Cargando…

Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data

Data “publication” seeks to appropriate the prestige of authorship in the peer-reviewed literature to reward researchers who create useful and well-documented datasets. The scholarly communication community has embraced data publication as an incentive to document and share data. But, numerous new a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kratz, John Ernest, Strasser, Carly
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338305/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25706992
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117619
_version_ 1782481188338794496
author Kratz, John Ernest
Strasser, Carly
author_facet Kratz, John Ernest
Strasser, Carly
author_sort Kratz, John Ernest
collection PubMed
description Data “publication” seeks to appropriate the prestige of authorship in the peer-reviewed literature to reward researchers who create useful and well-documented datasets. The scholarly communication community has embraced data publication as an incentive to document and share data. But, numerous new and ongoing experiments in implementation have not yet resolved what a data publication should be, when data should be peer-reviewed, or how data peer review should work. While researchers have been surveyed extensively regarding data management and sharing, their perceptions and expectations of data publication are largely unknown. To bring this important yet neglected perspective into the conversation, we surveyed ∼ 250 researchers across the sciences and social sciences– asking what expectations“data publication” raises and what features would be useful to evaluate the trustworthiness, evaluate the impact, and enhance the prestige of a data publication. We found that researcher expectations of data publication center on availability, generally through an open database or repository. Few respondents expected published data to be peer-reviewed, but peer-reviewed data enjoyed much greater trust and prestige. The importance of adequate metadata was acknowledged, in that almost all respondents expected data peer review to include evaluation of the data’s documentation. Formal citation in the reference list was affirmed by most respondents as the proper way to credit dataset creators. Citation count was viewed as the most useful measure of impact, but download count was seen as nearly as valuable. These results offer practical guidance for data publishers seeking to meet researcher expectations and enhance the value of published data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4338305
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43383052015-03-04 Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data Kratz, John Ernest Strasser, Carly PLoS One Research Article Data “publication” seeks to appropriate the prestige of authorship in the peer-reviewed literature to reward researchers who create useful and well-documented datasets. The scholarly communication community has embraced data publication as an incentive to document and share data. But, numerous new and ongoing experiments in implementation have not yet resolved what a data publication should be, when data should be peer-reviewed, or how data peer review should work. While researchers have been surveyed extensively regarding data management and sharing, their perceptions and expectations of data publication are largely unknown. To bring this important yet neglected perspective into the conversation, we surveyed ∼ 250 researchers across the sciences and social sciences– asking what expectations“data publication” raises and what features would be useful to evaluate the trustworthiness, evaluate the impact, and enhance the prestige of a data publication. We found that researcher expectations of data publication center on availability, generally through an open database or repository. Few respondents expected published data to be peer-reviewed, but peer-reviewed data enjoyed much greater trust and prestige. The importance of adequate metadata was acknowledged, in that almost all respondents expected data peer review to include evaluation of the data’s documentation. Formal citation in the reference list was affirmed by most respondents as the proper way to credit dataset creators. Citation count was viewed as the most useful measure of impact, but download count was seen as nearly as valuable. These results offer practical guidance for data publishers seeking to meet researcher expectations and enhance the value of published data. Public Library of Science 2015-02-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4338305/ /pubmed/25706992 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117619 Text en © 2015 Kratz, Strasser http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kratz, John Ernest
Strasser, Carly
Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data
title Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data
title_full Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data
title_fullStr Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data
title_full_unstemmed Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data
title_short Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data
title_sort researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4338305/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25706992
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117619
work_keys_str_mv AT kratzjohnernest researcherperspectivesonpublicationandpeerreviewofdata
AT strassercarly researcherperspectivesonpublicationandpeerreviewofdata