Just alerted to the Nature editorial from Wednesday on Twitter (thanks Patricia if you’re on the list!)

 

Reproducibility: let’s get it right from the start - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06012-8

 

From September 12th 2018, Nature Communications will be setting a higher standard of data reporting for papers under peer review. We believe that sharing raw data at an early stage with editors and reviewers is the best way to build confidence in the reproducibility of your findings. Learn here how to ensure that your paper makes the grade.

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

Thanks all for the useful comments and info on and off list.

 

Danny - We've had a few requests for anonymous peer review but I wouldn't call it 'regular'. I'd be interested in hearing more about how you intend to approach the issue, presumably any model based on Apollo will necessarily reveal the affiliation of an author due to the institutional URL?

 

We blogged about this last year - Research data: enabling peer review

 

Nick

 

 

 

-----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