Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data

Abstract

Data “publication” seeks to appropriate the prestige of authorship in the peer-reviewed literature to reward researchers who create useful and well-documented datasets. The scholarly communication community has embraced data publication as an incentive to document and share data. But, numerous new and ongoing experiments in implementation have not yet resolved what a data publication should be, when data should be peer-reviewed, or how data peer review should work. While researchers have been surveyed extensively regarding data management and sharing, their perceptions and expectations of data publication are largely unknown. To bring this important yet neglected perspective into the conversation, we surveyed ∼ 250 researchers across the sciences and social sciences– asking what expectations“data publication” raises and what features would be useful to evaluate the trustworthiness, evaluate the impact, and enhance the prestige of a data publication. We found that researcher expectations of data publication center on availability, generally through an open database or repository. Few respondents expected published data to be peer-reviewed, but peer-reviewed data enjoyed much greater trust and prestige. The importance of adequate metadata was acknowledged, in that almost all respondents expected data peer review to include evaluation of the data’s documentation. Formal citation in the reference list was affirmed by most respondents as the proper way to credit dataset creators. Citation count was viewed as the most useful measure of impact, but download count was seen as nearly as valuable. These results offer practical guidance for data publishers seeking to meet researcher expectations and enhance the value of published data.

Research Data Services in European Academic Research Libraries

“…They may require assistance with activities such as creating metadata, locating datasets, and finding appropriate places to store their data (Aydinoglu, Suomela, & Malone, 2014;Enke et al, 2012;Kratz & Strasser, 2015;Schmidt, Gemeinholzer, & Treloar, 2016;Specht et al, 2015;Tenopir et al, 2011Tenopir et al, , 2015a. Earlier surveys of researchers suggest roles for research libraries in providing support for research data management, an extension of the library's traditional role in providing research and reference services (Si et al, 2015;Tenopir et al, 2012Tenopir et al, , 2015bVlaeminck, 2013).…”

Data as Social Capital and the Gift Culture in Research

“…The policy papers on the importance of making research data available appeal to the common good but make few suggestions how the desired cultural change is going to be achieved and have not lead to a large scale change in data sharing practices (Kratz and Strasser 2015). Statements by researchers on their willingness to share data come with the best intentions but rarely go beyond lip service and bear little resemblance with the actual release of data .…”

“…Nelson 2009;Borgman 2012). Given the important role of publication and citation in scholarship it is widely assumed that formal data publication would be an incentive for researchers to make data available (Costello 2009;Kratz and Strasser 2015;Van den Eynden et al 2016).…”

A decade of RAPID—Reflections on the development of an open source geoscience code

“…Kattge et al [] argued that while data sharing is necessary, associated hurdles subsist, and proper means of acknowledgment (i.e., citations) are needed so that scientists can benefit from the added burden. This argument was further supported by the survey of Kratz and Strasser []. Others have also suggested that the computer codes used to generate or to analyze data are equally important and should hence be made similarly accessible [ Nature , ; Nature Geoscience , ].…”