Research Software vs. Research Data I: Towards a Research Data definition in the Open Science context

Abstract

Background: Research Software is a concept that has been only recently clarified. In this paper we address the need for a similar enlightenment concerning the Research Data concept. Methods: Our contribution begins by reviewing the Research Software definition, which includes the analysis of software as a legal concept, followed by the study of its production in the research environment and within the Open Science framework. Then we explore the challenges of a data definition and some of the Research Data definitions proposed in the literature. Results: We propose a Research Data concept featuring three characteristics: the data should be produced (collected, processed, analyzed, shared & disseminated) to answer a scientific question, by a scientific team, and has yield a result published or disseminated in some article or scientific contribution of any kind. Conclusions: The analysis of this definition and the context in which it is proposed provides some answers to the Borgman’s conundrum challenges, that is, which Research Data might be shared, by whom, with whom, under what conditions, why, and to what effects. They are completed with answers to the questions: how? and where?

Research Software vs. Research Data II: Protocols for Research Data dissemination and evaluation in the Open Science context

“…Even when the differences are too important, and maybe the proposed dissemination and evaluation procedures are not directly applicable as such in both settings, they could help to suggest hints to address the diverse issues appearing in each environment. In summary, the present work follows and expands the approach adopted in 15 . Both articles can be read separately, but they constitute a whole.…”

“…Moreover, a RS development team may not just use software produced by other teams, but also include external software as a component inside the ongoing development, something which can be facilitated by the Free/Open Source Software (FLOSS) 1 licenses. This potential external component will qualify here as RS if it complies with the three characteristics given in the above definition 15 . Moreover, the responsible team of the resulting work should clearly identify the included external components and their licenses, as well as highlight, by means of recommended citation practices, 13 , 17 , 18 , the external components that qualify as RS.…”

“…It is slightly updated and completed in the following. More information on the legal issues can be found in 11 , or in section 2.1 of Reference 15 .…”

“…Our proposal is grounded on our knowledge and experience concerning RS 10 - 14 . This translation of knowledge from RS to RD has been already successfully applied 15 to propose a RD definition and to tackle the Borgman’s conundrum challenges 16 . In the present paper we attempt to extend this approach to the case of RD dissemination and evaluation practices.…”

“…The next section is devoted to revisit the corresponding points related to RS: definition, dissemination, evaluation and consideration of the role of FAIR principles in this context. Section 3 focus then in RD topics, reviewing the proposed RD definition 15 and to present the main contribution: some comprehensive RD dissemination and evaluation procedures. Conclusions will end this work.…”