The road to success: drawing parallels between 'road' and 'research data' infrastructures to foster understanding between service providers, funders and policymakers

Rob W.W. Hooft; Elaine Harrison; Corinne S. Martin

doi:10.12688/f1000research.128167.2

Home Browse The road to success: drawing parallels between 'road' and 'research...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Policy Brief

Revised

The road to success: drawing parallels between 'road' and 'research data' infrastructures to foster understanding between service providers, funders and policymakers

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Rob W.W. Hooft ¹, Elaine Harrison², Corinne S. Martin²

PUBLISHED 22 Aug 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences, Utrecht, 3521 AL, The Netherlands
² ELIXIR Hub, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK

Rob W.W. Hooft
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Elaine Harrison
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Corinne S. Martin
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.

This article is included in the ELIXIR gateway.

Abstract

Background: The work of data research infrastructure operators is poorly understood, yet the services they provide are used by millions of scientists across the planet.
Policy and implications: As the data services and the underlying infrastructure are typically funded through the public purse, it is essential that policymakers, research funders, experts reviewing funding proposals, and possibly even end-users are equipped with a good understanding of the daily tasks of service providers.
Recommendations: We suggest drawing parallels between research data infrastructure and road infrastructure. To trigger the imagination and foster understanding, this policy brief contains a table of corresponding aspects of the two classes of infrastructure, and a table of policy implications.
Conclusions: Just as economists and specialist evaluators are typically brought in to inform policies and funding decisions for road infrastructure, we encourage this to also be done for research infrastructures

Keywords

Research Data, Research Infrastructure, Infrastructure Funding, Sustainability

Corresponding author: Rob W.W. Hooft

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This work was supported by ELIXIR, the research infrastructure for life-science data, including the ELIXIR-funded Strategic Implementation Study “Impact evaluation at Node-level - getting it done”. This work also received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 871075 (ELIXIR-CONVERGE).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2023 Hooft RWW et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Hooft RWW, Harrison E and Martin CS. The road to success: drawing parallels between 'road' and 'research data' infrastructures to foster understanding between service providers, funders and policymakers [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2023, 12(ELIXIR):88 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128167.2) First published: 23 Jan 2023, 12(ELIXIR):88 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128167.1) Latest published: 22 Aug 2023, 12(ELIXIR):88 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128167.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

We have taken up the suggestions from the reviewers to improve the paper. The first version had a single comparison table; in the second version this table has been split into two: a table of comparable aspects, and a table of comparable policy implications. Further, the comparisons have undergone a further round of editing.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Silvia Vignetti
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Frédéric Sgard

Introduction

Data-intensive research depends on data and data services, such as databases, software and tools, and standards. These are often made available to end-users through research infrastructure. Such a research infrastructure for biological data and bioinformatics service in Europe is ELIXIR.¹

As is common for many types of infrastructure (especially those that are free at the point of use), the existence of research infrastructure, like the services provided by ELIXIR, is often taken for granted by their users. Their importance is only noticed when they are (temporarily) unavailable, or worse, when they disappear due to discontinued funding.²^,³ In the Kano model, infrastructure services are must-be qualities: their proper functioning does not make the users happy, but service disruptions are strong dissatisfiers.

As research infrastructures and their services are typically funded through the public purse, it is essential that policy makers, research funders, experts reviewing funding proposals, and possibly even end-users are equipped with a good understanding of the daily tasks of service providers. We have noticed that this is not often the case, and this becomes an issue when this lack of understanding affects the funding of research infrastructures (funding decisions are typically made based on scientific advice to funding bodies). To foster better understanding, this policy brief provides a comparison table of features of data infrastructure and their relatable counterparts in road infrastructure (Table 1).

Table 1. Key features of data infrastructure and their relatable counterparts in road infrastructure.

Data infrastructure	Road infrastructure
Data service	Transport infrastructure, such as a road
Researcher using a data service for a project	Car driver using a road for a journey
The service provider who develops and operates a data service	Road construction and maintenance company
Flexible/generic data service	Road suitable for most user types, such as cargo and people
Hacking a data service solution	Driving your own Jeep from London to Cambridge, off-road if needs be
Using a well-documented and well-maintained data service	Driving a well-serviced motorway from London to Cambridge in a mid-class comfortable car
Data service that users need to pay for	Toll road
“Free at the point of use” data service (e.g. centrally financed) with the potential to be oversubscribed or dominated by a subset of users by dumping 1TB of data	Toll-free road with the potential of becoming overcrowded/jammed and dominated by car drivers (in preference to mass transit such as buses, emergency vehicles, non-motorised users such as cyclists)
Data services that can be used by anyone (i.e. users do not need to be a member of the infrastructure	Public roads
Interoperable services	Being able to complete a journey in one vehicle by using roads maintained by different companies and through different countries
Non-interoperable services	A journey being interrupted by the vehicle not being suitable for a new road surface or not being allowed over a country border
Using a well designed data service	Driving your car on an well-marked asphalt road
Creating your own solution without access to common reference standards and guidelines	Building a rough and ready vehicle to carry you across uneven terrain
What can be realistically achieved in a scientific project	How far you can travel in a day
Life scientists’ awareness of ELIXIR’s role in creating and maintainting an infrastructure to support life science research	Public knowledge about the companies building and maintaining roads
Awareness in funding bodies of ELIXIR’s role in creating and maintainting an infrastructure to support life science research	Knowledge in national governments about the companies building and maintaining roads

We believe that this approach can help, firstly because the change in mindset makes it possible to see consequences of certain choices more clearly, especially those linked to funding of research infrastructures. Secondly, many people (decision makers and those influencing the decisions), even those working in research, are much more accustomed to road infrastructure setup and road infrastructure disruptions than to research infrastructure setup and disruptions; this increased familiarity increases the chances that consequences of policy decisions are foreseen.

Policy outcomes and implications

The comparison between research data infrastructure and road infrastructure has many hooks to support productive discussions, and decisions, on research infrastructure funding and sustainability governance. Some examples of policy implications following from the comparison are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Policy implications of the comparison between data infrastructure road infrastructure.

Data infrastructure	Road infrastructure
Thinking data infrastructure is too expensive (or lacking sufficient accommodation of one's specific needs) and preferring to build everything yourself to exact specifications; underestimating the value of services (e.g. 24/7 support) and underestimating the real cost of building everything yourself (excluding e.g. energy bills, and the fact that the postdoc employed for the task is not productive for research work while making weekly backups and troubleshooting issues)	Not believing in road taxes nor other centralised tax systems (or complaining that you have to walk the last bit from the parking lot), underestimating the value provided (to its users) by the road infrastructure and underestimating the cost incurred to get exactly from A->B without roads (i.e. using an all-terrain car), e.g. forgetting that there won't be any gas stations or other support services along the way either
Not knowing whether the data infrastructure will be sustained for the life of your project (and its successor), and therefore building a makeshift infrastructure yourself	Not knowing whether the roads will be maintained for 10 years, and therefore planning your vehicles around off-road travel
Infrastructure investing in services based on community needs	Government prioritising road investments based on transport needs
Asking a research infrastructure provider what scientific breakthroughs the infrastructure will be making. A RI facilitates/enables breakthroughs (as well as enabling more routine research to be carried out) but does not make them nor predict what they will be	Asking a road construction/maintenance company where it will be driving its own cars on the new road, rather than asking what new economic activity the new road will facilitate
Requiring that a funding proposal for "infrastructure" the enables scientific breakthroughs during the lifetime of the grant	Giving a road construction company money to build a road only if they guarantee it will meet a threshold of user journeys during the 3 years it takes to build
Asking top scientists to review proposals for research infrastructure funding. The services that would be offered by the infrastructure would be competing with what they (and only similar top scientists) could achieve in their own labs	Asking those who own expensive Jeeps whether they approve the construction of a public road. They and others with off-road cars do not see the need for roads, they can get along just fine without them

Given that we, the co-authors, all work in research infrastructures, there is an inherent bias in the approach presented, just like when Sutherland et al.⁴ published their “20 things politicians need to know about science”. However, we hope our thoughts have practical use: policymaking is complex and multifaceted, as astutely explained in “20 things scientists need to know about policy”. The comparison tables are simply our contribution to fostering longer-term sustainability of infrastructures that already exist, that are widely used across the world, and that have typically received significant public financing over the years.

Furthermore, the comparison tables are likely to support efforts of both research infrastructure operators and policymakers in more accurately conveying to taxpayers the public value of research infrastructures, in addition to their role as enablers of scientific discovery and applications of societal benefit. The word ‘enablers’ is perhaps the most important message to convey: just like a road enables travel (and a research infrastructure enables research), it is questionable whether it is right to ask the road construction/maintenance company (and the research infrastructure operator) whether the road (and the research infrastructure) brings value to society. Economists and evaluation specialists are very well placed and qualified (and likely unbiased) to answer complex questions around the public value of financing roads and research infrastructures.⁵^,⁶

Actionable recommendations

Recommendation 1: When formulating opinions and decisions on research data infrastructure funding and sustainability governance, compare them with that of road infrastructure. The change of frame may bring new insights.

Recommendation 2: Consider informing policies and funding decisions relating to existing and future research infrastructure with support from economists and specialist evaluators.

Conclusion

We welcome any additional ideas for the comparison as well as discussion on improving the existing tables as comments to this paper. For instance, the parallels could be improved by considering other infrastructures delivering public services, such as water supply and sewage systems. We tried, but found it difficult, to broaden the set of comparisons to also include a sustainable travel angle (e.g. examples covering public transport versus private car travel). Considering the climate emergency, this would be a useful and still relatable expansion of the approach.

Data availability

No data are associated with this article.

References

1. Harrow J, Drysdale R, Smith A, et al.: ELIXIR: providing a sustainable infrastructure for life science data at European scale. Bioinformatics. 15 August 2021; 37(16): 2506–2511. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
2. Merali Z, Giles J: Databases in peril. Nature. 2005; 435: 1010–1011. Publisher Full Text
3. E.g. Figure 6 in Drysdale R, Cook CE, Petryszak R, et al.: The ELIXIR Core Data Resources: fundamental infrastructure for the life sciences. Bioinformatics. 15 April 2020; 36(8): 2636–2642. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Sutherland W, Spiegelhalter D, Burgman M: Policy: Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims. Nature. 2013; 503: 335–337. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Martin CS, Repo S, Arenas Márquez J, et al.: Demonstrating public value to funders and other stakeholders—the journey of ELIXIR, a virtual and distributed research infrastructure for life science data. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2021; 92(3): 497–510. Publisher Full Text
6. Vignetti S, Pezzati L, Striova J, et al.: E-RIHS PP D6.1 Cost Benefit Analysis and socioeconomic impact assessment. Zenodo. 2020. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences, Utrecht, 3521 AL, The Netherlands
² ELIXIR Hub, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK

Rob W.W. Hooft
Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Elaine Harrison
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Corinne S. Martin
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work was supported by ELIXIR, the research infrastructure for life-science data, including the ELIXIR-funded Strategic Implementation Study “Impact evaluation at Node-level - getting it done”. This work also received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 871075 (ELIXIR-CONVERGE).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 22 Aug 2023, 12:88

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128167.2

version 1

Published: 23 Jan 2023, 12:88

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128167.1

© 2023 Hooft RWW et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Hooft RWW, Harrison E and Martin CS. The road to success: drawing parallels between 'road' and 'research data' infrastructures to foster understanding between service providers, funders and policymakers [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2023, 12(ELIXIR):88 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.128167.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 22 Aug 2023

Revised

Views

Reviewer Report 23 Aug 2023

Frédéric Sgard, OECD, Paris, France

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.153851.r198831

No ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 13 Apr 2023

Silvia Vignetti, CSIL, Milan, Italy

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140729.r161289

This article sheds light on the important and often poorly understood world of research infrastructures providing data and other research services to scientific communities around the world to perform excellent science. It does so by showing the features a research infrastructure has with a road infrastructure, with the aim of making clear why and how public funding must be understood and justified.

