Testing the FAIR metrics on data catalogs

Jarno A. A. van Erp, C. Langen, Anca Boon, K. V. Bochove
{"title":"Testing the FAIR metrics on data catalogs","authors":"Jarno A. A. van Erp, C. Langen, Anca Boon, K. V. Bochove","doi":"10.7287/peerj.preprints.27151v2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The introduction of the FAIR –Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable– principles has caused quite an uproar within the scientific community. Principles which, if everyone adheres to them, could result in new, revolutionary ways of performing research and fulfill the promise of open science. Furthermore, it allows for concepts such as personalized medicine and personal health monitoring to -finally- become implemented in daily practice.\n However, to bring about these changes, data users need to rethink the way they treat scientific data. Just passing a dataset along, without extensive metadata will not suffice anymore. Such new ways of executing research require a significantly different approach from the entire scientific community or, for that matter, anyone who wants to reap the benefits from going FAIR.\n Yet, how do you initiate behavioral change? One important solution is by changing the software scientists use and requiring data owners, or data stewards, to FAIRify their dataset. Data catalogs are a great starting point for FAIRifying data as the software already intends to make data Findable and Accessible, while the metadata is Interoperable and relying on users to provide sufficient metadata to ensure Reusability. In this paper we analyse how well the FAIR principles are implemented in several data catalogs.\n To determine how FAIR a catalog is, the FAIR metrics were created by the GO-FAIR initiative. These metrics help determine to what extend data can be considered FAIR. However, the metrics were only recently developed, being first released at the end of 2017. At the moment software does not come standard with a FAIR metrics review. Still, this insight is highly desired by the scientific community. How else can they be sure that (public) money is spend in a FAIR way?\n The Hyve has tested/evaluated three popular open source data catalogs based on the FAIR metrics: CKAN, Dataverse, and Invenio. Most data stewards will be familiar with at least one of these.\n Within this white paper we provide answers to the following questions:\n Which of the three data catalogs performs best in making data FAIR?\n Which data catalog utilizes FAIR datasets the most?\n Which one creates the most FAIR metadata?\n Which catalog has the highest potential to increase its FAIRness, and how?\n Which data catalog facilitates the FAIRifying process the best?","PeriodicalId":93040,"journal":{"name":"PeerJ preprints","volume":"35 1","pages":"e27151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PeerJ preprints","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27151v2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The introduction of the FAIR –Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable– principles has caused quite an uproar within the scientific community. Principles which, if everyone adheres to them, could result in new, revolutionary ways of performing research and fulfill the promise of open science. Furthermore, it allows for concepts such as personalized medicine and personal health monitoring to -finally- become implemented in daily practice. However, to bring about these changes, data users need to rethink the way they treat scientific data. Just passing a dataset along, without extensive metadata will not suffice anymore. Such new ways of executing research require a significantly different approach from the entire scientific community or, for that matter, anyone who wants to reap the benefits from going FAIR. Yet, how do you initiate behavioral change? One important solution is by changing the software scientists use and requiring data owners, or data stewards, to FAIRify their dataset. Data catalogs are a great starting point for FAIRifying data as the software already intends to make data Findable and Accessible, while the metadata is Interoperable and relying on users to provide sufficient metadata to ensure Reusability. In this paper we analyse how well the FAIR principles are implemented in several data catalogs. To determine how FAIR a catalog is, the FAIR metrics were created by the GO-FAIR initiative. These metrics help determine to what extend data can be considered FAIR. However, the metrics were only recently developed, being first released at the end of 2017. At the moment software does not come standard with a FAIR metrics review. Still, this insight is highly desired by the scientific community. How else can they be sure that (public) money is spend in a FAIR way? The Hyve has tested/evaluated three popular open source data catalogs based on the FAIR metrics: CKAN, Dataverse, and Invenio. Most data stewards will be familiar with at least one of these. Within this white paper we provide answers to the following questions: Which of the three data catalogs performs best in making data FAIR? Which data catalog utilizes FAIR datasets the most? Which one creates the most FAIR metadata? Which catalog has the highest potential to increase its FAIRness, and how? Which data catalog facilitates the FAIRifying process the best?
在数据目录上测试FAIR指标
FAIR(可查找、可访问、可互操作、可重用)原则的引入在科学界引起了相当大的骚动。如果每个人都遵守这些原则,可能会产生新的、革命性的研究方式,并实现开放科学的承诺。此外,它允许个性化医疗和个人健康监测等概念最终在日常实践中实现。然而,要实现这些变化,数据用户需要重新思考他们对待科学数据的方式。仅仅传递一个数据集,没有广泛的元数据是不够的。这种执行研究的新方法需要一种与整个科学界截然不同的方法,或者就此而言,任何想从公平中获益的人都需要一种截然不同的方法。然而,你如何开始改变行为呢?一个重要的解决方案是改变科学家使用的软件,并要求数据所有者或数据管理员公平对待他们的数据集。数据目录是数据公平化的一个很好的起点,因为软件已经打算使数据可查找和可访问,而元数据是可互操作的,并且依赖于用户提供足够的元数据来确保可重用性。在本文中,我们分析了FAIR原则在几个数据目录中的实现情况。为了确定目录的公平程度,GO-FAIR计划创建了FAIR指标。这些指标有助于确定在何种程度上可以将数据视为FAIR。然而,这些指标是最近才开发出来的,于2017年底首次发布。目前,软件还没有通过公平的指标审查成为标准。尽管如此,这一见解仍然是科学界所高度期望的。否则他们怎么能确保(公共)资金以公平的方式使用?Hyve已经测试/评估了基于FAIR指标的三种流行的开源数据目录:CKAN、Dataverse和Invenio。大多数数据管理员至少熟悉其中一种。在本白皮书中,我们提供了以下问题的答案:三种数据目录中哪一种在使数据公平方面表现最好?哪个数据目录使用FAIR数据集最多?哪一个创建了最公平的元数据?哪个目录最有可能提高其公平性?如何提高?哪个数据目录最有利于公平化过程?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书