Ali Krzton
Research Data Management Librarian
Auburn University Libraries
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9979-2471
Introduction
Librarians who provide data services directly to researchers are skilled at “translating” the benefits of recommended data management practices into outcomes those researchers understand and value. Administrators, in contrast, look at the pros and cons of research activities differently and describe their programmatic goals in opaque terms. This can make it challenging for data librarians to communicate with them as effectively. Connecting with an administrative audience is nevertheless important in two respects. First, research administrators typically have more regular contact with investigators than librarians do, serving as a key source for information on policies and practices. In addition, securing and maintaining support for institutional data management initiatives often depends on administrative buy-in.
In 2024, the Research Data Management Librarian at Auburn University saw an opportunity to raise interest in research data sharing by drawing attention to federal research sponsors’ public access mandates. The plan was to provide evidence of a gap between the requirements and the actual data sharing behavior of AU researchers, then suggest research administrators partner with the Libraries to deliver services that could address this issue. To assist with this project, the RDM Librarian recruited an undergraduate student fellow and a librarian participating in the Data Services Continuing Professional Education (DSCPE) program. Together, this team would investigate the actual public availability of data from federally funded research at Auburn.
Methodology and preliminary reporting
The team began by attempting several complimentary methods for discovering AU researchers’ public data, including searching both publication databases and relevant data repositories by affiliation (Krzton & Loster, 2025). However, the lack of consistent affiliation metadata or ability to filter by it even when present limited the effectiveness of those strategies. The DSCPE capstone mentee made better progress using the NIH grant database to generate a shortlist of Auburn-affiliated PIs who had received awards, which could then be used for author-based searches. This inspired the RDM Librarian to focus solely on discovering data from a different federal sponsor.
USDA-NIFA, like NIH, allows searches for grant awardees narrowed by PI affiliation and also has a public access mandate for data from supported projects. At Auburn University, USDA-NIFA is especially significant as it is responsible for the largest share of AU’s federal research funding. After generating a list of Auburn PIs who received USDA-NIFA grants, the RDM Librarian supervised and assisted the undergraduate student fellow in searching for publications authored by those PIs. Data availability was audited for all such publications that disclosed USDA-NIFA funding. Despite not examining works published before 2020 to keep the task manageable, it became apparent from the analysis that public data sharing remained the exception rather than the rule.
The data availability of each publication was classified according to three categories that emerged as meaningful during the search: data shared in a public repository, data shared in the journal as supplementary information (SI), and “data available upon request” (DAUR). After reviewing nearly three hundred papers with AU-affiliated authors that acknowledged USDA-NIFA funding, we found that only around one in ten had the underlying data in a public repository. Over half of them included data with the article as SI, and the balance had “DAUR” language.
This result, although based on a small segment of Auburn research, was judged important enough to share with other stakeholders. In the spring of 2025, the RDM Librarian presented a summary of the project and its preliminary results at an Associate Deans for Research (ADR) meeting. To ensure attendees understood the implications, it was reiterated that USDA-NIFA’s public data mandate (as well as those of other federal sponsors) put the onus on researchers to provide data in the absence of specific privacy or confidentiality considerations—“DAUR” should no longer appear in published papers, yet it was widespread. Moreover, data shared only as SI is not (freely) publicly available if the related journal article is not open access.
Administrative response
Several research administrators indicated interest in public data sharing and followed up with questions after attending the meeting. In particular, one associate dean reached out for assistance with reviewing his lab’s data assets and also directed a coauthor to consult with the RDM Librarian concerning the data associated with their next manuscript submission. Administrators also took action with respect to two other pertinent projects that have been moving forward since the initial discussion.
A research data retention policy, intended to supplement the existing AU Research Data Policy and clarify its implementation, was drafted by an associate vice president and an associate dean over the summer. This was done primarily in response to data stewardship uncertainties that arose from a PI’s transfer to another university, but it was informed by the presentation at the ADR meeting. The RDM Librarian has remained involved throughout the process, providing feedback on drafts and serving as a resource at subsequent meetings where the retention policy has been presented.
In addition, an associate dean expressed support for the idea of a designated AU research data archive. Personnel from AU Libraries and the Office of Information Technology had already discussed the possibility of an OIT-provisioned data archive, and the RDM Librarian mentioned that they were developing a proposal during the meeting. The interested associate dean arranged for the RDM Librarian to be interviewed on the subject of archiving campus data for the next edition of his college’s research newsletter. While a university data archive would not be public, it would greatly streamline the process of reviewing the products of federally funded research to identify datasets that could and should be deposited into recognized public repositories.
Follow-up and next steps
At the time of this writing, the research data retention policy was still in review. The RDM Librarian will provide additional feedback on new drafts and clarify related data stewardship issues during subsequent open discussions, for instance at future University Senate meetings. It will also be critical for AU Libraries to continue working with the Office of Information Technology to shape decisions about data storage and archiving services.
A priority with respect to research data services moving forward is stronger communication on the topic of journal article supplemental information. Authors already open to sharing data via SI can be directed towards recommended repositories instead, but ideally these discussions could begin either with AU Libraries or research administrators. In the coming year, the RDM Librarian will leverage existing partnerships to create and distribute resources that help connect researchers with public repositories appropriate for their work. If researchers engage with administrators about data sharing during project closeout and those administrators provide enough information and support for the researchers to deposit their data independently, that would go a long way to closing the gap between the expectation and the reality of public access to research data.
Building collaborative relationships with research administrators is not easy and takes time, but it is worthwhile for librarians involved with data services. One way to get started is to attend meetings or events where these administrators discuss their priorities. Although it may be tempting to jump in with comprehensive information or correct misconceptions to establish credibility in these contexts, just listening at first can be a better option. Listening helps to focus on other perspectives with the goal of genuine understanding, which improves the quality of contributions to later discussions. Persistence and patience are strategies any librarian can employ to improve administrative outreach.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Samantha Loster (Rosalind Franklin University) and Jesy Heard (Auburn University) for their invaluable assistance on this project and the many hours they spent searching for data. The author acknowledges Auburn University Libraries for funding Jesy’s student fellowship and the DSCPE program for facilitating Samantha’s capstone work with AUL.
References
Krzton, A., & Loester, S. (March 12, 2025). A multi-strategic approach to locating institutional data deposits. Poster presented at the 2025 Research Data Access and Preservation Summit. https://doi.org/10.35099/69dg-j525