The article is well-written and to some extent illuminating. The parallel with road infrastructures is fitting quite well with the purpose of the authors. The parallel may go even further in depicting the parallels with other infrastructures delivering public services such as water supply, sewage system and so on. The article however does not fully exploit the potential of this parallel and remains a bit open and generic in the explanations.

First, the table, which is pretty much the core of the article, presents some elements that should be better qualified, explained and perhaps even reconsidered in a few cases (e.g. "data service" corresponds perhaps more to 'transport service' than to "road"; it is not clear why "research project" corresponds to "car" and "project" to "trip, journey"; "oversubscribed service" may be 'crowded road' more than "traffic jam"), so it would be better to add a short explanation or a narrative section where the content of the table is described, justified and put in context.

Second, the policy options and implications do not come immediately from the description of the main common features, especially for those who are not familiar with both research and more traditional infrastructures. Perhaps the table could be split in two to distinguish the key features (first half) from the policy implications on their funding and public justification (second half more or less).

Overall, the article is very interesting and well-conceived, but it would benefit from a small additional effort to better explain the main claim and its implications.

Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?

Yes
Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

Yes

Competing Interests: I hereby declare that, in reviewing the article 'The road to success: drawing parallels between 'road' and 'research data' infrastructures to foster understanding between service providers, funders and policymakers' by Hooft RWW and Martin CST, no conflict of interest applied. In the interest of full transparency, I report herewith the non-financial relationships I have with one of the authors of the paper, Martin C.S.: - During the period 01/01/2018-01/06/2020, on behalf of our own institutes (CSIL and ELIXIR) we were both members of the research team of the project ‘Charting Impact Pathways of Investment in Research Infrastructure’ a research project granted by H2020 programme aimed at developing a model describing the socio-economic impact of research infrastructures and of their related financial investments. In the context of this project, we co-authored the report Deliverable 5.1 of the RI-PATHS Project. - Since the 1st of September 2022, we are both part of the PathOS project, a Horizon Europe programme aiming to collect concrete evidence of Open Science effects and study the pathways of Open Science practices. The project will last four years and we will collaborate to develop a joint case study. We work on PathOS for two different institutions, being partners in the project. They are supposed to be one of the case studies and we are supposed to perform an analysis of impacts generated by one of the open resources they have. Two people are working from their side and three experts are working from our side, in addition to all the other project partners (8 institutions for a total of more than 30 people involved). However, both Martin and I have a more supervising role, while the other colleagues are more hands-on.

Reviewer Expertise: Public policy analysis and evaluation, infrastructure appraisal, economic evaluation

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 29 Nov 2023

Rob Hooft, Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences, Utrecht, 3521 AL, The Netherlands

29 Nov 2023

Author Response

We thank you very much for this accurate and positive description of our work. You make a very good suggestion relating to expanding the analogies to other public service infrastructures. ... Continue reading We thank you very much for this accurate and positive description of our work. You make a very good suggestion relating to expanding the analogies to other public service infrastructures. Along this line and during the writing process, we had actually been tempted to introduce a climate change element to some of the analogies, e.g. how mass transit (train) may not satisfy all the specific transportation needs of all users, just like an international database might not either, yet these are far more cost-effective and climate-friendly than the proliferation of 100s of very specific databases and 1,000s of jeeps on the roads. We have added your suggestions at the end of the article.

We agree with your suggestions on the table. We have split the table as you suggested in version 2 of the article, and have added relevant text in the [now two] tables, which are more readily understandable as a result. We have also invited an additional co-author (Elaine Harrison), with science communications specialism, to reformulate and strengthen the text, in line with the your comments.
We thank you very much for this accurate and positive description of our work. You make a very good suggestion relating to expanding the analogies to other public service infrastructures. Along this line and during the writing process, we had actually been tempted to introduce a climate change element to some of the analogies, e.g. how mass transit (train) may not satisfy all the specific transportation needs of all users, just like an international database might not either, yet these are far more cost-effective and climate-friendly than the proliferation of 100s of very specific databases and 1,000s of jeeps on the roads. We have added your suggestions at the end of the article.

