Which Dataverse should display in the citation

98 views
Skip to first unread message

Alan Darnell

unread,
Aug 17, 2016, 12:21:35 PM8/17/16
to Dataverse Users Community
We've noticed with 4.X that only the root dataverse is displaying in the citation.  In 3.X, the citation would show the dataverse that the data was resident in. Have others noticed this?

Is this an intentional change or maybe a bug with 4.X?  

Alan

Philip Durbin

unread,
Aug 17, 2016, 2:01:52 PM8/17/16
to dataverse...@googlegroups.com
I checked with a developer who worked on this code and the change was intentional.

From what I can tell from http://dataverse.org/best-practices/academic-credit the part of the citation you're looking at it this:

"publisher (repository that published the dataset)"

So I guess the idea is that the root dataverse is the whole repository.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dataverse Users Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dataverse-community+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dataverse-community@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dataverse-community/02824bed-08d0-4632-b036-8e965cefc3c9%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--

Heppler, Michael

unread,
Aug 17, 2016, 2:35:38 PM8/17/16
to dataverse...@googlegroups.com
Allen,

As Phil pointed out, this is not a bug and was an intentional change in 4.0. Displayed under the citation on the dataset page, is a link to learn more about "Data Citation Standards". That page goes into more detail, to explain that the change was made to conform to the principles outlined in Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles (2014).

Let us know if you have any additional questions.

Mike

Michael Heppler
User Interface Designer + Developer
Dataverse, Consilience, Data Science at
The Institute for Quantitative Social Science
1737 Cambridge Street, Rm K333
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-496-2450
mhep...@hmdc.harvard.edu
www.iq.harvard.edu


On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Philip Durbin <philip...@harvard.edu> wrote:
I checked with a developer who worked on this code and the change was intentional.

From what I can tell from http://dataverse.org/best-practices/academic-credit the part of the citation you're looking at it this:

"publisher (repository that published the dataset)"

So I guess the idea is that the root dataverse is the whole repository.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Alan Darnell <alan.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
We've noticed with 4.X that only the root dataverse is displaying in the citation.  In 3.X, the citation would show the dataverse that the data was resident in. Have others noticed this?

Is this an intentional change or maybe a bug with 4.X?  

Alan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dataverse Users Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dataverse-community+unsubscribe...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dataverse Users Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dataverse-community+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dataverse-community@googlegroups.com.

Amber Leahey

unread,
Aug 18, 2016, 10:49:54 AM8/18/16
to Dataverse Users Community
Hi folks, 

I think this approach sense for single institution installations but not the best for our community which is a multi-institutional installation. Either option would be adhering to the Data Citation Principles, which is really just asking for the distributing repository or archive to be referenced in the citation. 

The issue is what constitutes a repository or archive - is it the Dataverse or something else? Some of the institutions we support would consider their Dataverses separate repositories or archives which is why I think the change might have confused some people. 

Any other thoughts?

Amber

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dataverse-community+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dataverse...@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dataverse Users Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dataverse-community+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to dataverse...@googlegroups.com.

danny...@g.harvard.edu

unread,
Aug 18, 2016, 3:02:56 PM8/18/16
to Dataverse Users Community
Hi All,

I'd like to discuss this in more detail with Mercè when she returns from vacation, but (I believe) there's some discussion on this issue that may be relevant:


So, more soon, and let me know if I'm totally off base with the above. Thanks for your patience!

- Danny

danny...@g.harvard.edu

unread,
Sep 16, 2016, 12:06:09 PM9/16/16
to Dataverse Users Community
Hey Everyone,

I talked with Mercè about this briefly and I'm going to try and formulate a response here. :)

The root dataverse always needs to be included on the citation, because if we instead used a non-root dataverse, the data could be moved to another non-root dataverse and in that case the citation would change. In the citation, instead of replacing the root dataverse with a non-root dataverse, she suggested a feature request for keeping the root dataverse and recording multiple dataverses for the citation.

If this is a solution that may work for SP, is this something that you can add to github as a feature request so that we can continue the conversation there? 

Thanks,

Danny

Amber Leahey

unread,
Jun 27, 2017, 4:56:06 PM6/27/17
to Dataverse Users Community
So that would be 2 or more dataverses (or subdataverse names) inserted into the citation? That might work. I get the point about accuracy and persistence here, but things will always change. Maybe it should be the main Dataverses responsibility to provide persistent long-term access, we are after all minting the DOIs using a single organizational prefix, less work for us long term I guess. 

 Something like this would work:

Harrison, P.M.; Gutowsky, L.F.G.; Martins, E.G.; Patterson, D.A.; Cooke, S.J.; Power, M., 2017, "Replication Data for: Partial diel migration: a facultative migration underpinned by long-term inter-individual variation", doi:10.5683/SP/97A0DY, Carleton University Data Archive, Scholars Portal Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:+FfM+D5IfUPUMZGoQukvoQ==

Can we qualify these roles somehow in the citation, e.g. [Custodian] [Long term steward] :) ?? Any wording you would suggest?

Thanks, 
Amber
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages