Data Publication Consensus and Controversies. Kratz, J. and Strasser, C.
Data Publication Consensus and Controversies [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
The movement to bring datasets into the scholarly record as first class research products (validated, preserved, cited, and credited) has been inching forward for some time, but now the pace is quickening. As data publication venues proliferate, significant debate continues over formats, processes, and terminology. Here, we present an overview of data publication initiatives underway and the current conversation, highlighting points of consensus and issues still in contention. Data publication implementations differ in a variety of factors, including the kind of documentation, the location of the documentation relative to the data, and how the data is validated. Publishers may present the data as supplemental material to a journal article, with a descriptive ” data paper,” or independently. Complicating the situation, different initiatives and communities use the same terms to refer distinct but overlapping concepts. For instance, the term ” published” means that the data is publicly available and citable to virtually everyone, but it may or may not imply that the data has been peer-reviewed. In turn, what is meant by data peer review is far from defined; standards and processes encompass the full range employed in reviewing the literature, plus some novel variations. Basic data citation is a point of consensus, but the general agreement on the core elements of a dataset citation frays if the data is dynamic or part of a larger set. Even as data publication is being defined, some are looking past publication to other metaphors, notably ” data as software,” for solutions to the more stubborn problems.
@article{kratzDataPublicationConsensus2014,
  title = {Data Publication Consensus and Controversies},
  author = {Kratz, John and Strasser, Carly},
  date = {2014-05},
  journaltitle = {F1000Research},
  issn = {2046-1402},
  doi = {10.12688/f1000research.4518},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.4518},
  abstract = {The movement to bring datasets into the scholarly record as first class research products (validated, preserved, cited, and credited) has been inching forward for some time, but now the pace is quickening. As data publication venues proliferate, significant debate continues over formats, processes, and terminology. Here, we present an overview of data publication initiatives underway and the current conversation, highlighting points of consensus and issues still in contention. Data publication implementations differ in a variety of factors, including the kind of documentation, the location of the documentation relative to the data, and how the data is validated. Publishers may present the data as supplemental material to a journal article, with a descriptive ” data paper,” or independently. Complicating the situation, different initiatives and communities use the same terms to refer distinct but overlapping concepts. For instance, the term ” published” means that the data is publicly available and citable to virtually everyone, but it may or may not imply that the data has been peer-reviewed. In turn, what is meant by data peer review is far from defined; standards and processes encompass the full range employed in reviewing the literature, plus some novel variations. Basic data citation is a point of consensus, but the general agreement on the core elements of a dataset citation frays if the data is dynamic or part of a larger set. Even as data publication is being defined, some are looking past publication to other metaphors, notably ” data as software,” for solutions to the more stubborn problems.},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-13175847,data,data-lineage,data-provenance,data-sharing,data-uncertainty,derived-data,open-data,scientific-communication,scientific-knowledge-sharing,technology-mediated-communication}
}
Downloads: 0