“…Similarly, at peer review, the referees would have confirmation of the existence or absence of an available registered report, preprint, and data deposition, and these could then be used as ancillary justification for acceptance or revision. Finally, at “final” article or data publication, the prior work would be listed as serial DOIs, allowing ready access to all modular components as a single package or linked “provenance metadata.” 65 , 66 A preliminary checklist ( Modular Science Checklist ) has been drafted by the authors; conceivably it or an analogous document could be submitted with each “scientific module” (preprint, data descriptor, peer-review submission, etc) for clarity, with a final version completed after deposition/publication of all modules, as an analog “content tracker form” to assure transparency across a series of currently disparate steps, 67 until end-user usable standardized provenance metadata solutions (such as those proposed by Mahmood et al 67 ) are realized in radiation oncology specifically or medical science generally. …”
Section: A Proposal For Transparent Modular Scientific Disseminationmentioning
On May 1 and May 22, 2020, a pair of high-profile articles were fast-track reviewed and published by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and The Lancet, venues widely regarded as among the most prestigious of medical journals. 1,2 The Lancet article reported a multinational registry analysis of chloroquine with or without macrolide antibiotics in patients who were infected with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus-2 virus, and an NEJM manuscript from the same group investigated angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers in patients who tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019
“…Similarly, at peer review, the referees would have confirmation of the existence or absence of an available registered report, preprint, and data deposition, and these could then be used as ancillary justification for acceptance or revision. Finally, at “final” article or data publication, the prior work would be listed as serial DOIs, allowing ready access to all modular components as a single package or linked “provenance metadata.” 65 , 66 A preliminary checklist ( Modular Science Checklist ) has been drafted by the authors; conceivably it or an analogous document could be submitted with each “scientific module” (preprint, data descriptor, peer-review submission, etc) for clarity, with a final version completed after deposition/publication of all modules, as an analog “content tracker form” to assure transparency across a series of currently disparate steps, 67 until end-user usable standardized provenance metadata solutions (such as those proposed by Mahmood et al 67 ) are realized in radiation oncology specifically or medical science generally. …”
Section: A Proposal For Transparent Modular Scientific Disseminationmentioning
On May 1 and May 22, 2020, a pair of high-profile articles were fast-track reviewed and published by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and The Lancet, venues widely regarded as among the most prestigious of medical journals. 1,2 The Lancet article reported a multinational registry analysis of chloroquine with or without macrolide antibiotics in patients who were infected with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus-2 virus, and an NEJM manuscript from the same group investigated angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers in patients who tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019
“…First, to share their decisions, users must store information on how they have individually solved conflicts on data items. In fact, these information describe the provenance of the data, which consists of a set of metadata that identify the data sources and transformations applied to them by each user, from their inception to their current state . Second, each user must provide consistent integration decisions to her collaborators.…”
We also introduce a decision integration propagation method that keeps users from taking inconsistent decisions over data items present in several sources. Further, different policies based on data provenance are proposed for solving conflicts among multiusers' integration decisions. Our experimental analysis shows that AcCORD is efficient and effective. It performs well, and the results highlight its flexibility by generating either a single integrated view or different local views. We have also conducted interviews with end users to analyze the proposed policies and feasibility of the multiuser reconciliation. They provide insights with respect to acceptability, consistency, correctness, time-saving, and satisfaction.
“…That is, in order to share their decisions, information on the updates made by each user must be stored. Such information are called data provenance and consists of a set of metadata that identify the data sources and transformations applied to them, from their inception to their current state (Cheney et al, 2009;Mahmood et al, 2013). Second, it is possible that not all collaborators agree on their updates.…”
Abstract:Reconciliation is the process of providing a consistent view of the data imported from different sources. Despite some efforts reported in the literature for providing data reconciliation solutions with asynchronous collaboration, the challenge of reconciling data when multiple users work asynchronously over local copies of the same imported data has received less attention. In this paper, we propose AcCORD, an asynchronous collaborative data reconciliation model based on data provenance. AcCORD is innovative because it supports applications in which all users are required to agree on the data integration in order to provide a single consistent view to all of them, as well as applications that allow users to disagree on the correct data value, but promote collaboration by sharing updates. We also introduce different policies based on provenance for solving conflicts among multiusers' updates. An experimental study investigates the main characteristics of the policies, showing the efficacy of AcCORD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.