2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.csi.2012.02.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Toward the modeling of data provenance in scientific publications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…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.
Fig.
…”
Section: A Proposal For Transparent Modular Scientific Disseminationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.
Fig.
…”
Section: A Proposal For Transparent Modular Scientific Disseminationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%