Canvasing interest and collaborations for a data-review form
-
Discussion
-
Dear All,
I would like to reach out to this community with an idea that I hope fits with the charter of the group, to create a Data Review Report that could form part of the scholarly communication in a similar way to that of peer reviews. Some basic details are included below.
Background:
As pointed out in this group’s charter “The prevalence of research data policies from institutions and research funders is increasing”, meaning researchers are seeing more, and sometimes confusing, information and recommendations on how best to go about sharing data. This can result in a wide variety of things being made available by authors in an attempt to meet those policies. Often policies are vague to enable them to cover the broad scope of subject and disciplines covered by the publisher.
In order to both educate authors and researchers, as well as provide constructive feedback about data sharing and availability I believe there is a need in the scientific publishing world for a standardised process of data-review to be carried out on all manuscripts in a similar way to the peer-review process. Eventually, when it becomes stream-lined and common practice, it may be folded into the peer-review process itself.
The (rough) plan:
To create a spreadsheet-based structured data-review form to aid a (data)reviewer to assess the availability of data discussed in a manuscript. It is envisaged that a data review would be carried out either in parallel to, or in advance of, the normal peer review of a manuscript.
The goal of a data review is to assess the availability of ALL data discussed in the manuscript. This would include data generated as part of the study as well as that previously generated and re-used in the study. A key factor here will be the definition of what counts as “data”, for me, it is any electronic item that is required to reproduce the work, including software and scripts.
The data-review-report generated could form a part of the scholarly communication in a similar way to that of peer reviews.
Desired outcomes:
– Reviewers get guidance on how to check manuscripts for the availability of “data” (including what is/are “data”).
– Authors get guidance from reviewers on what is expected /required to enable reproducibility.
– the community gets more reproducible (and FAIRer) research publications.
– If the data-review-report is published, the reviewers can get credit for their work on the review.
– The reports could become a valuable resource for policymakers to see where data-sharing is going right and where it still needs work.
Please bear in mind this is early days of the idea and there is much scope for input from interested parties. I have made a start on a spreadsheet-based form that I am happy to share with anyone interested. The idea is that it provides guidance to the reviewer on what to look for, and structures their findings in a simple table to allow authors to address any issues highlighted.
Feel free to contact me directly (email in footer) to discuss this further.
Kind regards
Chris
Chris Hunter
Lead BioCurator, GigaDB
GigaScience, BGI-HK
Email: chris at gigasciencejournal.com
Tel: (44)07429063514
ORCID: 0000-0002-1335-0881
Web: www.gigadb.org
Log in to reply.