ro2019
Workshop on Research Objects 2019
Open Peer Reviews
RO2019 encourages open peer review, and recommend that reviewers are named and attributed; however reviewers may be anonymous if so desired.
See also review template and reviews by GitHub.
Note: The list of peer reviews is currently under construction, as reviews are transcribed manually from EasyChair
Articles
- RO-2: Interactivity, Distributed Workflows, and Thick Provenance: A Review of Challenges Confronting Digital Humanities Research Objects
- RO-3: Data Quality Issues in Current Nanopublications
- RO-5: Application of BagIt-Serialized Research Object Bundles for Packaging and Re-execution of Computational Analyses
- RO-6: Reproducibility by Other Means: Transparent Research Objects
Abstracts
- RO-1: How BIDs and BIDs validator has informed the data aggregation needs of the Stimulating Peripheral Activity to Relieve Conditions, SPARC, consortium
- RO-4: Towards a reconstructive methodology for building a provenance metamodel that fits the complex bioinformatics pipelines
- RO-7: The Data Life Cycle in Practice: an Infrastructure Point of View
- RO-8: The ReproPub: A hybrid research object for supporting publication-level re-execution and generalization of neuroimaging research findings
- RO-9: DSDB: Reproducible Computational Modeling
- RO-10: Big Data Bags: A Scalable Packaging Format for Science
- RO-11: Research Object Composer: A Tool for Publishing Complex Data Objects in the Cloud
- RO-12: DARE Platform: Enabling Easy Data-Intensive Workflow Composition and Deployment
- RO-13: Architecting Attribution: expanding the scope of academic credit
- RO-14: Citation and Research Objects: Toward Active Research Objects
- RO-15: RO-Crate, a lightweight approach to Research Object data packaging
Posters
- RO-16: Packaging Municipal Legislative Event Data for Reuse & Exchange
- RO-17: Simple, Standards-based Archiving in Dataverse
- RO-18: Managing Manifests and Distributing Datasets
Announcements
The Call for Papers was announced through EasyChair, Twitter, organizational and project websites, multiple mailing lists and newsletters, at related workshop presentations, in the RO-Crate calls and to the RO2019 Programme Committee.
Announcements were sent out roughly at:
- 2019-05-25 (“first call”)
- 2019-06-07 (“second call”)
- 2019-06-21 (“extended deadline”)
- 2019-07-04 (“final call”)
Existing contacts in projects, eScience 2019 organizers and eScience 2019 programme committee were approached personally and invited to submit for peer review.
Submissions
Submissions were received through EasyChair or GitHub.
Received submissions:
- 4 EasyChair articles
- 8 EasyChair abstracts
- 3 GitHub abstracts
In the submission guide, authors were requested to deposit their abstract or article to the Zenodo ResearchObject community and only include the DOI/URL to Zenodo in the EasyChair/GitHub submission.
- 12 submissions had Zenodo preprint link/DOI
- ..of which 9 submissions were added to the RO Community in Zenodo
- 2 submissions had only PDF in EasyChair
- 1 submission had only text in EasyChair
Reviewers
After the extended deadline, EasyChair was opened for bidding, where 8 of the PC members indicated papers they preferred to review, being assigned on average 1.4 “Yes” bids papers and 1.0 “Maybe”/”No” papers. 8 assignments were given to PC or chair members who did not bid.
| # | Assigned | Reviews | Yes (assigned) | Maybe (assigned) | No (assigned) | Bid | Yes (bid) | Maybe (bid) | Conflict | Fairness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | 1 | 1 | 1 | ✔ | 3 | 1 | 100 | |||
| b | 100 | |||||||||
| c | 100 | |||||||||
| d | 2 | 2 | 2 | -100 | ||||||
| e | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ✔ | 1 | 3 | 1 | 6 | |
| f | 2 | 2 | 2 | ✔ | 3 | 1 | 100 | |||
| g | 1 | 100 | ||||||||
| h | 100 | |||||||||
| i | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ✔ | 1 | 5 | 1 | 60 | |
| j | 2 | 2 | 2 | -100 | ||||||
| k | 1 | 1 | 1 | -100 | ||||||
| l | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ✔ | 1 | 3 | 60 | ||
| m | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | ✔ | 4 | 2 | 73 | ||
| n | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | ✔ | 1 | 1 | -50 | ||
| o | 3 | 3 | 3 | -100 | ||||||
| p | 1 | 100 | ||||||||
| q | 100 | |||||||||
| r | 2 | 2 | 2 | ✔ | 3 | 100 |
(Table adapted from EasyChair, one row per randomized PC member)
Each submission was assigned to 2 members of the RO2019 programme committee, with additional assignments if PC members were at risk of unresponsiveness. The chairs added fall-back reviews if PC members did not respond by deadline.
The decision per submission was done by silent consensus by individual chairs where reviews where consistent. One submission was discussed further and authors requested to revise before acceptance.
- Carole Goble https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1219-2137
- Raul Palma https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4289-4922
- Stian Soiland-Reyes https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
- Daniel Garijo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0454-7145
- Eoghan Ó Carragáin https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8131-2150
- Frederik Coppens https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6565-5145
- Oscar Corcho https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9260-0753
- David De Roure https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9074-3016
- José Manuel Gómez Pérez https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5491-6431
- David Koop https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4422-6162
- Raja Mazumder https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8823-9945
- James Myers https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8462-650X
- Denis Parfenov https://keybase.io/prfnv
- Peter Sefton https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3545-944X