1 / 9

Referencing Research Data: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - IMOS Marine Examples

This article explores the benefits and challenges of open access data in marine research, using examples from the Australian Animal Tagging and Monitoring System (AATAMS) and IMOS Animal Tracking Facility. It discusses the importance of data citation, discoverability, accessibility, and protection, and highlights the issues faced in referencing data in scientific publications.

carrieb
Download Presentation

Referencing Research Data: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - IMOS Marine Examples

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Referencing Research Data: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly- some (IMOS) marine examples Prof Rob Harcourt, Facility Leader, IMOS Animal Tracking&Prof Marine Ecology Macquarie University

  2. Australian Animal Tagging and Monitoring System: AATAMS phase 2, biologging‘time for us to grow up and share the data’Rob Harcourt, I Field, M Hindell, MA Lea, S Goldsworthy, B Page, A BoomerHobart 23 March 2011

  3. Ideally qualified open access to data has multiple benefits:for researchers and data funders • Recognises the value of the Data (Historical record, futurevalue, cost of collection, amalgamated value) • Open Data (Increased collaboration, increasedcitation, better understanding of marine systems) • BUT must balance “Open Data” against “Publish or Perish” • Discoverable, Accessible, Protected wherenecessary(commercial interests,confidentiality, privacy, species protection)

  4. The Good • Continuous Plankton Recorder Dataset • Facility Leader: Anthony Richardson • Phytoplankton Data Australia, currently being published in Nature Scientific Reports • Data being lodged in AODN with attached DOI • Expectation: data can be updated after publication

  5. The ‘Good’ • IMOS Facility eMII • Facility Leader Roger Proctor, • Member: Research Data Alliance Working Group on Dynamic Citation • Recent Paris meeting provided recommendations to make dynamic Data citeable https://rd-alliance.org/rda-wgdc-recommendations-vers-sep-24-2015.html • eMIIhave looked at the recommendations in regards the phytoplankton database • concluded that implementing the recommendations will be challenging, • possibly not scalable • poses questions about other IMOS dynamic datasets... • The RDA WG is establishing pilot projects to address these issues

  6. The ‘Bad’ • IMOS Facility ARGO • Facility Leader Susan Wjifels • Argo’s adventures in trying to build a data citation record • led by Justin Buck (BODC) and Megan Scanderbeg (SIO/Argo) • Argo has been forming monthly ‘snapshots' of the full data set, meta files and related data and user manuals for several years. • accessible at NODC and Coriolis- Global Data Assembly Centres • Allow reproducibility of most Argo analyses as long as the authors report the GDAC download month. These all have DOI • BUT: journals do not allow these DOI’s  to be put into the reference list-only in the acknowledgements or methods. • Thus they do not appear in the literature search engines and so not cited in Web of Science or Scopus

  7. The ‘Bad’ • IMOS Facility ARGO • Facility Leader Susan Wjifels • Argo’s adventures in trying to build a data citation record • Data journals have costs • 1) requiring another paper to write and get reviewed and charged for • 2) paper then becomes the ‘reference’. • BUT can it deal with the dynamic nature of the Argo data set or do we need to write a ‘paper’ for every monthly snapshot. • ie: Can Data Journals deal with dynamic datasets? • Preferred option: expand the indexed reference list of existing journals to a ‘data source component’ and a ‘science component’. 

  8. The ‘Ugly’ • IMOS Facility Animal Tracking • Facility Leader Rob Harcourt • Two datasets: AATAMS Acoustic data set and IMOS Biologging dataset • Acoustics: Centralised dataset users must register, has Creative Commons Licence • All users must register their Metadata (tag data and receiver data) to use database. Dynamic database (70 million detections, incrementing ~ 10 million/annum) • Source is principally acknowledgements- makes searching for use difficult (similar to ARGO)

  9. The ‘Ugly’ • IMOS Facility Animal Tracking • Facility Leader Rob Harcourt • Two datasets: AATAMS Acoustic data set and IMOS Biologging dataset • Biologging: eMIIis source • Data uptake is high and principlally good BUT • Data was published in Nature Scientific Data 2014- Citations 6, • Data has been used in > 6 publications. • Crucially- just returned from a data exploration meeting where the datasets were being used unacknowledged and unreferenced by Data Exploration researchers ignorant of ultimate source of the data

More Related