Research project tasks, data, and perceptions of data quality in a condensed matter physics community

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 66, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 246-263

  Stvilia, Besiki ^a   Hinnant, Charles C ^a   Wu, Shuheng ^a   Worrall, Adam ^a   Lee, Dong Joon ^a   Burnett, Kathleen ^a   Burnett, Gary ^a   Kazmer, Michelle M ^a   Marty, Paul F ^a  

^a FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

data; management; quality

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; IMAGE QUALITY; MANAGEMENT;

DATA; DATA CURATION; DATA PRACTICES; DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS; NATIONAL HIGH MAGNETIC FIELD LABORATORY; NATIONAL LABORATORY; PROJECT ACTIVITIES; WORK STRUCTURES;

CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS;

EID: 84938678897     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.23177     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Arazy, O., Nov, O., Patterson, R., &, Yeo, L., (2011). Information quality in Wikipedia: The effects of group composition and task conflict. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27 (4), 71-98.
2. Atkins, D.E., Droegemeier, K.K., Feldman, S.I., Garcia-Molina, H., Klein, M.L., Messerchmitt, D.G.,..., Wright, M.H., (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Arlington, VA: NSF.
3. Bailey, K., (1994). Methods of social research (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
4. Ball, A., (2010). Review of the state of the art of the digital curation of research data (ERIM Project Report No. erim1rep091103abl2). Bath, UK: University of Bath. Retrieved from http://opus.bath.ac.uk/19022/
5. Bechhofer, S., Buchan, I., Roure, D., Missier, P., Ainsworth, J., Bhagat, J., &, Goble, G., (2013). Why linked data is not enough for scientists. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29, 599-611. doi: 10.1109/j.future.2011.08.004
6. Birnholtz, J., &, Bietz, M., (2003). Data at work: Supporting sharing in science and engineering. Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP '03; pp. 339-348). New York: ACM.
7. Boland, R., &, Tenkasi, R., (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6 (4), 350-372.
8. Borgman, C.L., Wallis, J.C., &, Enyedy, N., (2007). Little science confronts the data deluge: Habitat ecology, embedded sensor networks, and digital libraries. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 7, 17-30.
9. Bruce, T., &, Hillman, D., (2004). The continuum of metadata quality: Defining, expressing, exploiting. In, D. Hillman, &, E. Westbrooks, (Eds.), Metadata in practice (pp. 238-256). Chicago, IL: ALA Editions.
10. Buckland, M., (1997). What is a "document"? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 804-809.
11. Burton, A., &, Treloar, A., (2009). Designing for discovery and re-use: The "ANDS Data Sharing Verbs" approach to service decomposition. International Journal of Digital Curation, 4 (3), 44-56.
12. Center for Research Libraries, & Online Computer Library Center (2007). Trustworthy Repositories Audit and Certification (TRAC): Criteria and checklist. Chicago, IL: Center for Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://www.crl.edu/PDF/trac.pdf
13. Conway, P., (2010). Preservation in the age of Google: Digitization, digital preservation, and dilemmas. Library Quarterly, 80, 61-79. doi: 10.1086/648463
14. Conway, P., (2011). Archival quality and long-term preservation: A research framework for validating the usefulness of digital surrogates. Archival Science, 11, 293-309.
15. Curry, E., Freitas, A., &, O'Riáin, S., (2010). The role of community-driven data curation for enterprises. In, D. Wood, (Ed.), Linking enterprise data (pp. 25-47). New York: Springer. doi 10.1007/978-1-4419-7665-9-2
16. Data Curation Center (2004-2013). Data Asset Framework Online Tool. Retrieved from http://www.data-audit.eu/tool2/
17. De Roure, D,. (2010). Replacing the paper: The twelve Rs of the e-Research. Retrieved from http://blogs.nature.com/eresearch/2010/11/replacing-the-paper-the-twelve-rs-of-the-e-research-record.html
18. DRAMBORA Consortium. (2008). DRAMBORA interactive: Digital Repository Audit Method Based on Risk Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.repositoryaudit.eu/
19. Duda, R., Hart, P., &, Stork, D., (2000). Pattern classification (2nd ed.). New York:: Wiley.
20. Earth Observing System Data Panel. (1986). Earth Observing System: Data and information system (Technical Memorandum no. 87777). Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19860021622
21. Ellingson, R., &, Heben, M., (2011). Molecular and condensed matter physics laboratory [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/8sxuc6y
22. Engeström, Y., (1990). Learning, working and imagining: Twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
23. Engeström, Y., (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156. doi: 10.1080/13639080020028747
24. Eppler, M., (2003). Managing information quality: Increasing the value of information in knowledge-intensive products and processes. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
25. Fallis, D., &, Frické, M., (2002). Indicators of accuracy of consumer health information on the Internet: A study of indicators relating to information for managing fever in children in the home. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 9, 73-79.
