The OpenUP pilot study on research data sharing in Social Science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14600/irpps_wps.114.2020Keywords:
Data quality, Open data, Open dataset review and validation, Open Peer Review (OPR), Social sciencesAbstract
The report presents the results of a pilot study carried out within the European project OpenUP (Opening up new methods, indicators and tools for peer review, dissemination of research results and impact measurement). The pilot aimed at identifying strong and weak elements in the process of dataset review and validation and intended to outline best practices that facilitate transparency of the process as well as data dissemination, reliability and reuse. In particular the report reviews data sharing and evaluation practices in Social sciences, on which the selection of the pilot community is based, and reports on the interviews with the management team of the selected community, i.e. Human Mortality Database (HMD) as well as on a questionnaire submitted to HMD users. Lessons learned that can help identifying requisites and best practices for peer review of research data are reported in the conclusions.References
Assante, M., Candela, L., Castelli, D., & Tani, A. (2016). Are scientific data repositories coping with research data publishing? Data Science Journal, 15: 1–24. doi:10.5334/dsj-2016-006.
Barbieri, M., Wilmoth, J.R., Shkolnikov, V.M., et al. (2015). Data resource profile: the human mortality database (HMD). Int. J. Epidemiol., 44(5), 1549–1556 https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyv105.
Blümel C., et al. (2018). Project OpenUP-Deliverable D6.3 – Final Use Case Evaluation Report, 14 September 2018. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2557435.
Borgman, C.L. (2007). Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Callaghan, S., Steve D., Sam P., et al. (2012). Making Data a First Class Scientific Output: Data Citation and Publication by NERC’s Environmental Data Centres. Int. J. Digital Curation, 7 (1): 107–13. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v7i1.218.
Callaghan, S., Murphy F., Tedds J., et al. (2013). Processes and Procedures for Data Publication: A Case Study in the Geosciences. Int. J. Digital Curation, 8 (1): 193–203. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v8i1.253.
Callaghan, S., Tedds J., Kunze J., et al. (2014). Guidelines on Recommending Data Repositories as Partners in Publishing Research Data. Int. J. Digital Curation, 9 (1): 152–63. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v9i1.309.
Callaghan, S., Tedds J., Lawrence R., et al. (2014). Cross-Linking Between Journal Publications and Data Repositories: A Selection of Examples. Int. J. Digital Curation, 9 (1): 164–75. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v9i1.310.
Callaghan, S. (2015). Data without peer: examples of data peer review in the earth sciences. D-Lib Mag., 21(1/2). https://doi.org/10.1045/january2015-callaghan.
Candela, L., Castelli, D., Manghi, P., Tani, A. (2015). Data journals: a survey. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 66(9), 1747–1762. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23358.
Carpenter, T.A. (2017). What Constitutes Peer Review of Data: A Survey of Published Peer Review Guidelines, April. http://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02236.
Curty, R.G. (2016). Factors Influencing Research Data Reuse in the Social Sciences: An Exploratory Study. Int. J. Digital Curation, 11 (1): 96–117. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v11i1.401.
Faniel, I.M., Kriesberg, A., Yakel, E. (2015). Social scientists’ satisfaction with data reuse. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 67(6), 1404–1416. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23480.
Hellauer, T.R. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6:588 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
Kim, Y., Adler, M. (2015). Social scientists’ data sharing behaviours: investigating the roles of individual motivations, institutional pressures, and data repositories. Int. J. Inf. Manage., 35, 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.04.007.
Kratz, J.E., Strasser, C. (2015). Researcher perspectives on publication and peer review of data. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0117619. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117619.
Lawrence, B., Jones, C., Matthews, B., Pepler, S., Callaghan, S. (2011). Citation and peer review of data: moving towards formal data publication. Int. J. Digital Curation, 6(2), 4–37 https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v6i2.205.
Luzi, D., Ruggieri, R., Pisacane, L., & Di Cesare, R. (2017). Verso una (open) peer review dei dati: uno studio pilota nelle scienze sociali. In Scienza aperta e integrità della ricerca. III Convegno AISA, 9-10 Novembre 2017, Milano. https://archiviomarini.sp.unipi.it/id/eprint/744
Luzi, D., Ruggieri, R., & Pisacane, L. (2019). The OpenUP Pilot on Research Data Sharing, Validation and Dissemination in Social Sciences. In Manghi, P., In Candela, L., & In Silvello, G. (2019). Digital Libraries: Supporting Open Science: 15th Italian Research Conference on Digital Libraries, IRCDL 2019, Pisa, Italy, January 31 – February 1, 2019 Proceedings. Communications in Computer and Information Science 988, Springer
Mayernik, M.S., Callaghan, S., Leigh, R., Tedds, J., Worley, S. (2015). Peer review of datasets: when, why, and how. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96(2), 191–201 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00083.1.
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto, 26 October 2010.http://altmetrics.org/manifesto.
StanÄiauskas, V., BanelytÄ—, V. (2017). OpenUP survey on researchers’ current perceptions and practices in peer review, impact measurement and dissemination of research results survey, 19 April 2017. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.556157.
Tenopir, C., et al. (2011). Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS One, 6(6), e21101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021101.
Vignoli M. (2017). Project OpenUP-Deliverable D6.1 – Use Cases and Pilots Definition of Methodology. DOI:10.5281/ZENODO.2557426.
Vignoli M. (2018). Project OpenUP-Deliverable D6.2 – Interim Use Case Evaluation Report, 30 November 2017. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2557428.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
 | This licence lets others distribute, remix and build upon a work, even commercially, as long as they credit the original creator/s (and any other nominated parties). This is the most accommodating of the licences in terms of what others can do with the work. |
