Data Publication Consensus and Controversies [Version 3; Peer Review: 3 Approved]
F1000Research 2014, 3:94 Last updated: 27 SEP 2021 REVIEW Data publication consensus and controversies [version 3; peer review: 3 approved] John Kratz, Carly Strasser California Digital Library, University of California Office of the President, Oakland, CA, 94612, USA v3 First published: 23 Apr 2014, 3:94 Open Peer Review https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.3979.1 Second version: 16 May 2014, 3:94 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.3979.2 Reviewer Status Latest published: 16 Oct 2014, 3:94 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.3979.3 Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Abstract The movement to bring datasets into the scholarly record as first class version 3 research products (validated, preserved, cited, and credited) has been (revision) report inching forward for some time, but now the pace is quickening. As 16 Oct 2014 data publication venues proliferate, significant debate continues over formats, processes, and terminology. Here, we present an overview of version 2 data publication initiatives underway and the current conversation, (revision) report report highlighting points of consensus and issues still in contention. Data 16 May 2014 publication implementations differ in a variety of factors, including the kind of documentation, the location of the documentation relative to version 1 the data, and how the data is validated. Publishers may present data 23 Apr 2014 report 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 to distinct but 1. Mark Parsons, Research Data Alliance, Troy, overlapping concepts. For instance, the term published means that the NY, USA data is publicly available and citable to virtually everyone, but it may or may not imply that the data has been peer-reviewed.
[Show full text]