustainability. Some of the suggestions that could reduce research data storage (and carbon footprint) include improving documentation and metadata of files, regularly appraising files as part of weekly tasks and making data open to prevent duplication of research. It could also be helpful to address environmental sustainability at the start of projects such as in a Data Management Plan.  

We have learned in this workshop, that research data can have an environmental impact and as computing capabilities expand, this impact is likely to increase in the future. There are now tools available to help estimate research carbon footprints. We also need stakeholders (e.g. publishers, funders) to work together to advocate that relevant companies provide transparent information so researchers can make informed choices on managing their research data more sustainably.  

Data Diversity Podcast (#4) – Dr Stefania Merlo (1/2) 

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Welcome back to the fourth instalment of Data Diversity, the podcast where we speak to Cambridge University Data Champions about their relationship with research data and highlight their unique data experiences and idiosyncrasies in their journeys as a researcher. In this edition, we speak to Data Champion Dr Stefania Merlo from the McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research, the Remote Sensing Digital Data Coordinator and project manager of the Mapping Africa’s Endangered Archaeological Sites and Monuments (MAEASaM) project. This is the first of a two-part series and in this first post, Stefania shares with us her experiences of working with research data and outputs that are part of heritage collections, and how her thoughts about research data and the role of the academic researcher have changed throughout her projects. She also shares her thoughts about what funders can do to ensure that research participants, and the data that they provide to researchers, can speak for themselves.   

This is the first of a two-part series and in this first post, Stefania shares with us her experiences of working with research data and outputs that are part of heritage collections, and how her thoughts about research data and the role of the academic researcher have changed throughout her projects. She also shares her thoughts about what funders can do to ensure that research participants, and the data that they provide to researchers, can speak for themselves.   

I’ve been thinking for a while about the etymology of the word data. Datum in Latin means ‘given’. Whereas when we are collecting data, we always say we’re “taking measurements”. Upon reflection, it has made me come to a realisation that we should approach data more as something that is given to us and we hold responsibility for, and something that is not ours, both in terms of ownership, but also because data can speak for itself and tell a story without our intervention – Dr Stefania Merlo

Data stories (whose story is it, anyway?) 

LO: How do you use data to tell the story that you want to tell? To put it another way, as an archaeologist, what is the story you want to tell and how do you use data to tell that story?

SM: I am currently working on two quite different projects. One is Mapping Africa’s Endangered Archaeological Sites and Monuments (funded by Arcadia) which is funded to create an Open Access database of information on endangered archaeological sites and monuments in Africa. In the project, we define “endangered” very broadly because ultimately, all sites are endangered. We’re doing this with a number of collaborators and the objective is to create a database that is mainly going to be used by national authorities for heritage management. There’s a little bit less storytelling there, but it has more to do with intellectual property: who are the custodians of the sites and the custodians of the data? A lot of questions are asked about Open Access, which is something that the funders of the projects have requested, but something that our stakeholders have got a lot of issues with. The issues surround where the digital data will be stored because currently, it is stored in Cambridge temporarily. Ideally all our stakeholders would like to see it stored in a server in the African continent at the least, if not actually in their own country. There are a lot of questions around this. 

The other project stems out of the work I’ve been doing in Southern Africa for almost the past 20 years, and is about asking how do you articulate knowledge of the African past that is not represented in history textbooks? This is a history that is rarely taught at university and is rarely discussed. How do you avail knowledge to publics that are not academic publics? That’s where the idea of creating a multimedia archive and a platform where digital representations of archaeological, archival, historical, and ethnographic data could be used to put together stories that are not the mainstream stories. It is a work in progress. The datasets that we deal with are very diverse because it is required to tell a history in a place and in periods for which we don’t have written sources.  

It’s so mesmerizing and so different from what we do in contexts where history is written. It gives us the opportunity to put together so many diverse types of sources. From oral histories to missionary accounts with all the issues around colonial reports and representations of others as they were perceived at the time, putting together information on the past environment combining archaeological data. We have a collective of colleagues that work in universities and museums. Each performs different bits and pieces of research, and we are trying to see how we would put together these types of data sets. How much do we curate them to avail them to other audiences? We’ve used the concept of data curation very heavily, and we use it purposefully because there is an impression of the objectivity of data, and we know, especially as social scientists, that this just doesn’t exist. 

I’ve been thinking for a while about the etymology of the word data. Datum in Latin means ‘given’. Whereas when we are collecting data, we always say we’re taking measurements. Upon reflection, it has made me come to a realisation that we should approach data more as something that is given to us and we hold responsibility for, and something that is not ours, both in terms of ownership, but also because data can speak for itself and tell a story without our intervention. That’s the kind of thinking surrounding data that we’ve been going through with the project. If data are given, our work is an act of restitution, and we should also acknowledge that we are curating it. We are picking and choosing what we’re putting together and in which format and framework. We are intervening a lot in the way these different records are represented so that they can be used by others to tell stories that are perhaps of more relevance to us. 

So there’s a lot of work in this project that we’re doing about representation. We are explaining – not justifying but explaining – the choices that we have made in putting together information that we think could be useful to re-create histories and tell stories. The project will benefit us because we are telling our own stories using digital storytelling, and in particular story mapping, but it could become useful for others as resources that can be used to tell their own stories. It’s still a work in progress because we also work in low resourced environments. The way in which people can access digital repositories and then use online resources is very different in Botswana and in South Africa, which are the two countries where I mainly work with in this project. We also dedicate time into thinking how useful the digital platform will be for the audiences that we would like to get an engagement from. 

The intended output is an archive that can be used in a digital storytelling platform. We have tried to narrow down our target audience to secondary school and early university students of history (and archaeology). We hope that the platform will eventually be used more widely, but we realised that we had to identify an audience to be able to prepare the materials. We have also realised that we need to give guidance on how to use such a platform so in the past year, we have worked with museums and learnt from museum education departments about using the museum as a space for teaching and learning, where some of these materials could become useful. Teachers and museum practitioners don’t have a lot of time to create their own teaching and learning materials, so we’re trying to create a way of engaging with practitioners and teachers in a way that doesn’t overburden them. For these reasons, there is more intervention that needs to come from our side into pre-packaging some of these curations, but we’re trying to do it in collaboration with them so that it’s not something that is solely produced by us academics. We want this to be something that is negotiated. As archaeologists and historians, we have an expertise on a particular part of African history that the communities that live in that space may not know about and cannot know because they were never told. They may have learned about the history of these spaces from their families and their communities, but they have learned only certain parts of the history of that land, whereas we can go much deeper into the past. So, the question becomes, how do you fill the gaps of knowledge, without imposing your own worldview? It needs to be negotiated but it’s a very difficult process to establish. There is a lot of trial and error, and we still don’t have an answer. 

Negotiating communities and funders 

LO: Have you ever had to navigate funders’ policies and stakeholder demands?  

SM: These kinds of projects need to be long and they need continuous funding, but they have outputs that are not always necessarily valued by funding bodies. This brings to the fore what funding bodies are interested in – is it solely data production, as it is called, and then the writing up of certain academic content? Or can we start to acknowledge that there are other ways of creating and sharing knowledge? As we know, there has been a drive, especially with UK funding bodies, to acknowledge that there are different ways in which information and knowledge is produced and shared. There are alternative ways of knowledge production from artistic ones to creative ones and everything in between, but it’s still so difficult to account for the types of knowledge production that these projects may have. When I’m reporting on projects, I still find it cumbersome and difficult to represent these types of knowledge production. There’s so much more that you need to do to justify the output of alternative knowledge compared to traditional outputs. I think there needs to be change to make it easier for researchers that produce alternative forms of knowledge to justify it rather than more difficult than the mainstream. 

One thing I would say is there’s a lot that we’ve learned with the (Mapping Africa’s Endangered Archaeological Sites and Monuments) project because there we engage directly with the custodians of the site and of the analog data. When they realise that the funders of the project expect to have this data openly accessible, then the questions come and the pushback comes, and it’s a pushback on a variety of different levels. The consequence is that basically we still haven’t been able to finalise our agreements with the custodians of the data. They trust us, so they have informed us that in the interim we can have the data as a project, but we haven’t been able to come to an agreement on what is going to happen to the data at the end of the project. In fact, the agreement at the moment is the data are not going to be going on a completely Open Access sphere. The negotiation now is about what they would be willing to make public, and what advantages they would have as a custodian of the data to make part, or all, of these data public.

