Call for Proposals: Spring 2020 Editorials

The ResearchDataQ Editorial Board is accepting proposals for editorials to be published on the ResearchDataQ website. Editorials should address best practices for approaches to supporting research data in academic libraries.

Proposals should include:

  1. The best practice you intend to address;
  2. How you implemented it at your library and/or what would be required to implement it elsewhere;
  3. How it relates to any relevant existing recommendations, policies, or standards.

Please submit proposals via this form by February 7, 2020. Authors will be notified of accepted proposals in early March, and we will ask authors to expand accepted proposal topics into approximately 2000 word editorials by the end of April.

If you have any questions, please contact Clara Llebot Lorente (Clara DOT Llebot AT oregonstate DOT edu).


The ResearchDataQ Editorial Board
Andrew Johnson (Convener)
David Durden
Vessela Ensberg
Lynda Kellam
Clara Llebot Lorente
Wendy Mann
Jamie Wittenberg

Editorial: “Give Them What They Want: Graduate Student Workshops Focused on Skills, Not Theory”

The fifth and final post for 2019 in our editorial series, by Clara Llebot Lorente and Hannah Rempel of Oregon State University, shares lessons learned about tailoring workshops for graduate students to skills rather than theory. The authors “learned that offering content that is initially abstract, but which is based in practice better aligns with our audience’s learning preferences and results in more successful workshops for both attendees and librarians.” They provide best practices for designing library workshops based on their experiences and registration data, including specific recommendations for data management-focused workshops. Read the editorial here.

Editorial: “Radical Collaboration: Making the Computational Turn in Special Collections and Archives”

We are excited to announce that the third post in our series of editorials has been published. This editorial, by Justin D. Shanks, Sara Mannheimer, and Jason Clark of Montana State University, presents a case study of “radical collaboration” at their institution. They discuss the process of bringing together library employees working in data, digital scholarship, archives, and special collections so that “new ideas can be incubated and library and archives projects can be strengthened in a unified, co-located, cross-domain environment.” The editorial includes “thoughts regarding the potential of radical collaboration and the future of academic libraries, research data, and digital scholarship.” Read the editorial here.

Editorial: “What About the Little Guys?: How to Approach Supporting Research Data Management at a Small Liberal Arts College”

We are excited to announce that the second post in our series of editorials has been published. This editorial, by Rachel Walton and Patti McCall-Wright of Rollins College, explores issues with research data management support at a small liberal arts college. The authors challenge the narrative “that real research and datasets are not components of a liberal arts college”, and share what they learned from documenting and examining the many “data stories” they heard from people at their institution. Read the editorial here.

First editorial published: “The Boilerplate Problem in Data Management Plans”

We are very excited to announce that we have published the first of five editorials we received in response to our open call for proposals last spring. The first editorial, authored by Spencer D. C. Keralis, Elizabeth Grumbach, and Sarah Potvin, describes their “discovery of the prevalence of boilerplate language describing institutional repositories or digital libraries infrastructure and metadata schemas” from their research examining successful grant proposals from the National Endowment for the Humanities Office of Digital Humanities (NEH-ODH). Read the editorial here.

What happened to DataQ?

When we moved the (initially IMLS-funded) DataQ project to the ACRL Digital Scholarship Section in 2018, we decided that it was time for a new name to better reflect our mission and make ourselves more easily discoverable and identifiable. We obviously chose ResearchDataQ, which already happened to be part of our URL and our Twitter handle. For anyone not familiar with the earlier DataQ project, it operated primarily as a question and answer service. In the interest of documenting and preserving the history of that first phase of this project, a data set containing all of the questions we received from the community as well as the answers provided by our editors can be found here: