Commit 5615ab2f authored by Cassandra Gould van Praag's avatar Cassandra Gould van Praag
Browse files

updates on actions

parent 2221e1a4
......@@ -221,7 +221,27 @@ Add below any comments about each of the steps in this process.
## Post-meeting summary
Once people were aware of the complexities around data sharing, they were sympathetic to the size of the task in developing the appropriate infrastructure.
## New issues/actions
1) Incorporate Open Brain Consent advice into WIN participant information sheets and consent forms - Added to repo as issue #11.
2)
Reminder that "All Wellcome-funded researchers are expected to manage their research outputs in a way that will achieve the greatest health benefit, maximising the availability of research data, software and materials with as few restrictions as possible.". This project is therefore well aligned with the priorities of Wellcome.
### Data Governance
- No attendees had been on the central University Data Management training. Only one had created a data management plan (DMP). This may reflect career stage of attendees (mostly postdoc).
- Most attendees unsure when they last completed data security training.
- Attendees would like some clarity around which issues of data governance are the individual researcher responsibility, and which are the PIs.
### Actions
- [x] Add a link to the WIN Template DMP in the decision tree.
- [x] Add training course name for people to search for.
- [ ] Consider creating a module on data governance and management for WIN graduate program, and/or guide for intranet. Researchers should know where to locate study specific DPIA and DMP.
- [x] Consider splitting the whole decision tree into "PI level" and "researcher level" actions. - Update: Suggestion from [@msouth](https://git.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/msouth): This may apply to all the different stakeholders (ethics IRB, InfoSec, contracts..). See [issue #19](https://git.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/open-science/community/data-sharing-decision-tree/-/issues/19)
### Ethics
- People want clarity about what data can be considered fully anonymous. For example, is reaction time data ok? Is pupilometry ok? Are all recordings from humans considered "biodata" by GDPR and therefore personal?
#### Actions
- [x] Give explicit reference of the participant information sheet and consent wording which is currently appropriate to allow sharing on WIN open data repository. - Update: See [issue #14](https://git.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/open-science/community/data-sharing-decision-tree/-/issues/14_)
- [ ] Make a route for people who don't have ethics for sharing included in their ethics approval. They should be guided to the contracts process, with a suggested approach for "data available upon request". - Update: The whole section about contracts need to be extended. See [issue #20](https://git.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/open-science/community/data-sharing-decision-tree/-/issues/20)
- [x] Look into the [Physics Technical Development SOP](https://sharepoint.nexus.ox.ac.uk/sites/NDCN/FMRIB/Shared%20Documents/SOP_Technical_Development_Scanning.pdf#search=technical%20development) regarding wording about data sharing - Update: See [issue #16](https://git.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/open-science/community/data-sharing-decision-tree/-/issues/16)
- [x] Generate a list of data types which are routinely collected at WIN and describe their baseline and potential levels of anonymity. - Update: See [issue #18](https://git.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/open-science/community/data-sharing-decision-tree/-/issues/18)
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment