Biodiversity Data Should Be Published, Cited, and Peer Reviewed. Costello, M. J., Michener, W. K., Gahegan, M., Zhang, Z., & Bourne, P. E. 28(8):454–461. ![Biodiversity Data Should Be Published, Cited, and Peer Reviewed [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Knowledge depends on data and thus data quality. Data publication needs quality assurance standards like conventional publications. Peer review is the highest standard in scientific publications. Indicators for biodiversity data quality, including peer review, are proposed. Concerns over data quality impede the use of public biodiversity databases and subsequent benefits to society. Data publication could follow the well-established publication process: with automated quality checks, peer review, and editorial decisions. This would improve data accuracy, reduce the need for users to 'clean' the data, and might increase data use. Authors and editors would get due credit for a peer-reviewed (data) publication through use and citation metrics. Adopting standards related to data citation, accessibility, metadata, and quality control would facilitate integration of data across data sets. Here, we propose a staged publication process involving editorial and technical quality controls, of which the final (and optional) stage includes peer review, the most meritorious publication standard in science.
@article{costelloBiodiversityDataShould2013,
title = {Biodiversity Data Should Be Published, Cited, and Peer Reviewed},
author = {Costello, Mark J. and Michener, William K. and Gahegan, Mark and Zhang, Zhi-Qiang and Bourne, Philip E.},
date = {2013-08},
journaltitle = {Trends in Ecology \& Evolution},
volume = {28},
pages = {454--461},
issn = {0169-5347},
doi = {10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.002},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.002},
abstract = {Knowledge depends on data and thus data quality. Data publication needs quality assurance standards like conventional publications. Peer review is the highest standard in scientific publications. Indicators for biodiversity data quality, including peer review, are proposed. Concerns over data quality impede the use of public biodiversity databases and subsequent benefits to society. Data publication could follow the well-established publication process: with automated quality checks, peer review, and editorial decisions. This would improve data accuracy, reduce the need for users to 'clean' the data, and might increase data use. Authors and editors would get due credit for a peer-reviewed (data) publication through use and citation metrics. Adopting standards related to data citation, accessibility, metadata, and quality control would facilitate integration of data across data sets. Here, we propose a staged publication process involving editorial and technical quality controls, of which the final (and optional) stage includes peer review, the most meritorious publication standard in science.},
keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-12394519,biodiversity,data-provenance,data-sharing,open-data,peer-review,research-metrics,scientific-knowledge-sharing},
number = {8}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"tcAwevoNn8gYjwEQY","bibbaseid":"costello-michener-gahegan-zhang-bourne-biodiversitydatashouldbepublishedcitedandpeerreviewed","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Costello, M. J.","Michener, W. K.","Gahegan, M.","Zhang, Z.","Bourne, P. E."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Biodiversity Data Should Be Published, Cited, and Peer Reviewed","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Costello"],"firstnames":["Mark","J."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Michener"],"firstnames":["William","K."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gahegan"],"firstnames":["Mark"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Zhang"],"firstnames":["Zhi-Qiang"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Bourne"],"firstnames":["Philip","E."],"suffixes":[]}],"date":"2013-08","journaltitle":"Trends in Ecology & Evolution","volume":"28","pages":"454–461","issn":"0169-5347","doi":"10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.002","url":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.002","abstract":"Knowledge depends on data and thus data quality. Data publication needs quality assurance standards like conventional publications. Peer review is the highest standard in scientific publications. Indicators for biodiversity data quality, including peer review, are proposed. Concerns over data quality impede the use of public biodiversity databases and subsequent benefits to society. Data publication could follow the well-established publication process: with automated quality checks, peer review, and editorial decisions. This would improve data accuracy, reduce the need for users to 'clean' the data, and might increase data use. Authors and editors would get due credit for a peer-reviewed (data) publication through use and citation metrics. Adopting standards related to data citation, accessibility, metadata, and quality control would facilitate integration of data across data sets. Here, we propose a staged publication process involving editorial and technical quality controls, of which the final (and optional) stage includes peer review, the most meritorious publication standard in science.","keywords":"*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-12394519,biodiversity,data-provenance,data-sharing,open-data,peer-review,research-metrics,scientific-knowledge-sharing","number":"8","bibtex":"@article{costelloBiodiversityDataShould2013,\n title = {Biodiversity Data Should Be Published, Cited, and Peer Reviewed},\n author = {Costello, Mark J. and Michener, William K. and Gahegan, Mark and Zhang, Zhi-Qiang and Bourne, Philip E.},\n date = {2013-08},\n journaltitle = {Trends in Ecology \\& Evolution},\n volume = {28},\n pages = {454--461},\n issn = {0169-5347},\n doi = {10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.002},\n url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.002},\n abstract = {Knowledge depends on data and thus data quality. Data publication needs quality assurance standards like conventional publications. Peer review is the highest standard in scientific publications. Indicators for biodiversity data quality, including peer review, are proposed. Concerns over data quality impede the use of public biodiversity databases and subsequent benefits to society. Data publication could follow the well-established publication process: with automated quality checks, peer review, and editorial decisions. This would improve data accuracy, reduce the need for users to 'clean' the data, and might increase data use. Authors and editors would get due credit for a peer-reviewed (data) publication through use and citation metrics. Adopting standards related to data citation, accessibility, metadata, and quality control would facilitate integration of data across data sets. Here, we propose a staged publication process involving editorial and technical quality controls, of which the final (and optional) stage includes peer review, the most meritorious publication standard in science.},\n keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-12394519,biodiversity,data-provenance,data-sharing,open-data,peer-review,research-metrics,scientific-knowledge-sharing},\n number = {8}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Costello, M. J.","Michener, W. K.","Gahegan, M.","Zhang, Z.","Bourne, P. E."],"key":"costelloBiodiversityDataShould2013","id":"costelloBiodiversityDataShould2013","bibbaseid":"costello-michener-gahegan-zhang-bourne-biodiversitydatashouldbepublishedcitedandpeerreviewed","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.002"},"keyword":["*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM","~INRMM-MiD:c-12394519","biodiversity","data-provenance","data-sharing","open-data","peer-review","research-metrics","scientific-knowledge-sharing"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:04.598Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["*imported-from-citeulike-inrmm","~inrmm-mid:c-12394519","biodiversity","data-provenance","data-sharing","open-data","peer-review","research-metrics","scientific-knowledge-sharing"],"search_terms":["biodiversity","data","published","cited","peer","reviewed","costello","michener","gahegan","zhang","bourne"],"title":"Biodiversity Data Should Be Published, Cited, and Peer Reviewed","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}