EN

Research Transparency: A Preliminary Study of Disciplinary Conceptualisation, Drivers, Tools and Support Services

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Liz Lyon, Wei Jeng, Eleanor Mattern

This paper describes a preliminary study of research transparency, which draws on the findings from four focus group sessions with faculty in chemistry, law, urban and social studies, and civil and environmental engineering.

The multi-faceted nature of transparency is highlighted by the broad ways in which the faculty conceptualised the concept (data sharing, ethics, replicability) and the vocabulary they used with common core terms identified (data, methods, full disclosure).

The associated concepts of reproducibility and trust are noted. The research lifecycle stages are used as a foundation to identify the action verbs and software tools associated with transparency.

A range of transparency drivers and motivations are listed. The role of libraries and data scientists is discussed in the context of the provision of transparency services for researchers.

URL : Research Transparency: A Preliminary Study of Disciplinary Conceptualisation, Drivers, Tools and Support Services

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v12i1.530

EN

Amplifying Data Curation Efforts to Improve the Quality of Life Science Data

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Mariam Alqasab, Suzanne M. Embury, Sandra de F. Mendes Sampaio

In the era of data science, datasets are shared widely and used for many purposes unforeseen by the original creators of the data. In this context, defects in datasets can have far reaching consequences, spreading from dataset to dataset, and affecting the consumers of data in ways that are hard to predict or quantify.

Some form of waste is often the result. For example, scientists using defective data to propose hypotheses for experimentation may waste their limited wet lab resources chasing the wrong experimental targets. Scarce drug trial resources may be used to test drugs that actually have little chance of giving a cure.

Because of the potential real world costs, database owners care about providing high quality data. Automated curation tools can be used to an extent to discover and correct some forms of defect.

However, in some areas human curation, performed by highly-trained domain experts, is needed to ensure that the data represents our current interpretation of reality accurately.

Human curators are expensive, and there is far more curation work to be done than there are curators available to perform it. Tools and techniques are needed to enable the full value to be obtained from the curation effort currently available.

In this paper,we explore one possible approach to maximising the value obtained from human curators, by automatically extracting information about data defects and corrections from the work that the curators do.

This information is packaged in a source independent form, to allow it to be used by the owners of other databases (for which human curation effort is not available or is insufficient).

This amplifies the efforts of the human curators, allowing their work to be applied to other sources, without requiring any additional effort or change in their processes or tool sets. We show that this approach can discover significant numbers of defects, which can also be found in other sources.

URL : Amplifying Data Curation Efforts to Improve the Quality of Life Science Data

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v12i1.495

EN

Connecting Data Publication to the Research Workflow: A Preliminary Analysis

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Sünje Dallmeier-Tiessen, Varsha Khodiyar, Fiona Murphy, Amy Nurnberger, Lisa Raymond, Angus Whyte

The data curation community has long encouraged researchers to document collected research data during active stages of the research workflow, to provide robust metadata earlier, and support research data publication and preservation.

Data documentation with robust metadata is one of a number of steps in effective data publication. Data publication is the process of making digital research objects ‘FAIR’, i.e. findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable; attributes increasingly expected by research communities, funders and society.

Research data publishing workflows are the means to that end. Currently, however, much published research data remains inconsistently and inadequately documented by researchers.

Documentation of data closer in time to data collection would help mitigate the high cost that repositories associate with the ingest process. More effective data publication and sharing should in principle result from early interactions between researchers and their selected data repository.

This paper describes a short study undertaken by members of the Research Data Alliance (RDA) and World Data System (WDS) working group on Publishing Data Workflows. We present a collection of recent examples of data publication workflows that connect data repositories and publishing platforms with research activity ‘upstream’ of the ingest process.

We re-articulate previous recommendations of the working group, to account for the varied upstream service components and platforms that support the flow of contextual and provenance information downstream.

These workflows should be open and loosely coupled to support interoperability, including with preservation and publication environments. Our recommendations aim to stimulate further work on researchers’ views of data publishing and the extent to which available services and infrastructure facilitate the publication of FAIR data.

We also aim to stimulate further dialogue about, and definition of, the roles and responsibilities of research data services and platform providers for the ‘FAIRness’ of research data publication workflows themselves.