26. Faniel, I.M., &, Jacobsen, T.E., (2010). Reusing scientific data: How earthquake engineering researchers assess the reusability of colleagues' data. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 19, 355-375. doi: 10.1007/s10606-010-9117-8
27. Foster, I., Jennings, N., &, Kesselman, C., (2004). Brain meets brawn: Why grid and agents need each other. Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 1, 8-15. doi:10.1109/AAMAS.2004.78
28. Gasser, L., Sanderson, A., &, Zdonik, S., (2007). NSF IIS-GENI workshop report: First edition. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Retrieved from https://apps.lis.uiuc.edu/wiki/download/attachments/10304/iis-geni-report-first-edition.pdf
29. Ge, M., &, Helfert, M., (2007). A review of information quality research-Develop a research agenda. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Information Quality, Cambridge, MA.
30. Gertsbakh, I., (1977). Models of preventive maintenance. In H. Theil (Ed.), Studies in mathematical and managerial economics (Vol. 23, pp. 1-257). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Company.
31. Greenberg, J., (2001). Quantitative categorical analysis of metadata elements in image applicable metadata schemas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 917-924.
32. Gutmann, M., Schürer, K., Donakowski, D., &, Beedham, H., (2004). The selection, appraisal, and retention of social science data. Data Science Journal, 3, 209-221.
33. Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R., &, Tatham, R., (2005). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
34. Higgins, S., (2008). The DCC curation lifecycle model. International Journal of Digital Curation, 3 (1), 134-140. Retrieved from http://ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/view/69
35. Hinnant, C., Stvilia, B., Wu, S., Worrall, A., Burnett, G., Burnett, K.,..., Marty, P., (2012a). Author team diversity and the impact of scientific publications: Evidence from physics research at a national science lab. Library & Information Science Research, 34, 249-257.
36. Hinnant, C., Stvilia, B., Wu, S., Worrall, A., Burnett, K., Burnett, G.,..., Marty, P.F., (2012b). Data curation in scientific teams: An exploratory study of condensed matter physics at a national science lab. In J.-E. Mai (Chair), Proceedings of iConference 2012 (pp. 498-500). New York: ACM.
37. Huang, H., Stvilia, B., Jörgensen, C., &, Bass, H., (2012). Prioritization of data quality dimensions and skills requirements in genome annotation curation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63, 195-207.
38. Juran, J., (1992). Juran on quality by design. New York: The Free Press.
39. Jones, S., Ross, S., &, Ruusalepp, R., (2008, September). The Data Audit Framework: A toolkit to identify research assets and improve data management in research led institutions. Presented at 5th International iPRES Conference: Joined Up and Working: Tools and Methods for Digital Preservation, London, England.
40. Kell, D., &, Oliver, S., (2004). Here is the evidence, now what is the hypothesis? The complementary roles of inductive and hypothesis-driven science in the post-genomic era. Bioessays: News and Reviews in Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, 26, 99-105.
41. Kerzner, H., (2003). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
42. Kuutti, K., (1995). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In, B. Nardi, (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human computer interaction (pp. 17-45). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43. Leont'ev, A.N., (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
44. Levitin, A.V., &, Redman, T.C., (1993). A model of the data (life) cycles with application to quality. Information and Software Technology, 35, 217-223.
45. Lord, P., &, Macdonald, A., (2003). E-Science curation report: Data curation for e-Science in the UK: An audit to establish requirements for future curation and provision. Bristol, UK: The JISC Committee for the Support of Research. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/preservation/esciencereportfinal.pdf
46. Machlup, F., (1983). Semantic quirks in studies of information. In, F. Machlup, &, U. Mansfield, (Eds.), The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages (pp. 641-671). New York: Wiley.
47. Marschak, J., (1971). Economics of information systems. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66 (333), 192-219.
48. Mesirov, J., (2010). Accessible reproducible research. Science, 327 (5964), 415-416.
49. National High Magnetic Field Laboratory. (2012). Mag Lab by the numbers. Retrieved from http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/mediacenter/factsheets/numbers.html
50. National Research Council (U.S.). (2007). Condensed-matter and materials physics: The science of the world around us. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
51. Nichols, D.M., Chan, C.H., Bainbridge, D., McKay, D., &, Twidale, M.B., (2008). A lightweight metadata quality tool. In R. Larsen (Chair), Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 385-388). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1378889.1378957
