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
--
Dr. Christian Willmes
AG GIS & Fernerkundung | GIS & RS Group
Geographisches Institut | Institute of Geography
Universität zu Köln | University of Cologne
Tel.: +49 (0)221 470 6234
http://www.geographie.uni-koeln.de/14126.html
http://www.sfb806.de
http://crc806db.uni-koeln.de
http://publons.com/a/1316706/
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5566-6542
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the RESEARCH-DATAMAN list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=RESEARCH-DATAMAN&A=1
|