ro2019

Logo

Workshop on Research Objects 2019

View the Project on GitHub ResearchObject/ro2019

Peer Review of RO-11

Review 1

Quality of Writing

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

The writing style is clear, and the overall thread of the abstract is easy to follow. The overall topic, mapping the growing demand for data commons in bioinformatics, the need for persistent identification of research data inputs/outputs, and the need to be able to aggregate and describe complex research objects, is certainly relevant to topics outlined in the call for papers.

However, better referencing would be useful in understanding the unique contribution of this project and make the authors’ contribution clearer. For example:

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.

I could not find a record for this in the Zenodo research object community or on the github repo. The abstract is submitted as *.odt format to easychair.

Overall evaluation

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

As noted, the abstract itself could use some clarification and the preferred/recommended submission guidelines were not followed.

Nevertheless, the abstract is relevant to the topics outlined in the call for papers. The availability of a “research object composer” tool will be of interest to audience participants, as will the discussion of the motivation to develop such a tool and the choice to adopt the “Research Object” standard in doing so.

Review 2

Quality of Writing

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

very short abstract

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.

Overall evaluation

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

This abstract introduces the research object composer tool, which allows the generation of a Research Object from a workflow and set of inputs.

Although no further hints on the implementation are provided, e.g., types of workflows supported, types of relations and annotations created, license, etc., it sounds quite interesting and in line with the workshop goal. Also unfortunately there was no link to any implementation to try it out.

Review 3

Quality of Writing

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

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.

Overall evaluation

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

The authors will Research Object Composer that can generate a Research Object from a workflow and set of inputs. This is going to be extremely useful for interoperability and can account for the heterogeneity of inputs and outputs in biomedical research data.