Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 28, Issue 10, pp 975–988 | Cite as

Academic librarians at play in the field of cheminformatics: building the case for chemistry research data management

  • Leah McEwen
  • Ye Li


There are compelling needs from a variety of camps for more chemistry data to be available. While there are funder and government mandates for depositing research data in the United States and Europe, this does not mean it will be done well or expediently. Chemists themselves do not appear overly engaged at this stage and chemistry librarians who work directly with chemists and their local information environments are interested in helping with this challenge. Our unique understanding of organizing data and information enables us to contribute to building necessary infrastructure and establishing standards and best practices across the full research data cycle. As not many support structures focused on chemistry currently exist, we are initiating explorations through a few case studies and focused pilot projects presented here, with an aim of identifying opportunities for increased collaboration among chemists, chemistry librarians, cheminformaticians and other chemistry professionals.


Chemistry librarians Research data management Chemistry metadata Chemical health and safety 



The authors would like to thank colleagues at several institutions including the Cornell University and University of Michigan Libraries and Departments of Chemistry respectively, the American Chemical Society, and the Royal Society of Chemistry; particularly Ralph Stuart in the Environmental Health and Safety Department at Cornell University for collaborating on the iRAMP project; and Dr. Kazuhiro Saitou, Dr. Gus Rosania, and Dr. Jungkap Park at the University of Michigan for the collaboration opportunity on the ChemReader project.


