Peer Review of Research Data Submissions to ScholarsArchive@OSU: How can we improve the curation of research datasets to enhance reusability?

C. Llebot, S. Van Tuyl
{"title":"Peer Review of Research Data Submissions to ScholarsArchive@OSU: How can we improve the curation of research datasets to enhance reusability?","authors":"C. Llebot, S. Van Tuyl","doi":"10.7191/jeslib.2019.1166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Best practices such as the FAIR Principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) were developed to ensure that published datasets are reusable. While we employ best practices in the curation of datasets, we want to learn how domain experts view the reusability of datasets in our institutional repository, ScholarsArchive@OSU. Curation workflows are designed by data curators based on their own recommendations, but research data is extremely specialized, and such workflows are rarely evaluated by researchers. In this project we used peer-review by domain experts to evaluate the reusability of the datasets in our institutional repository, with the goal of informing our curation methods and ensure that the limited resources of our library are maximizing the reusability of research data. Methods: We asked all researchers who have datasets submitted in Oregon State University’s repository to refer us to domain experts who could review the reusability of their data sets. Two data curators who are non-experts also reviewed the same datasets. We gave both groups review guidelines based on the guidelines of several journals. Eleven domain experts and two data curators reviewed eight datasets. The review included the quality of the repository record, the quality of the documentation, and the quality of the data. We then compared the comments given by the two groups. Correspondence: Clara Llebot: clara.llebot@oregonstate.edu","PeriodicalId":90214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of escience librarianship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of escience librarianship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2019.1166","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objective: Best practices such as the FAIR Principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) were developed to ensure that published datasets are reusable. While we employ best practices in the curation of datasets, we want to learn how domain experts view the reusability of datasets in our institutional repository, ScholarsArchive@OSU. Curation workflows are designed by data curators based on their own recommendations, but research data is extremely specialized, and such workflows are rarely evaluated by researchers. In this project we used peer-review by domain experts to evaluate the reusability of the datasets in our institutional repository, with the goal of informing our curation methods and ensure that the limited resources of our library are maximizing the reusability of research data. Methods: We asked all researchers who have datasets submitted in Oregon State University’s repository to refer us to domain experts who could review the reusability of their data sets. Two data curators who are non-experts also reviewed the same datasets. We gave both groups review guidelines based on the guidelines of several journals. Eleven domain experts and two data curators reviewed eight datasets. The review included the quality of the repository record, the quality of the documentation, and the quality of the data. We then compared the comments given by the two groups. Correspondence: Clara Llebot: clara.llebot@oregonstate.edu
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
向ScholarsArchive@OSU提交研究数据的同行评审:我们如何改进研究数据集的管理以增强可重用性?
目标:制定了FAIR原则(可查找性、可访问性、互操作性、可重用性)等最佳实践,以确保已发布的数据集可重复使用。虽然我们在数据集管理方面采用了最佳实践,但我们希望了解领域专家如何看待我们机构存储库中数据集的可重用性,ScholarsArchive@OSU.策展工作流程是由数据策展人根据自己的建议设计的,但研究数据非常专业,研究人员很少对此类工作流程进行评估。在这个项目中,我们使用领域专家的同行评审来评估我们机构存储库中数据集的可重用性,目的是为我们的策展方法提供信息,并确保我们图书馆的有限资源最大限度地提高研究数据的可复用性。方法:我们要求所有在俄勒冈州立大学存储库中提交数据集的研究人员将我们推荐给可以审查其数据集可重用性的领域专家。两位非专家的数据管理员也审查了相同的数据集。我们根据几家期刊的指导方针,为两组提供了复习指导方针。11名领域专家和2名数据管理员审查了8个数据集。审查包括储存库记录的质量、文件的质量和数据的质量。然后,我们比较了两个小组的意见。通讯:Clara Llebot:clara.llebot@oregonstate.edu
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Ethical considerations in utilizing artificial intelligence for analyzing the NHGRI's History of Genomics and Human Genome Project archives. The Creative Urge Title Pending 740 A Problem Shared Is a Community Created: Recommendations for Cross-Institutional Collaborations. Train the Teacher: Practical guidance for effective, critical teaching approaches for science and data librarians
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1