This has created a disjuncture between what the funders thought they were doing. I’m sure they thought they were doing good by mandating that the data needs to be Open Access, but perhaps they didn’t consider that in other parts of the world, Open Access may not be desirable, or wanted, or acceptable, for a variety of very valid reasons. It’s a node that we still haven’t resolved and it makes me wonder: when funders are asking for Open Access, have they really thought about work outside of UK contexts with communities outside of the UK context? Have they considered these communities’ rights to data and their right to say, “we don’t want our data to be shared”? There’s a lot of work that has happened in North America in particular, because indigenous communities are the ones that put forward the concept of C.A.R.E., but in UK we are still very much discussing F.A.I.R. and not C.A.R.E.. I think the funders may have started thinking about it, but we’re not quite there. There is still this impression that Open Data and Open Access is a universal good without having considered that this may not be the case. It puts researchers that don’t work in UK or the Global North in an awkward position. This is definitely something that we are still grappling with very heavily. My hope is that this work is going to help highlight that when it comes to Open Access, there are no universals. We should revisit these policies in light of the fact that we are interacting with communities globally, not only those in some countries of the world. Who is Open Access for? Who does it benefit? Who wants it and who doesn’t want it, and for what reasons? These are questions that we need to keep asking ourselves. 

LO: Have you been in a position where you had to push back on funders or Open Access requirements before? 

Not necessarily a pushback, but our funders have funded a number of similar projects in South Asia, in Mongolia, in Nepal and the MENA region and we have come together as a collective to discuss issues around the ethics and the sustainability of the projects. We have engaged with representatives of our funders trying to explain that what they wanted initially, which is full Open Access, may not be practicable. In fact, there has already been a change in the terminology that is used by the funders. From Open Access, they changed the concept to Public Access, and they have come back to us to say that they can change their contractual terms to be more nuanced and acknowledge the fact that we are in negotiation with national stakeholders and other stakeholders about what should happen to the data. Some of this has been articulated in various meetings, but some of it was trial and error on our side. In other words, with our new proposal for renewal of funding, which was approved, we just included these nuances in the proposal and in our commitment and they were accepted. So in the course of the past four years, through lobbying of the funded projects, we have been able to bring nuance to the way in which the funders themselves think about Open Access. 

Stay tuned for part two of this conversation where Stefania will share some of the challenges of managing research data that are located in different countries!

5000 datasets now in Apollo

Uncategorized

Written by Clair Castle, Dr Kim Clugston, Dr Lutfi Bin Othman, Dr Agustina Martínez-García. 

 How the ‘second life’ of datasets is impacting the research world. Researchers share their stories.

“Research data is the evidence that underpins all research findings. It’s important across disciplines: arts, humanities, social sciences, and STEMM. Preserving and sharing datasets, through Apollo, advances knowledge across research, not only in Cambridge, but across the world – furthering Cambridge’s mission for society and our mission as a national research library.”

Dr Jessica Gardner, University Librarian & Director of Library Services

The research data produced and collected during research takes many different forms: numerical data, digital images, sound recordings, films, interview transcripts, survey data, artworks, texts, musical scores, maps, and fieldwork observations. Apollo collects them all.  

Apollo is the University of Cambridge repository for research datasets. Managed by the Research Data team at Cambridge University Library, Apollo stores and preserves the University’s research outputs.  

The Research Data team guides researchers through all aspects of research data management – how to plan, create, organise, curate and share research materials, whatever form they take – and assists researchers in meeting funders’ expectations and good research practice.  

In this blog post, upon reaching our 5000 datasets milestone, we share researcher stories about the impact their datasets have had, and continue to have, across research – and explain how researchers at the University can benefit from depositing their datasets on Apollo.

“Sharing data propels research forward. It recognises the importance of the original datasets in their own right, and the researchers who worked on them. Many of the research funders, supporting work at the University of Cambridge, require that research data is made openly available with as few restrictions as possible. Our researchers are fully supported to do this with Apollo and the Research Data team. I’m really excited that Apollo has reached the 5000 dataset milestone.” 

Professor Sir John Aston, Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research at the University of Cambridge 

Why should researchers share their research outputs on a repository?  

Making research data openly available is recognised as an important aspect of research integrity and in recent years has garnered support from funders, publishers and researchers. Open data supports the FAIR principles and many funders now include data sharing practices within their policies as part of the application process. Publishers and funders often require a data availability statement (DAS) to be included in publications. It is worth mentioning (including in a DAS) that there are situations where data cannot be shared, particularly if data contains personal or sensitive information or where there is no permission to share it. But a lot of data can be shared and this movement towards open data promotes greater trust, both among researchers and for engagement with the general public.   

