 |
 |
Eyup Nick et al. Perhaps not typical, but a FAIR way forward and a way to promote reproducibility and to some extend improve validation. The following might help: A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5686505/ Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS): design and first-year review https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.02264 The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/1/150547 Software citation principles https://peerj.com/articles/cs-86/ Nicolas Limare. Running a Reproducible Research Journal, with Source Code Inside. ICERM Workshop on Reproducibility in Computational and Experimental Mathematics, Dec 2012, Providence, United States. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00783292/document How rOpenSci uses Code Review to Promote Reproducible Science https://numfocus.org/blog/how-ropensci-uses-code-review-to-promote-reproducible-science Rebooting review https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.3202?message-global=remove Cheers, Andy http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/people/a.turner/index.html From: Research Data Management discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rzepa, Henry S Sent: 13 September 2018 16:16 To: [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! On 13 Sep 2018, at 16:38, Nick Sheppard <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: 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 ________________________________ 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