|
310 | 310 | ] |
311 | 311 | }, |
312 | 312 | { |
313 | | - "objectID": "session_03.html#exercise-evaluate-a-data-package-on-the-adc-repository", |
314 | | - "href": "session_03.html#exercise-evaluate-a-data-package-on-the-adc-repository", |
| 313 | + "objectID": "session_03.html#research-data-publishing-ethics", |
| 314 | + "href": "session_03.html#research-data-publishing-ethics", |
315 | 315 | "title": "3 Submitting to the Arctic Data Center", |
316 | | - "section": "3.7 Exercise: Evaluate a Data Package on the ADC Repository", |
317 | | - "text": "3.7 Exercise: Evaluate a Data Package on the ADC Repository\nExplore data packages published on the ADC assess the quality of their metadata. Imagine you’re a data curator!\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTipSetup\n\n\n\n\nBreak into groups and use the following data packages:\n\nGroup A: ADC Data Portal White spruce (Picea glauca) densities at Brooks Range treelines, Alaska (2019-2022)\nGroup B: ADC Data Portal A 2022 household survey about impacts and human response to climate-related multi-hazards in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Whitehorse\nGroup C: ADC Data Portal Summertime water quality measurements at beaver ponds and associated locations in Arctic Alaska, 2022-2026\n\n\n\n\nYou and your group will evaluate a data package for its: (1) metadata quality, (2) data documentation quality for reproducibility, and (3) FAIRness and CAREness.", |
| 316 | + "section": "3.7 Research Data Publishing Ethics", |
| 317 | + "text": "3.7 Research Data Publishing Ethics\nFor over 20 years, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has provided trusted guidance on ethical practices for scholarly publishing. The COPE guidelines have been broadly adopted by academic publishers across disciplines, and represent a common approach to identify, classify, and adjudicate potential breaches of ethics in publication such as authorship conflicts, peer review manipulation, and falsified findings, among many other areas. Despite these guidelines, there has been a lack of ethics standards, guidelines, or recommendations for data publications, even while some groups have begun to evaluate and act upon reported issues in data publication ethics.\n\n\n\nData retractions\n\n\nTo address this gap, the Force 11 Working Group on Research Data Publishing Ethics was formed as a collaboration among research data professionals and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) “to develop industry-leading guidance and recommended best practices to support repositories, journal publishers, and institutions in handling the ethical responsibilities associated with publishing research data.” The group released the “Joint FORCE11 & COPE Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group Recommendations” (Puebla, Lowenberg, and WG 2021), which outlines recommendations for four categories of potential data ethics issues:\n\nAuthorship and Contribution Conflicts\n\nAuthorship omissions\nAuthorship ordering changes / conflicts\nInstitutional investigation of author finds misconduct\n\nLegal/regulatory restrictions\n\nCopyright violation\nInsufficient rights for deposit\nBreaches of national privacy laws (GPDR, CCPA)\nBreaches of biosafety and biosecurity protocols\nBreaches of contract law governing data redistribution\n\nRisks of publication or release\n\nRisks to human subjects\n\nLack of consent\nBreaches of himan rights\nRelease of personally identifiable information (PII)\n\nRisks to species, ecosystems, historical sites\n\nLocations of endangered species or historical sites\n\nRisks to communities or societies\n\nData harvested for profit or surveillance\nBreaches of data sovereignty\n\n\nRigor of published data\n\nUnintentional errors in collection, calculation, display\nUn-interpretable data due to lack of adequate documentation\nErrors of of study design and inference\nData manipulation or fabrication\n\n\nGuidelines cover what actions need to be taken, depending on whether the data are already published or not, as well as who should be involved in decisions, who should be notified of actions, and when the public should be notified. The group has also published templates for use by publishers and repositories to announce the extent to which they plan to conform to the data ethics guidelines.\n\n\n\nForce11/COPE", |
318 | 318 | "crumbs": [ |
319 | 319 | "<span class='chapter-number'>3</span> <span class='chapter-title'>Submitting to the Arctic Data Center</span>" |
320 | 320 | ] |
321 | 321 | }, |
322 | 322 | { |
323 | | - "objectID": "session_03.html#research-data-publishing-ethics", |
324 | | - "href": "session_03.html#research-data-publishing-ethics", |
| 323 | + "objectID": "session_03.html#exercise-evaluate-a-data-package-on-the-adc-repository", |
| 324 | + "href": "session_03.html#exercise-evaluate-a-data-package-on-the-adc-repository", |
325 | 325 | "title": "3 Submitting to the Arctic Data Center", |
326 | | - "section": "3.8 Research Data Publishing Ethics", |
327 | | - "text": "3.8 Research Data Publishing Ethics\nFor over 20 years, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has provided trusted guidance on ethical practices for scholarly publishing. The COPE guidelines have been broadly adopted by academic publishers across disciplines, and represent a common approach to identify, classify, and adjudicate potential breaches of ethics in publication such as authorship conflicts, peer review manipulation, and falsified findings, among many other areas. Despite these guidelines, there has been a lack of ethics standards, guidelines, or recommendations for data publications, even while some groups have begun to evaluate and act upon reported issues in data publication ethics.\n\n\n\nData retractions\n\n\nTo address this gap, the Force 11 Working Group on Research Data Publishing Ethics was formed as a collaboration among research data professionals and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) “to develop industry-leading guidance and recommended best practices to support repositories, journal publishers, and institutions in handling the ethical responsibilities associated with publishing research data.” The group released the “Joint FORCE11 & COPE Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group Recommendations” (Puebla, Lowenberg, and WG 2021), which outlines recommendations for four categories of potential data ethics issues:\n\nAuthorship and Contribution Conflicts\n\nAuthorship omissions\nAuthorship ordering changes / conflicts\nInstitutional investigation of author finds misconduct\n\nLegal/regulatory restrictions\n\nCopyright violation\nInsufficient rights for deposit\nBreaches of national privacy laws (GPDR, CCPA)\nBreaches of biosafety and biosecurity protocols\nBreaches of contract law governing data redistribution\n\nRisks of publication or release\n\nRisks to human subjects\n\nLack of consent\nBreaches of himan rights\nRelease of personally identifiable information (PII)\n\nRisks to species, ecosystems, historical sites\n\nLocations of endangered species or historical sites\n\nRisks to communities or societies\n\nData harvested for profit or surveillance\nBreaches of data sovereignty\n\n\nRigor of published data\n\nUnintentional errors in collection, calculation, display\nUn-interpretable data due to lack of adequate documentation\nErrors of of study design and inference\nData manipulation or fabrication\n\n\nGuidelines cover what actions need to be taken, depending on whether the data are already published or not, as well as who should be involved in decisions, who should be notified of actions, and when the public should be notified. The group has also published templates for use by publishers and repositories to announce the extent to which they plan to conform to the data ethics guidelines.\n\n\n\nForce11/COPE\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNoteExercise: Evaluate a data package on the ADC Data Portal\n\n\n\n\nView our Data Package Assessment Rubric and make a copy of it to:\n\nInvestigate the metadata in the provided data\n\nDoes the metadata meet the standards we talked about? How so?\nIf not, how would you improve the metadata based on the standards we talked about?\n\nInvestigate the overall data documentation in the data package\n\nIs the documentation sufficient enough for reproducibility? Why or why not?\nIf not, how would you improve the data documentation? What’s missing?\n\nIdentify elements of FAIR and CARE\n\nIs it clear that the data package used a FAIR and CARE lens?\nIf not, what documentation or considerations would you add?\n\n\nElect someone to share back to the group the following:\n\nHow easy or challenging was it to find the metadata and other data documentation you were evaluating? Why or why not?\nWhat documentation stood out to you? What did you like or not like about it?\nHow well did these data packages uphold FAIR and CARE Principles?\nDo you feel like you understand the research project enough to use the data yourself (aka reproducibility?\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCarroll, Stephanie Russo, Ibrahim Garba, Oscar L. Figueroa-Rodríguez, Jarita Holbrook, Raymond Lovett, Simeon Materechera, Mark Parsons, et al. 2020. “The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance.” Data Science Journal 19 (1): 43. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043.\n\n\nCarroll, Stephanie Russo, Edit Herczog, Maui Hudson, Keith Russell, and Shelley Stall. 2021. “Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous Data Futures.” Scientific Data 8 (1): 108. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00892-0.\n\n\nPuebla, Iratxe, Daniella Lowenberg, and FORCE11 Research Data Publishing Ethics WG. 2021. “Joint FORCE11 & COPE Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group Recommendations.” Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5391293.\n\n\nWilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, et al. 2016. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data 3 (1): 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.", |
| 326 | + "section": "3.8 Exercise: Evaluate a Data Package on the ADC Repository", |
| 327 | + "text": "3.8 Exercise: Evaluate a Data Package on the ADC Repository\nExplore data packages published on the ADC assess the quality of their metadata. Imagine you’re a data curator!\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTipSetup\n\n\n\n\nBreak into groups and use the following data packages:\n\nGroup A: ADC Data Portal White spruce (Picea glauca) densities at Brooks Range treelines, Alaska (2019-2022)\nGroup B: ADC Data Portal A 2022 household survey about impacts and human response to climate-related multi-hazards in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Whitehorse\nGroup C: ADC Data Portal Summertime water quality measurements at beaver ponds and associated locations in Arctic Alaska, 2022-2026\n\n\n\n\nYou and your group will evaluate a data package for its: (1) metadata quality, (2) data documentation quality for reproducibility, and (3) FAIRness and CAREness.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNoteExercise: Evaluate a data package on the ADC Data Portal\n\n\n\n\nView our Data Package Assessment Rubric and make a copy of it to:\n\nInvestigate the metadata in the provided data\n\nDoes the metadata meet the standards we talked about? How so?\nIf not, how would you improve the metadata based on the standards we talked about?\n\nInvestigate the overall data documentation in the data package\n\nIs the documentation sufficient enough for reproducibility? Why or why not?\nIf not, how would you improve the data documentation? What’s missing?\n\nIdentify elements of FAIR and CARE\n\nIs it clear that the data package used a FAIR and CARE lens?\nIf not, what documentation or considerations would you add?\n\n\nElect someone to share back to the group the following:\n\nHow easy or challenging was it to find the metadata and other data documentation you were evaluating? Why or why not?\nWhat documentation stood out to you? What did you like or not like about it?\nHow well did these data packages uphold FAIR and CARE Principles?\nDo you feel like you understand the research project enough to use the data yourself (aka reproducibility?\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCarroll, Stephanie Russo, Ibrahim Garba, Oscar L. Figueroa-Rodríguez, Jarita Holbrook, Raymond Lovett, Simeon Materechera, Mark Parsons, et al. 2020. “The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance.” Data Science Journal 19 (1): 43. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043.\n\n\nCarroll, Stephanie Russo, Edit Herczog, Maui Hudson, Keith Russell, and Shelley Stall. 2021. “Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous Data Futures.” Scientific Data 8 (1): 108. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00892-0.\n\n\nPuebla, Iratxe, Daniella Lowenberg, and FORCE11 Research Data Publishing Ethics WG. 2021. “Joint FORCE11 & COPE Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group Recommendations.” Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5391293.\n\n\nWilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, et al. 2016. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data 3 (1): 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.", |
328 | 328 | "crumbs": [ |
329 | 329 | "<span class='chapter-number'>3</span> <span class='chapter-title'>Submitting to the Arctic Data Center</span>" |
330 | 330 | ] |
|
0 commit comments