developing best practices for supplemental materials
DESCRIPTION
Developing Best Practices for Supplemental Materials. Linda Beebe June 2, 2011. Collision of 2 Worlds. Explosion of─ Research Data Accrued Knowledge. Increased Requirements Funding Bodies Reporting Standards. Supplemental Materials—it sounded like such a good idea. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
SSP June 2, 2011
Developing Best Practices for
Supplemental MaterialsLinda BeebeJune 2, 2011
SSP June 2, 2011
Company Logo
COLLISION OF 2 WORLDS
SSP June 2, 2011
Explosion of─ResearchDataAccrued Knowledge
Increased RequirementsFunding BodiesReporting Standards
SSP June 2, 2011
Supplemental Materials—it sounded like such a good idea. The author could expand
on their research.
Science would be better with data needed to verify or replicate study at little additional cost.
We could enhance reporting of science with multi-media.
We looked to technology to solve problems—but kept our print-centric views.
And we did it on our own—no standards or best practices.
SSP June 2, 2011
Outcomes for the author?
May get to showcase new work that would not otherwise be seen.
May also risk displaying weak work that otherwise might not be seen.
SSP June 2, 2011
Outcomes for the user?Lack of descriptive
metadata
Discoverability issues
Lack of context
Concern about persistence
No clarity on citations
Some mystery in the main article about what is supplemental
─ a maze, maybe not value-add taken as a whole.
SSP June 2, 2011
Outcomes for the publisher?
Direct costs
Diverted energies—already crisis in peer review
Tough decisions─
What is value-add?
Peer review dilemma, quality vs workload?
Plan for migration?
SSP June 2, 2011
NISO-NFAIS Working Group
SSP June 2, 2011
Business Working GroupCo-Chairs: Linda Beebe & Marie McVeigh
Define Supplemental Materials, structurally and functionally. Define related terms, such as data, citation, and article. Recommend methods of referencing and linking to and from
supplemental material and for providing context. Recommendations around metadata, persistent identifiers,
and citations . Recommend processes for peer review, production, and
curation. Consider permissions and accessibility issues. Recommend responsibilities for authors, editors, peer
reviewers, publishers.
SSP June 2, 2011
Technical Working GroupCo-Chairs: Dave Martinsen & Sasha
Schwarzman
Recommend metadata, persistent identifiers, and granularity of markup needed to support practices recommended by the Business Working Group (BWG).
Recommend supports for referencing and linking to and from Supplemental Materials and for handling cited references within Supplemental Materials.
Recommend processes for archiving, preservation, and forward migration of various types of Supplemental Materials.
Recommend processes for packaging, exchange, and delivery of Supplemental Materials, taking into account variations in the location and hosting of those materials.
Recommend technical support for accessibility practices recommended by the BWG.
SSP June 2, 2011
On Different Wave LengthsDisciplines vary in use of supplemental material.
Differ in style systems and culture.
Readers vary in need for information—some current awareness, some deep digging.
Different approaches to underlying data.
Very different approaches to delivery systems.
Technology enabled, but still using print.
SSP June 2, 2011
Data One Type of Supplemental
Example of evolving ecosystem. Print world—no datasets part of article.
For some, almost synonymous with supplemental.
Journal articles—indeed whole journals—devoted to data emerging. For these data are integral content.
Management of data in general not within scope of recommended practices.
Address inclusion of data when published as supplemental (with a little aside on sharing).
SSP June 2, 2011
Illustrates Discipline Variances
Some publishers—such as AAAS and ACS—require posting of data in a publicly accessible repository for replication.
Some publishers—such as AGU—identify acceptable repositories.
Some publishers—such as APA—currently say only that authors should provide data to researchers for verification.
More calls for transparency
SSP June 2, 2011
Data Sharing—the ideal & reality
What they say:
PARSE study—84% of scientists think it useful to link data to articles.
In Psychology, 80% say they share their data.
2008—Harvard faculty voted to require faculty to deposit data in Harvard repository.
What they do:
Only 25% said their data are openly available.
Only 20% actually do.
By 2011, only a fraction have done so.
Most ethics codes call for some level of sharing.
SSP June 2, 2011
Reasons for not sharing─
It takes time, may require extensive explanations of coding or just plain clean-up.
I’m not finished—I can get more articles.
Who will curate/protect it?
Will I be credited?
They have several fears—
Loss of confidentialty
Potential harm to subjects
Potential faulty re-analyis
May be proven wrong
Loss of control
SSP June 2, 2011
What we are saying. . .
Collaborative sharing best
practice.
Requires clear metadata and explanations.
Professional ethics around
secondary analysis.
Particular concern for studies with
human participants.
SSP June 2, 2011
Multi-Media Another ExampleFive years ago, audio or video not possible in the
article.
Today still generally supplemental.
BUT some now incorporating in PDFs.
Executables as part of the article?
Expect much more interactive content.
SSP June 2, 2011
Supplemental Today, Not Tomorrow
“. . . over time the concept of supplemental material will gradually give way to a more modern concept of a hierarchical or layered presentation in which a reader can define what level of detail best fits their interests.”
−Emilie Markus, Editor-in-Chief, Cell
Article of tomorrow may be linked chunks, not a narrative.
SSP June 2, 2011
Challenges for PublishersExpectations
Quality uber alles—
Peer review all.
Edit to same level as article.
Maintain all links.
Assure migration.
Limiting Factors
People resources
Financial resources
Technical resources
SSP June 2, 2011
We need some order now.
SSP June 2, 2011
Defined 3 Types of Content
Integral. Critical to understanding the work reported, but technical issues prevent inclusion in the framework.
Additional Content. Expansion of core article, added detail and context; provides layered approach for readers.
Other Related Content. Content may add to the understanding or enable replication; generally hosted by others.
SSP June 2, 2011
Recommended Practices
Selecting
Editing
Assuring Findability
Citing
SSP June 2, 2011
What we are saying. . .Selecting• Review same level• Useful, relevant, not file drawer
Editing• Publisher/Editor determine.• Provide notice if not.
Assuring Findability• Consistency• Online TOC Reference• Indexing Coverage• Don’t hide!
Citing• Within article, cite & link as for a table.• Not in reference list for integral.
SSP June 2, 2011
More Recommendations
Providing Links & Context
Preserving
Assuring Accessibility
Rights Management
SSP June 2, 2011
What we are saying. . .
Links & Context• Bi-directional if possible• Links must work!• Context is essential. What is this? Why here?
Preservation• Integral same level as article• Clarity on what can do.• Encourage authors to deposit elsewhere also.
Accessibility• Should be same level as article.• Strive for ideal, recognize difficulty.
Rights Management• Treat rights same way do for the article.• No authority for Other Related Content.
SSP June 2, 2011
2 Working Groups, 2 Roles
BWG—What?
TWG—How?
SSP June 2, 2011
TWG Working Group Task Forces
Metadata—have strawman DTD
Linking and persistent identifiers
Packaging and exchange
Preservation and archiving
Accessibility
SSP June 2, 2011
Next Steps
Early summ
er share
BWG
Sub-groups
over the
summer
TWG
Fall meld and
refine
Both
SSP June 2, 2011
Final Set of Practices
Approved by NISO
and NFAIS.
Shared with the
community and
refined.
Serve as a temporary roadmap.
Living document for rapidly changing
environment.
SSP June 2, 2011
We welcome ideas!NISO—www.niso.org
To see working groups: www.niso.org/workrooms/supplemental
Also join the Business Stakeholders’ Group at that page.
NFAIS—www.nfais.org
SSP June 2, 2011
THANK YOU!
Linda BeebeSenior Director, PsycINFOAmerican Psychological [email protected]