Data publication consensus and controversies

F1000Research

Volumn 3, Issue , 2014, Pages

  Kratz, John ^a   Strasser, Carly ^a  

^a University of California Office of the President   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIODIVERSITY; CITATION ANALYSIS; CONVERSATION; DOCUMENTATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; VALIDATION PROCESS; VALIDITY;

EID: 84915747614     PISSN: 20461402     EISSN: 1759796X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.3979.2     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Costello MJ: Motivating online publication of data. BioScience. 2009;59(5):418-427. 10.1525/bio.2009.59.5.9
2. Smith VS: Data publication: towards a database of everything. BMC Res Notes. 2009;2:113. 19552813 10.1186/1756-0500-2-113 2702265
3. Lawrence B Jones C Matthews B: Data publication. Int J Digital Curation. 2011.
4. Callaghan S Donegan S Pepler S: Making data a first class scientific output: Data citation and publication by NERC's environmental data centres. Int J Digital Curation. 2012;7(1):107-113. 10.2218/ijdc.v7i1.218
5. Mobley A Linder SK Braeuer R: A survey on data reproducibility in cancer research provides insights into our limited ability to translate findings from the laboratory to the clinic. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e63221. 23691000 10.1371/journal.pone.0063221 3655010
6. Pashler H Harris CR: Is the replicability crisis overblown? three arguments examined. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012;7(6):531-536. 10.1177/1745691612463401
7. Zimmer C: Rise in scientific journal retractions prompts calls for reform. The New York Times.2012.
8. Hiltzik M: Science has lost its way at a big cost to humanity. Los Angeles Times. 2013. Reference Source
9. Begley CG Ellis LM: Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483(7391):531-533. 22460880 10.1038/483531a
10. Cyranoski D: Acid-bath stem-cell study under investigation. Nature. 2014. 10.1038/nature.2014.14738
11. Tabuchi H: One author of a startling stem cell study calls for its retraction. The New York Times.2014. Reference Source
12. Drew BT Gazis R Cabezas P: Lost branches on the tree of life. PLoS Biol. 2013;11(9):e1001636. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001636
13. Collins FS Tabak LA: Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature. 2014;505(7485):612-613. 24482835 10.1038/505612a
14. Alsheikh-Ali AA Qureshi W Al Mallah MH: Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals. PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24357. 21915316 10.1371/journal.pone.0024357 3168487
15. Vines TH Albert AYK Andrew RL: The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age. Curr Biol. 2014;24(1):94-7. 24361065 10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.014
16. Whitlock MC McPeek MA Rausher MD: Data archiving. Am Nat. 2010;175(2):145-146. 20073990 10.1086/650340
17. Fairbairn DJ: The advent of mandatory data archiving. Evolution. 2011;65(1):1-2. 21070223 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01182.x
18. Bloom T Ganley E Winker M: Data access for the open access literature: PLOS's data policy. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(2):e1001797. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797
19. Kansa EC Kansa SW: We all know that a 14 is a sheep: Data publication and professionalism in archaeological communication. J Endocrinol Metab Arch Heritage Studies. 2013;1(1):88-97. Reference Source
20. Piwowar HA Vision TJ Whitlock MC: Data archiving is a good investment. Nature. 2011;473(7347):285-285. 21593852 10.1038/473285a
21. Gray J Szalay AS Thakar AR: Online scientific data curation, publication, and archiving.2002;103-107. Reference Source
22. Maunsell J: Announcement regarding supplemental material. J Neurosci. 2010;30(32):10599-10600. Reference Source
23. Benson DA Cavanaugh M Clark K: GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(Database issue):D36-42. 23193287 10.1093/nar/gks1195 3531190
