• Primary Domain: Domain Agnostic
  • Group Focus: Data Management, Disseminate, Link, and Find
  • Group Technology Focus: Re-Use, Citation & Provenance, Other
  • RDA Pathways: Data Infrastructures and Environments - International, Data Lifecycles - Versioning, Provenance, Citation, and Reward
  • Group Description

    This working group aims to improve collaboration and coordination between repository and publisher workflows as they pertain to- and rely upon the data publication process. The group proposes to refine and formally document a detailed workflow(s) between the journal, publication author, and Earth, Space, and Environmental Science disciplinary data repository and identify cross-stakeholder dependencies to recommend activities that are necessary for relevant processes to move forward in a more coordinated way. The WG intends to advance current progress on this effort by using the specific use cases of data submission to a data repository for curation and preservation at, or near, the time the respective manuscript is submitted to the journal that will cite the data. 

    The WG plans to engage journal, repository, and research communities to solicit feedback that result in a set of recommendations for better transparency and coordination across both processes.

    This work has been presented for discussion at prior working sessions of the Earth, Space and Environmental Science Interest Group at Research Data Alliance Plenaries (P17, P18, P19, P20, P21, P22) and the Earth Science Information Partners meetings over the past four years. The group experienced challenges in continuity during the COVID-19 Pandemic, however is now enjoying lively engagement with the RDA community and additional external stakeholders.

  • Rationale Summary

  • TAB Liason(s)

    Martina Stockhause
  • Secretariat Liason(s)

    Bridget Walker
  • Group Visibility

  • Group Creation Date

  • Endorsement Date

  • Estimated End Date

  • Actual End Date

  • Group Email

  • Group Type: Working Group
  • Group Status: In TAB review
  • Co-Chair(s): Danie Kinkade, Natalie Raia, Matthew Warke, Lesley Wyborn

4 responses to “Coordinating Earth, Space, and Environmental Science Data Preservation and Scholarly Publication Processes WG”

  1. P. 1: Consider defining clear terms for describing written documents and archived datasets, both of which involve publication workflows and might be called ‘publications’, and using separate terms throughout. For example in the first sentence, “peer-review publication workflow” might refer to a dataset submitted to a repository or a manuscript submitted to a journal.

    P. 7:
    Current: This use case also only considers the data relevant to the scholarly publication, not the full corpus of data potentially generated through the course of a research project (i.e., exploratory data collection, negative results, etc.)

    Proposed: In addition, this use case only considers data relevant to the scholarly publication, not the full corpus of data potentially generated through the course of a research project (e.g., data from pilot studies, subsets of data from the same project analyzed across multiple papers)

    (I think the re-publication of overlapping data subsets is a clearer example than the current examples, since what is exploratory or negative can differ for the same dataset in the context of different analyses or applications.)

    P. 7:
    Current: even though domain repositories may exist and provide a better fit for the types of data supporting the manuscript and their curation needs prior to peer review

    Proposed: even though domain repositories may exist and provide a better fit for the types of data supporting the manuscript and curation needs prior to and during peer review

    (It is unclear whose needs “their” refers to, and could indicate data owners, reviewers, or journal editors. The proposed wording leaves open the idea that domain repositories can offer not only data management archiving solutions, but also customized tools for viewing or assessing data to assist with the peer-review process.)

  2. +1 on Sonia’s comments.

    Generalist/institutional repositories may also be sent this kind of data for reasons other than those listed, such as size, format, complexity, cost, and membership/eligibility issues. As a manager of one of these repositories, I’d encourage this WG to work with us as we too want to understand and improve these processes.

  3. a) Please consider involving the “infrastructure providers” and developers of journal publishing platforms. The workflows will have to work with the existing systems, or systems need to be adopted (which is really hard, because many journals have no control over the technology, and the large publishers have their own agenda and schedule).
    The realisation of workflows in software is likely to be one of the bottlenecks for sustainable collaboration between journals and repositories. Involving experts in open software (e.g., OJS, used by Tektonika, Seismica, Volcanica, Sedimentologika, GeoMorphica; or Janeway, used for EarthArxiv) and involving the (independent) publishers close to the community (Copernicus?) could facilitate a practical implementation.

    b) How does the fact that many articles are preprinted these days complicate things? IMO a preprint server community might be more open and engaged in such a collaboration than “classic” journals.

Leave a Reply