Comment Details - National Information Standards Organization

#00237 Comment Details - RP-15-201x Suppl_TWG_draft_for_comments_final-rev.pdf (revision #1)

Document Information
Title	NISO RP-15-201x, Recommended Practices for Online Supplemental Journal Article Materials, Part B: Technical Recommendations
File Name	RP-15-201x Suppl_TWG_draft_for_comments_final-rev.pdf	State	Draft
Date Added	2012-08-06 11:10:25	Revision Number	1
Submitter Name	Cynthia Hodgson	Size	256K

Comment Information
Summary	Missing aspects related with experimental reproducibility	State (Disposition)	New (Unresolved)
Date Added	2012-09-14 09:26:31	Last Updated	2012-09-14 09:26:31
Submitter Name	Jose Manuel Gomez Perez	Assigned To	Unassigned
Company Name	Intelligent Software Components (iSOCO) S.A.	Response	None
Interest Category		Category	N/A
Origin	Public Review	Section, Page, Line
Item	N/A	Item Description

Submitter Comment
The current draft of the recommendation is a good step forward towards addressing the problem of supplemental materials for journal articles. However, its coverage seems to be partial. Little or no emphasis is made on the aspects related with the experimental methods enclosed in journal communications and how such methods are implemented and executed. This is especially the case of computationally intensive disciplines, where the experiments upon which scientific progress is built are run in silico, ususally in the form of scientific workflows. Scientific communications would need to provide proof of their claims and, in this sense, supplemental materials should provide the means to reproduce experimental results. This is also the approach from the nanopublications community effort. However, the recommendation seems to focus on more basic aspects related to digital libraries and preservation, like identification e.g. by means of DOIs. Provenance is mentioned as a way to support credit and attribution, bu it would also be of great importance to leverage provenance information in support of the reproducibility of scientific results, for example.

Submitter Comment

The current draft of the recommendation is a good step forward towards addressing the problem of supplemental materials for journal articles. However, its coverage seems to be partial. Little or no emphasis is made on the aspects related with the experimental methods enclosed in journal communications and how such methods are implemented and executed. This is especially the case of computationally intensive disciplines, where the experiments upon which scientific progress is built are run in silico, ususally in the form of scientific workflows. Scientific communications would need to provide proof of their claims and, in this sense, supplemental materials should provide the means to reproduce experimental results. This is also the approach from the nanopublications community effort. However, the recommendation seems to focus on more basic aspects related to digital libraries and preservation, like identification e.g. by means of DOIs. Provenance is mentioned as a way to support credit and attribution, bu it would also be of great importance to leverage provenance information in support of the reproducibility of scientific results, for example.

Submitter Proposed Solution
This may be a matter of scoping. If the issues commented above are not in the spirit of this recommendation, it should be said upfron in the beginning of the document.

Submitter Proposed Solution

This may be a matter of scoping. If the issues commented above are not in the spirit of this recommendation, it should be said upfron in the beginning of the document.