While there are a number of different communities of practice around data citation, a number of common principles and practices can be identified.
The editorial policy Science [see http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/ ] is an exemplar of two principles for data citations: First, that published claims should cite the evidence and methods upon which they rely, and second, that things cited should be available for examination by the scientific community. These principles have been recognized across a set of communities and expert reports, and are increasingly being adopted by number of other leading journals. [See Altman 2012; CODATA-ICSTI Task Group, 2013; and http://www.force11.org/AmsterdamManifesto]
Previous policies aiming to facilitate open access to research data have often failed to achieve their promise in implementation. Effective implementation requires standardizing core practices, aligning stakeholder incentives, reducing barriers to long-term access, and building in evaluation mechanisms.
A set of core recognized good practices have emerged that span fields. Good practice includes separating the elements of citation from the presentation; including in the elements identifier, title, author, and date information, and where at all possible version and fixity information; and listing data citations in the same place as citation to other works – typically in the references section. [See Altman-King 2006; Altman 2012; CODATA-ICTI Task Group 2013; http://schema.datacite.org/ ; http://data-pass.org/citations.html ]
Although the incentives related to data citation and access are complex, there are a number of simple points of leverage. First, journals can both create positive incentives for sharing data by requiring that data be properly cited. Second, funders can require that only those outputs of research that comply with access and citation policies can be claimed as results from prior research.
You may read the full response on the Data-PASS site.
Metdata can be defined variously as “data about data”, digital ‘breadcrumbs’, magic pixie dust, and “something that everyone now knows the NSA wants a lot of”. It’s all of the above.
Metadata is used to support decision and workflows, add value to objects (through enhancing discover, use, reuse, and integration), and to support evaluation and analysis. It’s not the whole story for any of these things, but it can be a big part.
This presentation, invited for a workshop on Open Access and Scholarly Books (sponsored by the Berkman Center and Knowledge Unlatched), provides a very brief overview of metadata design principles, approaches to evaluation metrics, and some relevant standards and exemplars in scholarly publishing. It is intended to provoke discussion on approaches to evaluation of the use, characteristics, and value of OA publications.
The core issue is that there are few models for the systematic valuation of data: We have no robust general proven ways of answering the question of how much data X be worth to community Y at time Z. Thus the “bestness” (optimality) of practices are generally strongly dependent on operational context.. and the context of data sharing is currently both highly complex and dynamic Until there is systematic descriptive evidence that best practices are used, predictive evidence that best practices are associated with future desired outcomes, and causal evidence that the application of best practices yields improved outcomes, we will be unsure that practices are “best”.
Nevertheless, one should use established “not-bad” practices, for a number of reasons. First, to avoid practices that are clearly bad; second, because use of such practices acts to document operational and tacit knowledge; third because selecting practices can help to elicit the underlying assumptions under which practices are applied; and finally because not-bad practcies provide a basis for auditing, evaluation, and eventual improvement.
Specific not-bad practices for data sharing fall into roughly three categories :