URL : Connecting Data Publication to the Research Workflow: A Preliminary Analysis

DOI : https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v12i1.533

EN

Scholars on Twitter: who and how many are they?

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors :  Rodrigo Costas, Jeroen van Honk, Thomas Franssen

In this paper we present a novel methodology for identifying scholars with a Twitter account. By combining bibliometric data from Web of Science and Twitter users identified by Altmetric.com we have obtained the largest set of individual scholars matched with Twitter users made so far.

Our methodology consists of a combination of matching algorithms, considering different linguistic elements of both author names and Twitter names; followed by a rule-based scoring system that weights the common occurrence of several elements related with the names, individual elements and activities of both Twitter users and scholars matched.

Our results indicate that about 2% of the overall population of scholars in the Web of Science is active on Twitter. By domain we find a strong presence of researchers from the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Natural Sciences is the domain with the lowest level of scholars on Twitter.

Researchers on Twitter also tend to be younger than those that are not on Twitter. As this is a bibliometric-based approach, it is important to highlight the reliance of the method on the number of publications produced and tweeted by the scholars, thus the share of scholars on Twitter ranges between 1% and 5% depending on their level of productivity. Further research is suggested in order to improve and expand the methodology.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.05667

EN

Open Access in the United Kingdom

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Author : Martin Paul Eve

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been a leader in the advance towards open access (OA) to scholarship and research. Indeed, a combination of centralized, state research-funding bodies, coupled with a nationwide openness and transparency agenda has created an economic and political climate in which discourses of open science and scholarship can flourish.

Although different parts of UK policy on open access have not been universally well received by those in the academy and those in publishing, there have also been two official parliamentary hearings into open access; a set of reviews and recommendations, headed by Professor Adam Tickell; and a variety of implementation strategies from different private and public funders and institutions.

In this chapter, I briefly cover the political and economic elements of open access as they have emerged in the UK, spanning: funders, politics, institutions, publishers, and academics. Please note that this chapter will be available openly one year after publication.

URL : http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/16684/

EN

Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Tony Ross-Hellauer, Arvid Deppe, Birgit Schmidt

Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken.

This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE2020 project during September and October 2016, that sought to bridge this information gap in order to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about attitudes towards and levels of experience with OPR.

The results of this cross-disciplinary survey, which received 3,062 full responses, show the majority (60.3%) of respondents to be believe that OPR as a general concept should be mainstream scholarly practice (although attitudes to individual traits varied, and open identities peer review was not generally favoured). Respondents were also in favour of other areas of Open Science, like Open Access (88.2%) and Open Data (80.3%).

Among respondents we observed high levels of experience with OPR, with three out of four (76.2%) reporting having taken part in an OPR process as author, reviewer or editor.

There were also high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Respondents were against opening reviewer identities to authors, however, with more than half believing it would make peer review worse.

Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines. Taken together, these findings are very encouraging for OPR’s prospects for moving mainstream but indicate that due care must be taken to avoid a “one-size fits all” solution and to tailor such systems to differing (especially disciplinary) contexts.

OPR is an evolving phenomenon and hence future studies are to be encouraged, especially to further explore differences between disciplines and monitor the evolution of attitudes.

URL : Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311

EN

A Data Citation Roadmap for Scholarly Data Repositories

Posted on by Hans Dillaerts

Authors : Martin Fenner, Mercè Crosas, Jeffrey S. Grethe, David Kennedy, Henning Hermjakob, Phillippe Rocca-Serra, Gustavo Durand, Robin Berjon, Sebastian Karcher, Maryann Martone, Tim Clark

This article presents a practical roadmap for scholarly data repositories to implement data citation in accordance with the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles, a synopsis and harmonization of the recommendations of major science policy bodies.

The roadmap was developed by the Repositories Expert Group, as part of the Data Citation Implementation Pilot (DCIP) project, an initiative of FORCE11.org and the NIH BioCADDIE (https://biocaddie.org) program.

The roadmap makes 11 specific recommendations, grouped into three phases of implementation: a) required steps needed to support the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles, b) recommended steps that facilitate article/data publication workflows, and c) optional steps that further improve data citation support provided by data repositories.

URL : A Data Citation Roadmap for Scholarly Data Repositories

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1101/097196