Towards mainstreaming of biodiversity data publishing: recommendations of the GBIF Data Publishing Framework Task Group

Abstract

BackgroundData are the evidentiary basis for scientific hypotheses, analyses and publication, for policy formation and for decision-making. They are essential to the evaluation and testing of results by peer scientists both present and future. There is broad consensus in the scientific and conservation communities that data should be freely, openly available in a sustained, persistent and secure way, and thus standards for 'free' and 'open' access to data have become well developed in recent years. The question of effective access to data remains highly problematic.DiscussionSpecifically with respect to scientific publishing, the ability to critically evaluate a published scientific hypothesis or scientific report is contingent on the examination, analysis, evaluation - and if feasible - on the re-generation of data on which conclusions are based. It is not coincidental that in the recent 'climategate' controversies, the quality and integrity of data and their analytical treatment were central to the debate. There is recent evidence that even when scientific data are requested for evaluation they may not be available. The history of dissemination of scientific results has been marked by paradigm shifts driven by the emergence of new technologies. In recent decades, the advance of computer-based technology linked to global communications networks has created the potential for broader and more consistent dissemination of scientific information and data. Yet, in this digital era, scientists and conservationists, organizations and institutions have often been slow to make data available. Community studies suggest that the withholding of data can be attributed to a lack of awareness, to a lack of technical capacity, to concerns that data should be withheld for reasons of perceived personal or organizational self interest, or to lack of adequate mechanisms for attribution.ConclusionsThere is a clear need for institutionalization of a 'data publishing framework' that can address sociocultural, technical-infrastructural, policy, political and legal constraints, as well as addressing issues of sustainability and financial support. To address these aspects of a data publishing framework - a systematic, standard approach to the formal definition and public disclosure of data - in the context of biodiversity data, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF, the single inter-governmental body most clearly mandated to undertake such an effort) convened a Data Publishing Framework Task Group. We conceive this data publishing framework as an environment conducive to ensure free and open access to world's biodiversity data. Here, we present the recommendations of that Task Group, which are intended to encourage free and open access to the worlds' biodiversity data.

Bridging the biodiversity data gaps: Recommendations to meet users’ data needs

“…Progress would be promoted if data publishing was regarded as having the same status as traditional scientific (peer-reviewed) scholarly publishing (Chavan and Ingwersen 2009). In accord with this, we recommend an early uptake of recommendations of its Data Publishing Framework Task Group (GBIF 2009e;Moritz et al 2011) and incentivisation mechanisms proposed Chavan and Ingwesen 2009;Ingwersen and Chavan 2011;Goddard et al 2011).…”

Figshare: a universal repository for academic resource sharing?

“…Data sharing can have practical challenges (Borgman, 2012) and researchers may be cautious (Huang et. al., 2012;Vogeli et al 2006;Walport and Brest, 2011), but there is a strong tradition of sharing resources in some fields (e.g., software in computer science), for some types of general data (e.g., surveys: UKDA, 2007) and for specialist information, such as species records in biodiversity research (Faith et al, 2013;Moritz et al, 2011;see also: Barve, 2014) and human biological samples (Chen, 2013). Moreover, there is an argument that all publically funded research should publish its data (Arzberger, et al 2004;Walport and Brest, 2011), and many funding agencies, including the European Commission (European Commission, 2015), the National Science Foundation (NSF) (Hswe and Holt, 2011) and the UK's Wellcome Trust (Wellcome, 2015), require scientific data sharing when possible for their funded projects.…”

Reuse of scientific data in academic publications

“…Many successful cases that reused shared data to produce new research have been reported in the past, such as species records in biodiversity research (Faith et al, 2013;Moritz et al, 2011;Barve, 2014) and human biological samples (Chen, 2013). Researchers discovered three new species of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 s l i b J o u r n a l o f I n f o r m a t i o n M a n a g e m e n t 4 bacterial endosymbiont Wolbachiapipientis in the three different species of fruit fly using the raw data deposited in Trace Archive (Salzberg, 2005).…”