We agree with your suggestions on the table. We have split the table as you suggested in version 2 of the article, and have added relevant text in the [now two] tables, which are more readily understandable as a result. We have also invited an additional co-author (Elaine Harrison), with science communications specialism, to reformulate and strengthen the text, in line with the your comments.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 29 Nov 2023

Rob Hooft, Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences, Utrecht, 3521 AL, The Netherlands

29 Nov 2023

Author Response

We thank you very much for this accurate and positive description of our work. You make a very good suggestion relating to expanding the analogies to other public service infrastructures. ... Continue reading We thank you very much for this accurate and positive description of our work. You make a very good suggestion relating to expanding the analogies to other public service infrastructures. Along this line and during the writing process, we had actually been tempted to introduce a climate change element to some of the analogies, e.g. how mass transit (train) may not satisfy all the specific transportation needs of all users, just like an international database might not either, yet these are far more cost-effective and climate-friendly than the proliferation of 100s of very specific databases and 1,000s of jeeps on the roads. We have added your suggestions at the end of the article.

We agree with your suggestions on the table. We have split the table as you suggested in version 2 of the article, and have added relevant text in the [now two] tables, which are more readily understandable as a result. We have also invited an additional co-author (Elaine Harrison), with science communications specialism, to reformulate and strengthen the text, in line with the your comments.
We thank you very much for this accurate and positive description of our work. You make a very good suggestion relating to expanding the analogies to other public service infrastructures. Along this line and during the writing process, we had actually been tempted to introduce a climate change element to some of the analogies, e.g. how mass transit (train) may not satisfy all the specific transportation needs of all users, just like an international database might not either, yet these are far more cost-effective and climate-friendly than the proliferation of 100s of very specific databases and 1,000s of jeeps on the roads. We have added your suggestions at the end of the article.

We agree with your suggestions on the table. We have split the table as you suggested in version 2 of the article, and have added relevant text in the [now two] tables, which are more readily understandable as a result. We have also invited an additional co-author (Elaine Harrison), with science communications specialism, to reformulate and strengthen the text, in line with the your comments.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 28 Mar 2023

Frédéric Sgard, OECD, Paris, France

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.140729.r164512

This policy brief addresses a very important element of research policy, which is the understanding by decision-makers of the role, relevance, and impact of research infrastructures. In this particular case, of research data infrastructure, by using a comparison with a much well known type of infrastructures: roads. This comparison with a much more mundane example (roads) is aptly supported by a strong argument regarding the usefulness of the infrastructure mostly appears when its activity is disrupted, as normal operation is often taken for granted and thus invisible. The comparison between data research infrastructures and roads is clearly and convincingly argumented. This brief is also timely as funders are increasingly stretched to provide support to existing and new research infrastructures and have to make selective choices in their investments.

Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?

Yes
Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Science policy

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 29 Nov 2023

Rob Hooft, Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences, Utrecht, 3521 AL, The Netherlands

29 Nov 2023

Author Response

We are very grateful for your kind words on the usefulness of this policy brief, especially to funders of research infrastructures. We hope that version 2 has strengthened the brief.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
We are very grateful for your kind words on the usefulness of this policy brief, especially to funders of research infrastructures. We hope that version 2 has strengthened the brief.
We are very grateful for your kind words on the usefulness of this policy brief, especially to funders of research infrastructures. We hope that version 2 has strengthened the brief.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 29 Nov 2023

Rob Hooft, Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences, Utrecht, 3521 AL, The Netherlands

29 Nov 2023

Author Response

We are very grateful for your kind words on the usefulness of this policy brief, especially to funders of research infrastructures. We hope that version 2 has strengthened the brief.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
We are very grateful for your kind words on the usefulness of this policy brief, especially to funders of research infrastructures. We hope that version 2 has strengthened the brief.
We are very grateful for your kind words on the usefulness of this policy brief, especially to funders of research infrastructures. We hope that version 2 has strengthened the brief.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 23 Jan 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 22 Aug 23	read
Version 1 23 Jan 23	read	read

Frédéric Sgard, OECD, Paris, France
Silvia Vignetti, CSIL, Milan, Italy

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

7 Views

23 Aug 2023 | for Version 2

Frédéric Sgard, OECD, Paris, France

7 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

No new comment.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Science policy

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

18 Views

13 Apr 2023 | for Version 1

Silvia Vignetti, CSIL, Milan, Italy

18 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?