52. Office of Management and Budget (1999). Uniform administrative requirements for grants and agreements with institutions of higher education, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations (OMB Circular 110). Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars-a110#36
53. Peng, R.D., (2011). Reproducible research in computational science. Science, 334 (6060), 1226-1227.
54. Qin, J., Ball, A., &, Greenberg, J., (2012). Functional and architectural requirements for metadata: supporting discovery and management of scientific data. Proceedings of the International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications 2012. Kuching, Malaysia: University of Bath. Retrieved from http://dcevents.dublincore.org/IntConf/dc-2012/paper/view/107
55. Radner, R., (1986). Normative theory of individual decision: An introduction. In, C. McGuire, &, R. Radner, (Eds.), Decision and organization (2nd ed., pp. 1-18). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
56. Redman, T., (1992). Data quality: Management and technology. New York: Bantam Books.
57. Redman, T., (1998). The impact of poor data quality on the typical enterprise. Communications of the ACM, 41 (2), 79-82.
58. Relevance (2012). In Wordnet. Retrieved from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu
59. Rieger, O., (2008). Preservation in the age of large-scale digitization: A white paper. Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Resources.
60. Sheppard, S.A., &, Terveen, L., (2011). Quality is a verb: The operationalization of data quality in a citizen science community. In F. Ortega (Chair), Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (pp. 29-38). New York: ACM.
61. Shreeves, S.L., Cole, T.W., Knutson, E.M., Stvilia, B., Palmer, C.L., &, Twidale, M.B., (2005). Is "quality" metadata "shareable" metadata? The implications of local metadata practices for federated collections. In, H. Thompson, (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries (pp. 223-237). Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.
62. Simmhan, Y., Plale, B., &, Gannon, D., (2005). A survey of data provenance in e-science. ACM SIGMOD Record, 34 (3), 31-36.
63. Strong, D., Lee, Y., &, Wang, R., (1997). Data quality in context. Communications of the ACM, 40, 103-110.
64. Stvilia, B., (2006). Measuring information quality (Doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved from http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/3223727
65. Stvilia, B., (2007). A model for ontology quality evaluation. First Monday, 12 (12-3). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2043/1905
66. Stvilia, B., (2008). A workbench for information quality evaluation. In, R. Larsen, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital libraries (pp. 469-469). New York: ACM.
67. Stvilia, B., Al-Faraj, A., &, Yi, Y., (2009). Issues of cross-contextual information quality evaluation-The case of Arabic, English, and Korean Wikipedias. Library & Information Science Research, 31, 232-239.
68. Stvilia, B., &, Gasser, L., (2008a). An activity theoretic model for information quality change. First Monday, 13 (4). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2126/1951
69. Stvilia, B., &, Gasser, L., (2008b). Value based metadata quality assessment. Library & Information Science Research, 30, 67-74. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2007.06.006
70. Stvilia, B., Gasser, L., Twidale, M.B., Shreeves, S.L., &, Cole, T.W., (2004). Metadata quality for Federated Collections. In, S. Chengulur-Smith, L. Raschid, J. Long, &, C. Seko, (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Quality-ICIQ 2004 (pp. 111-125). Cambridge, MA: MITIQ.
71. Stvilia, B., Gasser, L., Twidale, M.B., &, Smith, L.C., (2007). A framework for information quality assessment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 1720-1733. doi: 10.1002/asi.20652
72. Stvilia, B., Hinnant, C., Wu, S., Worrall, A., Lee, D.J., Burnett, K.,..., Marty, P.F., (2013). Studying the data practices of a scientific community. Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries (JCDL '13; pp. 425-426). New York: ACM.
73. Stvilia, B., Hinnant, C.C., Schindler, K., Worrall, A., Burnett, G., Burnett, K.,..., Marty, P.F., (2011). Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 270-283.
74. Stvilia, B., Twidale, M., Smith, L.C., &, Gasser, L., (2008). Information quality work organization in Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 983-1001.
75. Sufi, S., &, Mathews, B., (2004). CCLRC Scientific Metadata Model: Version 2 (CCLRC Technical Report No. DL-TR-2004-001). Chilton, UK: Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC). Retrieved from http://epubs.cclrc.ac.uk/work-details?w=30324
76. Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K.L., Aydinoglu, A.U., Wu, L., Read, E.,..., Frame, M., (2011). Data sharing by scientists: Practices and perceptions. PLoS ONE, 6 (6).
77. Wang, R., &, Strong, D., (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12 (4), 5-33.
78. Weick, K., (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
79. Wu, S., Stvilia, B., &, Lee, D.J., (2012). Authority control for scientific data: The case of molecular biology. Journal of Library Metadata, 12, 61-82.