DataONE:Notebook/ArticleCitationPractices/2010/07/07

{| width="800"
 * style="background-color: #EEE"|[[Image:owwnotebook_icon.png|128px]] Project name
 * style="background-color: #F2F2F2" align="center"|  |Main project page
 * style="background-color: #F2F2F2" align="center"|  |Main project page


 * colspan="2"|
 * colspan="2"|

July 7 Knoxville Meeting Notes
{| width="800"
 * style="background-color: #cdde95;" align="center"|
 * style="background-color: #cdde95;" align="center"|




 * align="center" style="background-color: #e5edc8;" |

title=Search this Project


 * colspan="2" style="background-color: #F2F2F2;" align="right"|Customize your entry pages 
 * colspan="2"|
 * colspan="2"|
 * colspan="2"|

Morning

 * presentations posted by Heather on OWW
 * esp. read Heather's (she will walk through with any questions I have)

Nic's presentation

 * Neal Beagrie - data = ladder to stand on shoulders
 * supporting cross-disciplinary research
 * top down (data policies; sticks) vs. bottom up (open sciences; carrots)
 * many repositories require an associated publication
 * general thing we're all encountering - "good but vague"
 * also caught the molecular ecology policy: example of data citation, indication of upcoming policy
 * polar research doesn't just re-articulate Wiley's blanket policy, but specifies better (I think this one was forwarded to me)
 * unpublished data treated as correspondence
 * supplementary data = pdf (small, not reusable)
 * encountered referee guidelines for my journals?

Comments on my presentation

 * Suzie:
 * defining data
 * levels of data: sensor, processed, input file ---> what is the real data?!
 * get white paper by bob/todd on dryad
 * supplementary vs. actual data - authors seem to be confused (results table published but not actual data)
 * if white paper not in the same vein, this warrants an editorial
 * journal/depositories will need to define this (add to best practices recommendations for journals which nic is probably compiling, mine is more for authors or should at least collaborate with nic about how to approach such an editorial)
 * categorizing discipline
 * utilize journal classification, but for finer resolution
 * no matter the solution, explicitly state that this is difficult to define
 * do biosis, other journal (isi-type) databases categorize and article
 * darwin core, other
 * heather's idea: cluster based on keyword, title, abstract, possibly also author department
 * suzie's concern: discipline vs. problem (issue addressed)
 * data produced + shared (outputs = discipline)
 * author affiliation
 * bob's suggestions: keep each as a separate field (multiple types of categorizing discipline..which separates the data?)
 * forward to heather/todd
 * dryad examples (Sites, others)
 * barcode of life instances
 * where to go after knoxville:
 * a few more snapshots
 * journal suggestions: remote sensing (have gcb from bob's excel), paleobiology, good policy journals from nic
 * only pursue time series if nic can track history of data policies (and state in paper that this was original intent of time series...use anecdotal (qualitative)....i.e. 2006 (I think) was a hotbed year where sysbio had those nice accession tables, 2009 drop off in genbank with molec ecology)
 * finish molec ecology 2009 for above anecdote
 * cutoff of data collection: 1-2 weeks
 * focus on getting this data out
 * things to specify in final manuscript
 * original vs. modified goals
 * reference (used the data) vs. citation (actual credit given)
 * definition of article discipline
 * anecdotes
 * supplementary vs. actual
 * time series
 * molec eco 2009
 * good vs. bad citation
 * instances of dryad

Valerie's presentation

 * suzie: give her suggestions of what they should be asking librarians (especially the future)
 * presentations are on dataone plone

to look into

 * Sherpa Juliet
 * data conservancy
 * pivot table alternative
 * darwin core, etc
 * global change metadata depository

Break out Session

 * Agenda
 * Output
 * Data Analysis
 * Specific deliverables by July, others left to individual pursuit
 * focus on how to achieve visibility over the next few weeks
 * pretend results section without numbers filled in
 * Degree of Integration
 * Show how pieces connect vs. data analysis together
 * Feasibility of history


 * my revised plan
 * Snapshot in 2000 of three main journals, possibly 2003 (heather doesn't think that it correlates with change in behavior)
 * 2000 & 2010 snapshots of journals: mole eco, global change biology, ecology, sysbio, amnat, paleobiology (uses pdbd depository), possibly broad (nature, pnas, science....just the biology articles from them.....nature might be best (nature published human genome in 2001 when Science refused to), physiological genetics (heather suggestion)??
 * journals dictate discipline...but open up avenue for article level discipline
 * don't worry too much right now about my bio/eco (dataset type) problems
 * what are the 2005-2010 trends: change over time in genbank/treebase policy, incident of journal data policy/changes in data policy - not as relevant as 2000 vs. 2010
 * suggested journals: PlosBiology (followed by PLosONE - only review for scientific integrity not scope/discipline), science rather than information science journal, Bioscience, PNAS
 * correlation suggestions
 * dataset type vs. good citation (breakdown each component)
 * is time (2000 vs. 2010), depository, journal/policy, or dataset type influences quality of citation or quality of sharing - possible other factors: open access, funder, etc. - remember categorical vs. quantitative
 * good citation (reuse) = ppt
 * good sharing = all produced and shared
 * to get quantitative correlations...don't rank good, bad, ok....but 1,2,3 (just add); data produced minus data shared
 * cluster the data according to quality of citation/sharing and see what the unifying factors are
 * write up abstract and mock results (get to heather and todd especially)
 * look at my initial list of factors
 * integration
 * me use nic metadata - funder, journal, depository policy
 * valerie use my tags
 * additional to do
 * validate sysbio problem with heather - send problem dois
 * blog: smaller - quick anecdotes (authors citing themselves, etc)
 * rob page blog
 * intent of dryad to supplant sysbio archives
 * cluster analysis of discipline (develop with heather)
 * send preliminary journal coding to nic
 * once the foundation is laid by our separate publications/analyses, then submit a bigger editorial/policy recommendation
 * presentation: open science workshops at various conferences
 * esa: provide slides for bob/bruce to use
 * evidence for self citation - heather interested in developing further
 * make list on OWW/plone of interesting avenues that should be pursued further
 * report on summer with "relative (aunt) readable" abstract for planned submitted paper


 * }