Illustration of why it is good to share research data. The illustration is explained in the text of the blog immediately below.

In the UK, funding bodies often mandate openly sharing the data supporting their research grants. A large proportion of funding for research is from taxpayers’ money or charity donations so making data available openly for reuse provides value for money. It also allows the data behind claims to be accessed for traceability, transparency and reproducibility. Open data increases efficiency, as it prevents work being repeated that may have already been done; for this reason, it is encouraged to publish negative results too. Publishing data gives researchers credit for the work they have done, giving them more visibility in their field, and increasing the discoverability of their research which could lead to potential collaborations and increased citations. Open data also means that researchers have access to valuable datasets that could educate, enhance and further their research when applied by practitioners worldwide.  

The second life of data   

Apollo supports data from all disciplines, and this is represented by the various formats that the repository holds in its collection –  from movie files, images, audio recordings, or code, to the more common text and CSV files. The repository now also hosts methods. Researchers are encouraged to deposit these outputs onto the repository to facilitate the impact and re-use of data underlying their research, so that their research data can be cited as a form of scholarly output in their own right. In 2023, there were over 95,000 views of datasets and software and associated metadata items on Apollo, and over 37,000 files were downloaded (source: IRUS). This proves that datasets and software deposited on Apollo are easy to discover and are highly used.  

One example is a dataset deposited by Douglas Brion at the end of his PhD in the Engineering department. Brion’s dataset, titled Data set for “Generalisable 3D printing error detection and correction via multi-head neural networks” has been downloaded 2,600 times. This dataset has also been featured in 20 online news publications (including in the University’s Research blog) and has an Altmetric attention score of 151. Brion’s dataset is also one of the larger outputs on Apollo, comprising over 1.2 million labelled images and over 900,000 pre-filtered images.   

The open availability of Brion’s data that can be used to train AI (a significant trajectory for research currently) is welcomed by researchers such as AI specialist Bill Marino, a PhD candidate and Data Champion from the Department of Computer Science and Technology: “It’s really important that AI researchers are able to reproduce each other’s findings. The opaque nature of some of today’s AI models means that access to data is a key ingredient of AI reproducibility. This effort really helps get us there.”   

Brion considers that sharing his data “has significantly enhanced the impact and reach” of his research and that “it has increased the visibility and credibility of my work, as other scientists can validate and build upon my findings.” On the benefits of depositing data on a repository, he says that sharing “ensures that the data is preserved and accessible for the long term, which is crucial for reproducibility and transparency in research”. He adds, “Repositories often provide metadata and tools that make it easier for other researchers to find and use the data”, which “promotes a culture of openness and collaboration, which can accelerate scientific discovery and innovation.”  

Photo of a researcher searching Apollo, the University of Cambridge repository, on a computer.

Research data supporting “Regime transitions and energetics of sustained stratified shear flows” is a dataset from another depositor, Adrien Lefauve, from the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics and consists of MATLAB codes and accompanying movies files. Lefauve is, in fact, a frequent dataset depositor with 10 datasets published in Apollo. He considers that data sharing gives his data “a second life” by allowing researchers to reuse his data in pursuit of new projects but admits that “there is also a selfish reason for doing it!”. He explains that “After several months or years without having worked on a dataset, I sometimes need to go back to it, either by myself or when I hand it over to a colleague or student to test new ideas. Having a well-structured, user-friendly and thoroughly documented dataset is invaluable and will save you a lot of time and frustration when you need to resurrect your own research.”  

Lefauve’s dataset has been cited in other publications and he encourages other researchers to look at his datasets and reuse them: “When people see that datasets can be cited in their own right and attract citations, it can encourage them to make the extra effort to deposit their data”. Lefauve is an advocate for sharing data on a repository and in his view data sharing is: “not only important for research integrity and reproducibility, but it also ensures that research funds are used efficiently. My datasets are usually from laboratory experiments which can take a lot of time and resources to perform. Hence, I feel there is a duty to ensure the data can be used to the fullest by the community. It also helps build a researcher’s profile and credentials as a valuable contributor to the community, beyond simply publication output, which often only use a small fraction of a dataset.”  

