I'd like to suggest the addition of ‘IsReviewOf’ and ‘IsReviewedBy’ to the controlled list of relationTypes for Related Identifier. There are moves to assign identidiers to referee reports available in open peer review, which this would support. But the term wouldn’t necessarily have to be *peer* review, so would fit more than one use case.
This is relevant to ongoing work around peer review of data:
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "DataCite Metadata" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/datacite-metadata/Ebp8H98Dvkk/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
Hello,
We are currently taking suggestions from our colleagues and clients to consider for metadata version 4.2. I will add your suggestions to the list of items we will discuss.
Thanks for the suggestions.
All the best!
Amy
Co-Chair
DataCite Metadata Working Group
Amy J. Barton, MLS
Assistant Professor of Library Science, Metadata Specialist
Purdue University Libraries, Research Data
Proposal: Add ‘Registration’ to ResourceTypeGeneral.
Organisations who already, or would like to, assign DataCite DOIs for registered trials and studies need to be supported with an appropriate ResourceTypeGeneral term: Registration.
Clinical trials have been pre-registering their study and analysis design for a number of years. It increases trust in the results of clinical trials and helps to avoid the ‘burial’ of trials with unfavourable results. The ICMJE require that trials to be registered before data collection if their results are to be published (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html). Study registration is also being taken up in other areas, such as social science and psychology, and also avoids bad statistical practice (see https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jun/05/trust-in-science-study-pre-registration).
A session at PIDapalooza discussed the need for identifiers for these registrations. Some are already doing so, or plan to do so, using Crossref (for example https://www.isrctn.com/, who have had DOIs for a number of years, I worked closely with them when I was at BMC).
OSF already assigns DOIs to preregistrations when requested -- it seems like without specifying an item type, see e.g.
https://data.datacite.org/application/vnd.datacite.datacite+json/10.17605/OSF.IO/XEMZV. An appropriate resource type would encourage them to use the most up-to-date metadata schema. Not all registrations occur before the data collection starts (although that is the ideal) hence the suggestion of ‘Registration’ rather than ‘Pre-Registration’.
I am adding this suggestion after discussion with Sebastian Karcher who ran the PIDapalooza session. He has discussed across all these groups and they would be keen to see ‘registrations’ represented in the DataCite resourceType vocabulary.
Thanks, Rachael.
Hi Rachael,
Thank you for your suggestion, and for the use case you provided. The Metadata Working Group will discuss the addition of ResourceTypeGeneral "Registration".
All the best!
Amy
Co-Chair DataCite Metadata Working Group
Amy J. Hatfield Hart, MLS
Assistant Professor of Library Science, Metadata Specialist
Purdue University Libraries, Research Data