Integration of Data and Publications - Alliance for Permanent Access

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Report on Integration of Data and Publications Grant Agreement no.: 261530 in the main paper. For example, a paper with 7 main figures can have up to 14 supplemental items total, of which up to 7 may be figures. Another restriction from Cell is that the supplemental material must bear a direct relationship to the main conclusions and content in the paper and must stay within the same scope: Supplemental Information is limited to data and other materials that directly support the main conclusions of a paper but are considered additional or secondary support for the main conclusions, or cannot be included in the main paper for reasons such as space or file format restrictions. Supplemental Information should be within the conceptual scope of the main paper and not extend beyond it. In a quote in The Scientists (February 2011) 37 , Emilie Marcus, Editor-in-Chief of Cell Press Journals, says "It had become a limitless bag of stuff." The publisher did not consider abolishing supplementary materials altogether because they have a diverse readership, with different levels of interest in a study's details, Marcus explained, but it was necessary to rein it in. "I do think there are different solutions for different journals," Marcus said. "Scientific communities and journals have probably not given enough thought to what to do with this capacity for supplemental materials. That needs to evolve." In 2010 a working group was set up by NISO/NFAIS 38 with a charge to define best practice recommendations on how publishers can best treat supplementary information, in terms of inclusion, handling, display and preservation. These guidelines are expected to appear in the second half of 2011. They will cover best practices for supplementary files to journals and also roles and responsibilities for availability, findability, quality control and preservation. 3.4. How safe is data in supplementary journal article files? (or: quality and preservation ervation of supplementary journal article files) How do publishers treat the data in supplementary files and how safe is the data there? A complaint that publishers sometimes receive is about the lack of transparency over whether the supplementary files received from authors have been edited at all, peer reviewed or checked on format and general quality. Many publishers will just offer the author the service of posting the files in connection to the article exactly in the way they were received from the author. In some cases the files were part of the peer review process, in others they were supplied after acceptance of the article. Some publishers transfer the supplementary files into pdf’s before posting, which does not serve the reusability or further and deeper analysis of the data. The ways in which the supplementary files are provided with metadata vary widely between publishers. Some leave this to authors entirely which does not add to 37 The Scientist: Supplemental or detrimental? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/58027/#ixzz1NRVKAV6F) 38 NISO, see http://www.niso.org/workrooms/supplemental Opportunities for Data Exchange (ODE) –www.ode-project.eu 46
Report on Integration of Data and Publications Grant Agreement no.: 261530 consistency across data files. Also the mention of supplementary files in the article or the reference from the article to the supplements follows many different practices. Librarians find it sometimes a struggle to make sure that a literature search they carry out for research groups contains all related supplements (see Chapter 4). The NISO/NFAIS recommendations for Best Practice as mentioned earlier aim to advocate a clearer and a more common practice for this across publishers that help librarians find supplementary material when it exists. Again the findings from PARSE.Insight confirm this picture on many of its aspects. The 137 publishers responding to the PARSE survey say about research data submitted by the author: • only 51 % of publishers validates the data submitted, mostly checking the file formats • only 44 % facilitates direct links to it • 39 % requires © transfer (against 57 % not) • 70 % has no preservation measures in place for the supplemental data other than for the articles As shown in the following survey results : Graph 20, source PARSE.Insight, N=137 publishers Opportunities for Data Exchange (ODE) –www.ode-project.eu 47
Page 1 and 2: REPORT ON INTEGRATION OF DATA AND P
Page 3 and 4: Report on Integration of Data and P
Page 45: Report on Integration of Data and P
Page 87: Report on Integration of Data and P

Integration of Data and Publications - Alliance for Permanent Access

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?