24. Berman HM Westbrook J Feng Z: The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(1):235-242. 10592235 10.1093/nar/28.1.235 102472
25. Newman P Corke P: Data papers - peer reviewed publication of high quality data sets. Int J Rob Res. 2009;28(5):587-587. 10.1177/0278364909104283
26. Waters D Garrett J: Preserving Digital Information. Report of the Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information. ERIC. 1996. Reference Source
27. Beagrie N: Digital curation for science, digital libraries, and individuals. Int J Digital Curation. 2008;1(1):3-16. 10.2218/ijdc.v1i1.2
28. Office for Civil Rights. Renal resource guide.2003. Reference Source
29. Center for Research Libraries (U.S.) and OCLC. Trustworthy repositories audit and certification (TRAC) criteria and checklist. Center for Research Libraries; OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc Chicago: Dublin, Ohio.2007. Reference Source
30. Hayden EC: NIH shutdown effects multiply. Nature. 2013. 10.1038/nature.2013.13872
31. FORCE11. Improving future research communication and e-scholarship.2012. Reference Source
32. CODATA-ICSTI Task Group on Data Citation Standards and Practices. Out of cite, out of mind: The current state of practice, policy, and technology for the citation of data. Data Sci J. 2013;12:1-75. Reference Source
33. Starr J Gastl A: isCitedBy: a metadata scheme for DataCite. D-Lib Magazine. 2011;17(1). 10.1045/january2011-starr
34. Altman M King G: A proposed standard for the scholarly citation of quantitative data. D-Lib Magazine. 2007;13(3/4). 10.1045/march2007-altman
35. Global Historical Climate Data Network. Daily summaries station details: OAKLAND MUSEUM, CA US, GHCND:USC00046336. Reference Source
36. Menne MJ Durre I Vose RS: An overview of the global historical climatology network-daily database. J Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 2012;29(7):897-910. 10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00103.1
37. Harris TW Baran J Bieri T: WormBase 2014: new views of curated biology. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D789-793. 24194605 10.1093/nar/gkt1063 3965043
38. Ball A Duke M: How to cite datasets and link to publications.2012. Reference Source
39. Pulverer B: A transparent black box. EMBO J. 2010;29(23):3891-3892. 21124296 10.1038/emboj.2010.307 3020638
40. Herron DM: Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(8):2275-2280. 22350231 10.1007/s00464-012-2171-1
41. Kriegeskorte N Walther A Deca D: An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012;6:94. 23162460 10.3389/fncom.2012.00094 3498742
42. Parsons MA Duerr R Minster JB: Data citation and peer review. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 2010;91(34):297-298. 10.1029/2010EO340001
43. Diederich F: Are we refereeing ourselves to death? The peer-review system at its limit. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2013;52(52):13828-9. 24214922 10.1002/anie.201308804
44. Lawrence B Jones C Matthews B: Citation and peer review of data: Moving towards formal data publication. Int J Digital Curation. 2011;6(2):4-37. 10.2218/ijdc.v6i2.205
45. Grootveld M Van Egmond J: editors. Data Reviews, peer-reviewed research data. Number 5 in DANS Studies in Digital Archiving. Data Archiving and Networked Services.2011. Reference Source
46. Grootveld M Van Egmond J: Peer-reviewed open research data: Results of a pilot. Int J Digital Curation. 2012;7(2):81-91. 10.2218/ijdc.v7i2.231
47. Parsons MA Fox PA: Is data publication the right metaphor? Data Sci J. 2013;12:WDS32-WDS46. 10.2481/dsj.WDS-042
48. Schopf JM: Treating data like software: a case for production quality data. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital Libraries, JCDL '12, New York, NY USA,2012;153-156. ACM. 10.1145/2232817.2232846
49. Ram K: Git can facilitate greater reproducibility and increased transparency in science. Source Code Biol Med. 2013;8(1):7. 23448176 10.1186/1751-0473-8-7 3639880
50. Pradal C Varoquaux G Langtangen HP: Publishing scientific software matters. J Comput Sci. 2013;4(5):311-312. 10.1016/j.jocs.2013.08.001