Peer Reviewing Data: experiences from a data journal

Transcription

1 Peer Reviewing Data: experiences from a data journal Varsha Khodiyar, PhD Data Curation Editor, Scientific Data

2 The data journal 1

3 2 Scientific Data, a Nature Research journal Data Descriptor Primary article type; sound science and facilitates data reuse Analysis New analyses or metaanalyses of existing data Article Original reports on advances in data sharing & reuse Comment Announcements of broad interest; usually invited

4 3 Under the hood of a Data Descriptor Synthesis Analysis Conclusions Context in which the data was generated (background) How was the data generated? How was the data processed? Where is the data?

5 4 Data Descriptors have human and machine understandable components Human readable representation of Human readable representation of study i.e. article (HTML & PDF) i.e. article (HTML & PDF)

6 5 Data Descriptors have human and machine understandable components Machine accessible representation of study i.e. metadata

7 Guidance for authors 6

8 7 Templates and detailed guidance available online

9 8 Recommended repositories Browse our recommended data repositories online. We currently list more than 80 repositories, across biological, medical, physical and social sciences When required, we provide guidance to authors on the best place to store their data nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories

10 The review process 9

11 10 Editorial office Susanna-Assunta Sansone Honorary Academic Editor Andrew L. Hufton Managing Editor Varsha K. Khodiyar Data Curation Editor

12 11 Selection of Editorial Board members Experts in their discipline AND Demonstrable experience of data standards, data reuse or data analysis in their discipline

13 12 Data peer review Experimental Rigor and Technical Data Quality Completeness of the Description Were data produced in a sound manner? Technical quality of data appropriate statistical analyses? Experimental rigor - appropriate depth, coverage? Sufficient detail to allow others to reproduce these steps? Sufficient detail to allow others to reuse this data? Consistent with relevant minimum reporting standards? Integrity of the Data Files and Repository Record Do data files appear complete and match manuscript descriptions? Are data archived to the most appropriate repository?

14 13 Metadata curation and final data checking We capture metadata about the dataset being described in each Data Descriptor. During the metadata curation process Manuscript re-read Data archive checked Minor issues with the data and/or manuscript often identified

15 14 Why a Data Descriptor may be rejected Reject without review Out of scope or no data present Reject after review Serious flaws in the study design, e.g. lack of crucial controls Serious issues identified in the data files by the peer reviewers After rejection Address concerns and resubmit to Scientific Data Resubmit to another data journal Withdraw data from Scientific Data integrated repositories Data should be technically reliable and suitable for use by others

16 Summary 15

17 16 Data peer review at Scientific Data Data Archive Checked multiple times Scientific reasoning underlying data reviewed by active researchers Technical validity reviewed by discipline experts Data Citations Citation accuracy confirmed by specialist editor Citation format checked by editorial team Data linkage tested by production team Data peer review does not have to be onerous Reviewing data can save overall reviewing time

18 Thank you 17 Visit nature.com/scientificdata