hi,
I apologize for my quite aggressive wording and the point I raised. I
was a bit stressed, when I read the mails and wrote this response....
Best,
Christian
Am 14.09.2018 um 16:37 schrieb Christian Willmes:
> Hi,
>
> is this serious, to call a triviality like a button to request access
> to an access restricted resource after someone? Was there a
> publication about this where this was actually claimed to be invented
> originally? Or is there some other story behind this, just
> wondering... :-) We (CRC 806 Database) for example, have this
> functionality since like ~8 years. And we send an access token, if
> access was granted, that allows to download the dataset directly from
> our server, so we do not have this email issue.
>
> For the original question/discussion, I think that infrastructure to
> facilitate access to the data/code to be reviewed is not the real
> problem (though obviously it can be if you really want it to be, from
> the authors or the publishers side). The real problem is that
> reviewers (I include myself here) actually do not want or do not have
> the resources/time, to replicate the to be published experiments in
> detail and during this process review the to be published dataset (as
> it should be). This sometimes takes a crazy amount of time and work if
> the experiment is not documented precisely enough (which is much to
> often the case) and the data has to be acquired from several sources
> etc. There is really not enough incentive for the reviewers to do
> this, like it should be done.
>
> The solution, from my point of view, would be that the authors would
> be responsible to facilitate the (simple as possible) reproducibility
> of their experiments. There are good examples where for example an R
> or Python script (documenting the workflow of the
> experiment/statistics) is provided including all necessary (raw) data,
> that can be simply executed by the reviewers to check if they get the
> same results. Then, if the reviewer is in doubt, he/she can look into
> (review) the data and code, if everything makes sense or not.
>
> Obviously, this data/code should also be available with the article
> from the publishers infrastructure after publication, thus every
> reader of the publication would be able to reproduce this on their
> own. In my opinion, this should be standard, and everything else
> should be at least regarded suspicious, but its still a long way to go
> until we are at this point, but we will certainly be there at some
> point! :-)
>
> Best regards,
> Christian
>
>
> Am 14.09.2018 um 12:31 schrieb RICE Robin:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just to note that DSpace and I think other repository platforms can
>> use the Steven Harnard's 'request access' button to allow data
>> depositors to release embargoed materials on a case by case basis,
>> which could meet the requirements to allow reviewers to see the data.
>> (The end user presses a button to request access, and the system
>> sends an email to the data depositor.) The only hitch we've
>> encountered is where data is too large to send by email.
>>
>> I feel it's too bad that these publishers don’t acknowledge
>> institutional repositories on a regular basis.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>> Robin Rice
>> Data Librarian and Head, Research Data Support
>> Library & University Collections
>> University of Edinburgh
>> 0131 651 1431
>>
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Research Data Management discussion list
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley
>> Sent: 14 September 2018 06:03
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Research data and peer review? (7)
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Responding to Henry's comment about the reviewers being concerned
>> about their anonymity being compromised if they accessed the data, we
>> have the opposite problem with our repository.
>>
>> We have regular requests from researchers who are depositing their
>> data but keeping it under embargo until the paper is published. They
>> however who would like reviewers to be able to access the data
>> without releasing it publicly, and ideally not identifying them. We
>> don’t have the technical capability to do this yet, although we are
>> working on it.
>>
>> The point being, Nick, that there clearly is a need for these people
>> to have their data reviewed or at least available for review. I don’t
>> know the disciplines I'm sorry.
>>
>> As an aside, we held a session yesterday with our Data Champions that
>> was run by PLOS to discuss the implications, practicalities and
>> benefits of peer review of data that supports articles under review
>> for publication.
>>
>> Danny
>>
>> Dr Danny Kingsley
>> Deputy Director - Scholarly Communication & Research Services
>> Cambridge University Library
>> e: [log in to unmask]
>> p: 01223 747 437
>> m: 07711 500 564
>>
>>
>> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 13:38:14 +0000
>> From: Nick Sheppard <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Research data and peer review?
>> Hi all
>> I'm just preparing a presentation for the 5:AM Altmetric
>> Conference at the end of the month and realised I've made a rather
>> sweeping statement in my abstract:
>> "As an important component of the scholarly record,
>> research data, software and code are increasingly managed as research
>> outputs in their own right, though are not typically subject to peer
>> review."
>> I've encountered one or two instances where I am aware that
>> data has been requested for review and wondered if anyone has
>> information of specific journals or publishers who do so routinely?
>> For anyone interested, the full abstract is here:
>> Has anyone seen my data? Incentivising #opendata sharing
>> with
>> altmetrics<https://leedsunilibrary.wordpress.com/2018/08/02/has-anyone-seen-my-data-incentivising-opendata-sharing-with-altmetrics/>
>> Thanks
>> Nick
>> Nick Sheppard
>> Open Research Advisor
>> Leeds University Library
>> 0113 343 4542
>> https://library.leeds.ac.uk/
>> https://researchdata.leeds.ac.uk<https://researchdata.leeds.ac.uk/>
>> Twitter: @OpenResLeeds<https://twitter.com/openresleeds>
>> [Image result for be inspired leeds uni library logo]
>> Edward Boyle Library, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:16:03 +0000
>> From: "Rzepa, Henry S" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Research data and peer review?
>> We (I am a computational chemist) have been submitting
>> data (raw, and also nowadays what might be described as FAIR) to
>> journals for around ten years now. In referee comments I have
>> received back on around 60 articles, I believe referees have only
>> noted twice that they appreciated the availability of the data. I do
>> not recollect any comments that they actually reviewed it. We do
>> include a statement in the supporting letter that it exists (I do
>> remember one referee objecting to its presence on the grounds that if
>> they had tried to access it, it would compromise their anonymity in
>> our server logs!)
>> In turn,acting as a referee, I have attempted to
>> replicate perhaps 5 articles and have said so in my comments (the
>> replications were mostly successful). On one interesting occasion
>> (PNAS) I was actually named as a referee in the header to the
>> article, but no further information was allowed to be provided (such
>> as that the referee successfully, or not, replicated various claims).
>> One virtue of FAIR data might be supposed that it is
>> “referee friendly”. But given the general lack of any response to
>> the data by referees, it is difficult to know why more do not report
>> back on the virtues of having access to it!
>> ***********************************************************************
>>
>>
>> ########################################################################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the RESEARCH-DATAMAN list, click the following link:
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=RESEARCH-DATAMAN&A=1
>>
>> ########################################################################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the RESEARCH-DATAMAN list, click the following link:
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=RESEARCH-DATAMAN&A=1
>
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the RESEARCH-DATAMAN list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=RESEARCH-DATAMAN&A=1
|