Yes
Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

Yes

Competing Interests

I hereby declare that, in reviewing the article 'The road to success: drawing parallels between 'road' and 'research data' infrastructures to foster understanding between service providers, funders and policymakers' by Hooft RWW and Martin CST, no conflict of interest applied. In the interest of full transparency, I report herewith the non-financial relationships I have with one of the authors of the paper, Martin C.S.: - During the period 01/01/2018-01/06/2020, on behalf of our own institutes (CSIL and ELIXIR) we were both members of the research team of the project ‘Charting Impact Pathways of Investment in Research Infrastructure’ a research project granted by H2020 programme aimed at developing a model describing the socio-economic impact of research infrastructures and of their related financial investments. In the context of this project, we co-authored the report Deliverable 5.1 of the RI-PATHS Project. - Since the 1st of September 2022, we are both part of the PathOS project, a Horizon Europe programme aiming to collect concrete evidence of Open Science effects and study the pathways of Open Science practices. The project will last four years and we will collaborate to develop a joint case study. We work on PathOS for two different institutions, being partners in the project. They are supposed to be one of the case studies and we are supposed to perform an analysis of impacts generated by one of the open resources they have. Two people are working from their side and three experts are working from our side, in addition to all the other project partners (8 institutions for a total of more than 30 people involved). However, both Martin and I have a more supervising role, while the other colleagues are more hands-on.

Reviewer Expertise

Public policy analysis and evaluation, infrastructure appraisal, economic evaluation

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

29 Nov 2023

Rob Hooft, Dutch Techcentre for Life Sciences, Utrecht, 3521 AL, The Netherlands

We thank you very much for this accurate and positive description of our work. You make a very good suggestion relating to expanding the analogies to other public service infrastructures. Along this line and during the writing process, we had actually been tempted to introduce a climate change element to some of the analogies, e.g. how mass transit (train) may not satisfy all the specific transportation needs of all users, just like an international database might not either, yet these are far more cost-effective and climate-friendly than the proliferation of 100s of very specific databases and 1,000s of jeeps on the roads. We have added your suggestions at the end of the article.

We agree with your suggestions on the table. We have split the table as you suggested in version 2 of the article, and have added relevant text in the [now two] tables, which are more readily understandable as a result. We have also invited an additional co-author (Elaine Harrison), with science communications specialism, to reformulate and strengthen the text, in line with the your comments.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

24 Views

28 Mar 2023 | for Version 1

Frédéric Sgard, OECD, Paris, France

24 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?

Yes
Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Science policy

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Harrow J, Drysdale R, Smith A, et al.: ELIXIR: providing a sustainable infrastructure for life science data at European scale. Bioinformatics. 15 August 2021; 37(16): 2506–2511. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[2] 2. Merali Z, Giles J: Databases in peril. Nature. 2005; 435: 1010–1011. Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. E.g. Figure 6 in Drysdale R, Cook CE, Petryszak R, et al.: The ELIXIR Core Data Resources: fundamental infrastructure for the life sciences. Bioinformatics. 15 April 2020; 36(8): 2636–2642. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Sutherland W, Spiegelhalter D, Burgman M: Policy: Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims. Nature. 2013; 503: 335–337. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Martin CS, Repo S, Arenas Márquez J, et al.: Demonstrating public value to funders and other stakeholders—the journey of ELIXIR, a virtual and distributed research infrastructure for life science data. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2021; 92(3): 497–510. Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Vignetti S, Pezzati L, Striova J, et al.: E-RIHS PP D6.1 Cost Benefit Analysis and socioeconomic impact assessment. Zenodo. 2020. Publisher Full Text

The road to success: drawing parallels between 'road' and 'research data' infrastructures to foster understanding between service providers, funders and policymakers

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Table 1. Key features of data infrastructure and their relatable counterparts in road infrastructure.

Policy outcomes and implications

Table 2. Policy implications of the comparison between data infrastructure road infrastructure.

Actionable recommendations

Conclusion

Data availability

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated