Peer Review of RO-7

Author: Frederik Coppens
Title: The Data Life Cycle in Practice: an Infrastructure Point of View
Submission: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3270824
Submitted as: RO2019 abstract
Decision: accept talk (accepted for oral presentation)

Review 1

Reviewer: Denis Parfenov https://keybase.io/prfnv

Quality of Writing

Is the text easy to follow? Are core concepts defined or referenced? Is it clear what is the author’s contribution?

fair

The concept of FAIR data for the benefit of the greater society defined. The author suggests to employ supported by Belgium ELIXIR project to store generated with help of public funding scientific datasets.

Research Object / Zenodo

URL for a Research Object or Zenodo record provided? Guidelines followed? Open format (e.g. HTML)? Sufficient metadata, e.g. links to software? Some form of Data Package provided? Add text below if you need to clarify your score.

sufficient (e.g. HTML, detailed Zenodo metadata)

Overall evaluation

Please provide a brief review, including a justification for your scores. Both score and review text are required.

weak accept

The author intends to introduce conference participants to the plans of developing end-to-end infrastructure solution for researchers to make their data FAIR by design based on the ELIXIR Belgium project. To ensure longevity of data RO-crate format to be used. For analysing data https://usegalaxy.be suggested.

From the abstract it’s not clear:

whether openly licensed or proprietary technologies to be used
why anyone from outside of Belgium would use such platform
how such infrastructure to be sustained on the long run
how data’s authenticity to be guaranteed
how such infrastructure to be integrated with infrastructures of other countries

Review 2

Reviewer: Oscar Corcho https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9260-0753

Quality of Writing

Is the text easy to follow? Are core concepts defined or referenced? Is it clear what is the author’s contribution?

excellent

The text of this abstract is very clear on what will be presented in the workshop

Research Object / Zenodo

basic (e.g. Zenodo with PDF and minimal metadata)

Overall evaluation

Please provide a brief review, including a justification for your scores. Both score and review text are required.

In this talk the author will present the details of the infrastructure that is being setup as part of the ELIXIR node in Belgium, so as to make data FAIR and using research objects for this purpose.

This will provide a good contribution to the workshop discussions and will probably raise new needs that may be addressed by the RO community, especially in relationship with the RO-Crate upcoming spec.

Review 3

Reviewer: (anonymous)

Quality of Writing

Is the text easy to follow? Are core concepts defined or referenced? Is it clear what is the author’s contribution?

fair

The text is clear and well-written. The author provides some useful context in terms of emerging funder requirements around FAIR data management, and the practicalities and challenges of “first mile RDM”.

However, too much of the abstract is given over to the context; it would have been useful to have more detail about the Elixir Belgium project, their use-cases, and their use of research objects. No references are provided.

Research Object / Zenodo

sufficient (e.g. HTML, detailed Zenodo metadata)

Overall evaluation

Please provide a brief review, including a justification for your scores. Both score and review text are required.

The abstract is a little short on detail on the specific use of research objects. However, the challenge of providing institutional infrastructural supports to meet rapidly emerging FAIR data requirements, and the extent to which the Elixir Belgium project has been able to adopt research object approaches to meet these real-world challenges, will be of interest to the audience as a potential model for others to follow.