Peer Review of RO-14

Author: Daniel S. Katz
Title: Citation and Research Objects: Toward Active Research Objects
Submission: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3338176
Open review: https://github.com/researchobject/ro2019/issues/2
Submitted as: RO2019 abstract
Decision: accept talk (accepted for oral presentation)

Review 1

Reviewer: Peter Sefton https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3545-944X

Quality of Writing

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

good

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.

This proposes a means of citing complex research objects. The abstract does describe a method for citing complex research objects and their dependencies but in the absence of supporting examples of the output or code to show how this would be done (which could have been packaged with the abstract, but the Zenodo object appears to me to be just the abstract) it is not possible to evaluate the approach. The presentation at the workshop should include examples using actual research objects.

There is second proposal to have an “Active Research Object” with methods like get() and put(), this implies that there would need to a Research Object operating environment, which I find it hard to imagine. My first reaction is that I think that the idea violates one of the (implicit?) principles of Research Objects - that they are declaratively specified - yes they may be actionable, but the environment in which actions take place is a separate concern from the structure of a Research Object and the RO specification. Interested to hear more.

Review 2

Reviewer: Stian Soiland-Reyes https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718

Quality of Writing

excellent

The text is well formulated and well written, making the arguments easy to follow.

Research Object / Zenodo

[x] URL for a Research Object or Zenodo record provided?
[x] Guidelines http://researchobject.org/ro2019/submitting followed?
[x] Open format (e.g. HTML)?
[ ] Sufficient metadata, e.g. links to software?
[ ] Some form of Data Package provided?

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

A Zenodo record is provided with both PDF and HTML, but the record has only basic metadata. Perhaps add the citations and references as “Related identifiers” in Zenodo metadata?

Overall evaluation

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

strong accept

This abstract highlights the issues on citing research object, and what lessons we can learn from software citation and data citation practices.

An interesting take from the author is that ROs are kind of both data and software, and so while earlier citation practices have clearly separated the two, here a compromise is needed. In addition ROs are similar to complex software where individual referenced items also should get a transitive citation.

I think this abstract invites for a very exciting presentation and will seed fruitful discussion at the workshop,

My only criticism will be on the introduction of the concept “Active Research Objects” - while this in theory could be expanded, it seems underdeveloped and don’t seem to offer anything beyond usual CRUD operations as over HTTP and other Digital object proposals. It is also unclear how an Active RO (presumably with an API?) relates to RO as an archived data package that may reside in a passive repository.