What’s in the Box? Assessing the potential usability of four decades of thesis and dissertation supplementary files

S. Van Tuyl
{"title":"What’s in the Box? Assessing the potential usability of four decades of thesis and dissertation supplementary files","authors":"S. Van Tuyl","doi":"10.7191/JESLIB.2019.1142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality and usability of supplementary data files deposited, between 1971 and 2015, to our university institutional repository. Understanding the extent to which content historically deposited in digital repositories is usable by today’s researchers can help inform digital preservation and documentation practices for researchers today. Methods: I identified all graduate-level theses and dissertations (GTDs) in the institutional repository with multiple files as a first pass at identifying documents that included supplementary data files. These GTDs were then individually examined, removing supplementary files that were artifacts of either the upload or digitization process. The remaining “true” supplementary files were then individually opened and evaluated following elements of the DATA rubric of Van Tuyl and Whitmire (2016). Results: Supplementary files were discovered in the repository dating back to 1971 in 116 GTD submissions totaling more than 25,000 files. Most GTD submissions included fewer than 30 files, though some submissions included thousands of individual data files. The most common file types submitted included imagery, tabular data, and databases, with a very large number of unknown file types. Overall, levels of documentation were poor while actionability of datasets was generally middling. Conclusions: The results presented in this study suggest that legacy data submitted to our institutional repository with GTDs is generally in poor shape with respect to Transparency and somewhat less so for Actionability. It is clear from this study and others that researchers have a long road ahead when it comes to sharing data in a way that makes it potentially useable by other researchers. Correspondence: Steve.Van Tuyl: steve.vantuyl@oregonstate.edu","PeriodicalId":90214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of escience librarianship","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of escience librarianship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7191/JESLIB.2019.1142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality and usability of supplementary data files deposited, between 1971 and 2015, to our university institutional repository. Understanding the extent to which content historically deposited in digital repositories is usable by today’s researchers can help inform digital preservation and documentation practices for researchers today. Methods: I identified all graduate-level theses and dissertations (GTDs) in the institutional repository with multiple files as a first pass at identifying documents that included supplementary data files. These GTDs were then individually examined, removing supplementary files that were artifacts of either the upload or digitization process. The remaining “true” supplementary files were then individually opened and evaluated following elements of the DATA rubric of Van Tuyl and Whitmire (2016). Results: Supplementary files were discovered in the repository dating back to 1971 in 116 GTD submissions totaling more than 25,000 files. Most GTD submissions included fewer than 30 files, though some submissions included thousands of individual data files. The most common file types submitted included imagery, tabular data, and databases, with a very large number of unknown file types. Overall, levels of documentation were poor while actionability of datasets was generally middling. Conclusions: The results presented in this study suggest that legacy data submitted to our institutional repository with GTDs is generally in poor shape with respect to Transparency and somewhat less so for Actionability. It is clear from this study and others that researchers have a long road ahead when it comes to sharing data in a way that makes it potentially useable by other researchers. Correspondence: Steve.Van Tuyl: steve.vantuyl@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
盒子里有什么?评估四十年来论文和论文补充文件的潜在可用性
目的:本研究的目的是评估1971年至2015年间存入我校机构数据库的补充数据文件的质量和可用性。了解历史上保存在数字存储库中的内容在多大程度上可以被今天的研究人员使用,可以帮助今天的研究人员了解数字保存和文档实践。方法:我用多个文件识别机构存储库中所有研究生水平的论文和学位论文(gtd),作为识别包含补充数据文件的文档的第一步。然后对这些gtd进行单独检查,删除作为上传或数字化过程的工件的补充文件。然后单独打开剩余的“真实”补充文件,并根据Van Tuyl和Whitmire(2016)的DATA标题的元素进行评估。结果:在1971年提交的116份GTD文件中发现了补充文件,总数超过25,000个文件。大多数GTD提交的文件少于30个,尽管有些提交的文件包含数千个单独的数据文件。提交的最常见的文件类型包括图像、表格数据和数据库,还有大量未知的文件类型。总的来说,文档的水平很差,而数据集的可操作性一般是中等的。结论:本研究的结果表明,与gtd一起提交给我们机构存储库的遗留数据在透明度方面通常处于较差的状态,而在可操作性方面则稍差。从这项研究和其他研究中可以清楚地看出,在以一种使其他研究人员可以使用的方式共享数据方面,研究人员还有很长的路要走。函授:史蒂夫。Van Tuyl: steve.vantuyl@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