Lefauve describes his field (fluid mechanics) as one that has benefited from the explosion of open data that is made available to the research community, but he is also aware that for a dataset to be reused, it requires comprehensive documentation and curation. Lefauve hopes that sharing data in a repository “will become increasingly commonplace as the next generation is taught that this is an essential part of data-intensive research.”  

How to deposit data on Apollo, and why choose Apollo 

There are thousands of data repositories to submit data to, so how to choose the right one? Funders may specify a disciplinary or institutional repository (see re3data.org for a directory of all repositories). Members of the University of Cambridge can deposit their data on the institutional repository, Apollo. Apollo has CoreTrustSeal certification, which means it has met the 16 requirements to be a sustainable and trustworthy infrastructure. Research outputs can be deposited as several types, such as dataset, code or method.  

We have a step by step guide to uploading a dataset, which is submitted through Symplectic Elements, the University’s research information management system. There is also a helpful information guide about Symplectic Elements on the Research Information Sharepoint site. The Research Data team are on hand to help researchers with any queries they might have during this process.    

The importance of good metadata  

Researchers may think that the files are the most important aspect when depositing a dataset, but we cannot emphasise enough the importance of providing good metadata (data about data) to go alongside the files. This is the area that we find researchers need some encouragement with, but we hope that the experiences of the researchers we have featured above highlight the importance that good metadata has for their data. No one knows their data better than the person who generated it, so they are in the best position to describe it. A good description of a dataset enables users with no prior knowledge about the dataset to be able to discover, understand and reuse the data correctly, avoiding misinterpretation, without having access to the paper it supports. Be aware that others may discover datasets in isolation from a paper that it supports: we recommend that researchers avoid referring to the paper or using the abstract of the paper to describe their dataset. An article abstract describes the contents of the article, not of the dataset. It can also be really useful for researchers to describe their methods and how their files are organised for example, by providing README files. These give the dataset context as to how the data was generated, collected and processed. Good metadata will also enhance a dataset’s discoverability.  

Another benefit of sharing data on Apollo is that our datasets are indexed on Google’s Dataset Search, a search engine for datasets. It is best practice to cite any datasets used in research in the bibliography/reference list of the paper, thesis etc. In fact, there is new guidance for Data Reuse on the Apollo website which describes how to use Apollo to discover research data and how to cite it. We advise that researchers start doing this now (if they don’t already) so they get into a good habit: it will encourage others to do the same and make it a lot easier for others to reuse data and for researchers to receive recognition for it. Citation data for datasets are displayed on Apollo and alongside this it is possible to track the attention that a dataset receives via an Altmetric Attention Score.   

Apollo repository key milestones  

Illustration of Apollo repository key milestones represented as a timeline. The illustration is explained in the text of the blog immediately below.

Since its inception in 2016, when it started minting DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers), Apollo has continued to hit milestones and develop into the robust, safe and resilient repository infrastructure that it is today.  

Apollo has continued to support FAIR principles by incorporating new and critical functionality to further enhance discovery, access and long-term preservation of the University research outputs it holds. For example, integration with our CRIS (Current Research Information System), Symplectic Elements, to streamline the depositing process, and integration with JISC Publications Router to automatically deposit metadata-rich records in Apollo (2016, 2019, 2021).  

2000 datasets were deposited in Apollo by 2020. DOI versioning was enabled in 2023, as well as accepting more research output types than ever before, such as methods and pre-prints. A major milestone was hit in 2023 when Apollo achieved CoreTrustSeal certification and status as a trustworthy repository.  

The latest milestone will be for research outputs published within Octopus, a novel approach to publication, to be preserved together with associated publications and underpinning research datasets in Apollo to facilitate sharing and re-use (2024-25). In future we want to develop our ability to collect and interpret data citation statistics for Apollo so we can better assess the impact of the research data generated at the University.  

How we can support researchers  

The Research Data team is here to help!   

We can be contacted by email at info@data.cam.ac.uk. Researchers can also request a consultation with us to discuss any aspect of their research data management (RDM) needs, including data management plans, data storage and backup, data organisation, data deposition and sharing, funder data policies, or to request bespoke training.   

Remember that there is also an amazing network of Data Champions that can be called upon for advice, particularly from a disciplinary perspective.  

We deliver regular RDM training as part of the Research Skills Programme.   

Finally, there is our Research Data website for comprehensive advice and information.