Workshop June 2008

From Dryad wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Dryad lunch workshop for officers from ASN, SSB and SSE

MInneapolis, MN

Monday, June 23, 2008

Notes from Kristin Jenkins

Overview

Presentation of Fact Sheet and progress regarding funding from Todd Vision, Kathleen Smith and Ryan Scherle followed by Q&A with society representatives and journal editors.

Questions and comments from the society representatives and journal editors

Timeline

  • When is Dryad going to be ready? Will it be released in an intermediate stage or not until finalized? What is the hold up on releasing it and/or completing development? There was disappointment that it would not be ready sooner.

Implementation

  • To prevent a backlash from the community it was suggested that Dryad be introduced in steps to allow for culture change, including:
    • Data submission to Dryad not be a requirement until the interface is complete and tested
    • All the journals require submission simultaneously, but institute a policy to encourage submission on their own time line
    • That charges not be implemented until the practice was an accepted norm
    • That there be no timeline for this shift to fees
  • There was concern that there was no additional value in participating in Dryad over storing data in “Supplementary Material”.
  • Start educating authors about the difference between data archiving and data sharing, and the value of repositories.
  • Start working on informational materials to inform authors about the value and process of depositing data.
  • Liked the idea of citations, permanent copies, cross-referencing, searchability.

Database issues

  • It was pointed out that there are a number of repositories and there was concern about maintaining multiple copies of data, the ability to search and retrieve data from multiple datasets, the interoperability of datasets
  • Data submission to repositories is already encouraged, but there are many specialized databases that might be more appropriate than Dryad in some cases. Dryad should not be considered the only repository choice. This makes communication between databases even more important.
  • What happens when data is pulled out of one or more databases and modified? Where is it resubmitted? How are connections like this tracked?
  • What level of communication would there be between the database and the journal?
  • Can data be submitted in any format, including code?

Funding/sustainability issues

  • It was suggested that Dryad continue to seek funding from NSF, as well as the Institute for Library Science and possibly NCBI.
  • It was suggested that maintenance support be funded by page charges to authors, although there was some discussion about whether or not that was always feasible (eg grad students) and what charge would be appropriate. These questions would be dealt with by the Management Board.
  • There was a great deal of concern about funding the project both in the short and long term. Would maintenance be funded by page charges to authors? How large a financial commitment would it be for journals to participate in Dryad? When would funding contributions be required of the societies and journals?

Society/Journal commitments

  • There was concern that the submission process not constitute a burden on the journals.
  • Formal endorsement: All three societies agreed with the principle of Dryad. SSE leadership has agreed to participate and has a representative for the management board. SSB has agreed in principle but needs to officially vote and select a representative. ASN has voted to participate, but needs to identify a representative.
  • When will other societies/journals be invited to join? How broadly will the invitation extend? What groups are actually likely to participate and find value in Dryad? How can Dryad be useful for a broader community? Can non-specific journals benefit from interacting with Dryad (ie a journal focused on plants that includes physiology, molecular biology, genetics, ecology, and evolutionary research)

Other comments

  • It was suggested that the Management Board include library science professionals.
  • It was suggested that we make an effort to integrate with a broader range of repositories, including paleoDB.

Attendees

NESCent:

  • Kristen Jenkins
  • Hilmar Lapp
  • Ryan Scherle
  • Kathleen Smith
  • Todd Vision

Journal/Society Representatives:

  • Tia-Lynn R. Ashman
  • Deborah Ciszek
  • Michele R. Dudash
  • Doug Emlen
  • David Hibbett
  • Carol Horvitz
  • Joel Kingsolver
  • Mark A. McPeek
  • Trish Morse
  • Mohamed Noor
  • Robert Pennock
  • David Penny
  • Holly Slater
  • John N. Thompson
  • Michael Whitlock