  1. 1.
    Carol T, Suzie A, Kimberly D, Aydinoglu AU, Wu L, Read E, Manoff M, Mike F (2011) Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS One 6(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021101
  2. 2.
    Li Y, Tschirhart L (2012) Preparing To support research data sharing. In: Xiao N, McEwen LR (eds) Special issues in data management, vol 1110. ACS symposium series. American Chemical Society, pp 145–162. doi: 10.1021/bk-2012-1110.ch009
  3. 3.
    Velden T, Lagoze C (2009) Communicating chemistry. Nat Chem 1(9):673–678. doi: 10.1038/nchem.448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weisgerber DW (1997) Chemical abstracts service chemical registry system: history, scope, and impacts. J Am Soc Inf Sci 48(4):349–360. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199704)48:4<349:aid-asi8>;2-w CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ridley DD (2009) Front matter. In: Information retrieval: SciFinder®. Wiley, pp i–xii. doi: 10.1002/9780470749418.fmatter
  6. 6.
    Meehan P, Schofield H (2001) CrossFire: a structural revolution for chemists. Online Inf Rev 25(4):241–249. doi: 10.1108/14684520110403768 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    PubChem. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  8. 8.
    ChemSpider. Royal Society of Chemistry. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  9. 9.
    Open PHACTS: Open pharmaceutical space open PHACTS consortium. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  10. 10.
    Data Management and Sharing Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). National Science Foundation. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  11. 11.
    Tenopir C, Sandusky RJ, Allard S, Birch B (2013) Academic librarians and research data services: preparation and attitudes. IFLA J 39(1):70–78. doi: 10.1177/0340035212473089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Environmental Scan 2013 (2013) Association of College and Research Library, Research Planning and Review Committee. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  13. 13.
    Willett P (2008) From chemical documentation to chemoinformatics: 50 years of chemical information science. J Inf Sci 34(4):477–499. doi: 10.1177/0165551507084631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Warr W (2011) Some trends in chem(o)informatics. In: Bajorath J (ed) Chemoinformatics and computational chemical biology. Methods in molecular biology, vol 672. Humana Press, New York, pp 1–37. doi: 10.1007/978-1-60761-839-3_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    William KM, Suzie A, Amber EB, Robert C, Kimberly D, Mike F, Steve K, Rebecca JK, Carol T, David AV (2012) Participatory design of DataONE—enabling cyberinfrastructure for the biological and environmental sciences. Ecol Inform 11:5–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2011.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Erway R (2013) Starting the Conversation: university-wide research data management policy. OCLC Research. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  17. 17.
    Currano JN, Roth D (eds) (2014) Chemical information for chemists: a primer. Royal Society of Chemistry, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Data Curation Profile Toolkit. Purdue University & University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  19. 19.
    Data Curation Profiles Directory. Purdue University. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  20. 20.
    Townsend JA, Adams SE, Waudby CA, de Souza VK, Goodman JM, Murray-Rust P (2004) Chemical documents: machine understanding and automated information extraction. Org Biomol Chem 2(22):3294–3300. doi: 10.1039/b411033a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gurulingappa H, Mudi A, Toldo L, Hofmann-Apitius M, Bhate J (2013) Challenges in mining the literature for chemical information. RSC Adv. doi: 10.1039/c3ra40787j Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li Y (2014) Profiling common types of research data produced by chemists at the University of Michigan. In: 247th ACS national meeting and exposition, American Chemical Society, Dallas, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Batchelor C (2014) Chem Methods Ontol (Accessed Feb 2014)
  24. 24.
    Chemical Methods Ontology (CMO) R Soc Chem. (Accessed Feb 2014)
  25. 25.
    The database and ontology of chemical entities of biological interest. European Bioinformatics Institute, European Molecular Biology Laboratory. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  26. 26.
    Park J, Rosania GR, Saitou K (2009) Tunable machine vision-based strategy for automated annotation of chemical databases. J Chem Inf Model 49(8):1993–2001. doi: 10.1021/ci900029v CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS) (rev. 5) (2013) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  28. 28.
    Borkum M Machine-processable representation and application of the Globally Harmonized System. In: 247th ACS national meeting and exposition, American Chemical Society, Dallas, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kemsley J (2014) Chemistry professors promote lab safety. Chem Eng News 92(23):30–31Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Experimenting with Danger. U.S. Chemical Safety Board. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  31. 31.
    Identifying and evaluating hazards in research laboratories (2013) American Chemical Society Committee on Chemical Safety. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  32. 32.
    Hill RH, Finster DC (2010) Laboratory safety for chemistry students. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    The iRAMP Development Blog. (Accessed June 2014)
  34. 34.
    Busacca CA, Eriksson MC, Haddad N, Han ZS, Lorenz JC, Qu B, Zeng X, Senanayake CH (2013) Practical synthesis of di-tert-butyl-phosphinoferrocene. Org Synth 90:316–326. doi: 10.15227/orgsyn.090.0316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Urben PG (ed) (2007) Bretherick’s handbook of reactive chemical hazards. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kemsley J (2014) Explosion injures University of Minnesota graduate student. American Chemical Society. (Accessed June 2014)
  37. 37.
    González-Bobes F, Kopp N, Li L, Deerberg J, Sharma P, Leung S, Davies M, Bush J, Hamm J, Hrytsak M (2012) Scale-up of azide chemistry: a case study. Org Process Res Dev 16(12):2051–2057. doi: 10.1021/op3002646 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association. (Accessed June 2014)
  39. 39.
    Safety in Research Laboratories_UC CLS Workshop 2014 UC Center for Laboratory Safety. (Accessed June 2014)
  40. 40.
    Wrublewski D (2014) Lab safety—chemistry—libguides at Caltech. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  41. 41.
    Baysinger G (2014) Lab safety—guides—Stanford University Libraries. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  42. 42.
    Conneting Chemistry and Safety. American Chemical Society, Division of Chemical Health and Safety. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  43. 43.
    Lab and Research Safety. Cornell University, Environmental Health and Safety. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  44. 44.
    Stuart R, Toreki R (2014) Learning opportunities in three years of hazmat headlines. J Chem Health Saf 21(2):2–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jchas.2013.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bassan E, Ruck RT, Dienemann E, Emerson KM, Humphrey GR, Raheem IT, Tschaen DM, Vickery TP, Wood HB, Yasuda N (2013) Merck’s reaction review policy: an exercise in process safety. Org Process Res Dev 17(12):1611–1616. doi: 10.1021/op4002033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    UC Center for Laboratory Safety. (Accessed June 2014)
  47. 47.
    Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies (2011) Prudent practices in the laboratory: handling and management of chemical hazards, updated version. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Brecher J (2008) Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC recommendations 2008). Pure Appl Chem 80(2):277–410. doi: 10.1351/pac200880020277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    NIST Standard Reference Data National Institute of Standards and Technology. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  50. 50.
    Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  51. 51.
    David PM (2012) Supplemental journal article materials. In: Special issues in data management, vol 1110. ACS symposium series. American Chemical Society, pp 31–45. doi: 10.1021/bk-2012-1110.ch003
  52. 52.
    Bird CL, Frey JG (2013) Chemical information matters: an e-research perspective on information and data sharing in the chemical sciences. Chem Soc Rev 42(16):6754–6776. doi: 10.1039/c3cs60050e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  54. 54.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology. (Accessed Apr 2014)
  55. 55.
    Ray JM (ed) (2014) Research data management: practical strategies for information professionals. Charleston insights in library, archival, and information sciences. Purdue University Press, West LafayetteGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vaughan KTL, Hayes BE, Lerner RC, McElfresh KR, Pavlech L, Romito D, Reeves LH, Morris EN (2013) Development of the research lifecycle model for library services. J Med Libr Assoc 101(4):310–314. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Coles SJ, Frey JG, Bird CL, Whitby RJ, Day AE (2013) First steps towards semantic descriptions of electronic laboratory notebook records. J Cheminform 5. doi: 10.1186/1758-2946-5-52
  58. 58.
    Cuevas-Vicenttín V, Dey S, Köhler S, Riddle S, Ludäscher B (2012) Scientific workflows and provenance: introduction and research opportunities. Datenbank-Spektrum 12(3):193–203. doi: 10.1007/s13222-012-0100-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Roadmap for synthesis in the 2st Century Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. (Accessed Apr 2014)

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Physical Sciences LibraryCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Shapiro Science LibraryUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations