Checklist for funders

[FlukeAndFeather]

A goal deliverable for this project is a checklist funding agencies and journals can use to assess compliance of biologging datasets with data sharing policies.

@domroche pointed us towards "minimum reporting standards" e.g. Rund et al 2022 Scientific Data

Let's use this thread to brainstorm ideas. @sarahdc you expressed excitement about this component. Thoughts?

[sarahcd]

A few things to start...

• Some of the checklist is already outlined in the scoring rubric so we could start there.
• Certainly advise using disciplinary repositories/databases. Advising an list of specific recommendations would be nice but this would ideally refer to a resource that would be maintained over time.
• Consider disciplinary vocabularies (used by repositories but can be adopted independently): see the Movebank vocabulary, templates proposed by Sequeira et al. 2021 and Darwin Core.
• Consider how detailed you want to get into suggested minimum reporting of project- and deployment-level information. Some examples are in the templates from Sequira et al. above and these Movebank reference data templates.
• Consider varying capacities of funders/journals, and acknowledge that stricter policies require more resources on the part of both those issuing and complying with the requirements. We could classify the checklist somehow based on importance and difficulty to help prioritize adoption. See Hrynaszkiewicz et al. 2020.
• Likewise, would be great to categorize the checklist to maximize FAIRness of sensitive data (see issue 12). For example, restricted data can be made findable and interoperable, and flexibility can be offered through supporting data generalization (see Chapman 2020), institutional points of contact, embargos, and reassessments to update accessibility if the sensitivity status changes over time.

[sarahcd]

It looks like Rund et al 2022 may be part of a whole suite of checklists for biological disciplines: MIBBI (Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations), currently integrated with https://rdamsc.bath.ac.uk/

Here are some other papers with these minimum reporting standards, probably part of this suite? Field, D., et al. (2008). The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification. Nature Biotechnology, 26(5), 541-547. Taylor, C. F., et al. (2007). The minimum information about a proteomics experiment (MIAPE). Nature Biotechnology, 25(8), 887-893. Brazma, A., et al. (2001). Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)—toward standards for microarray data. Nature Genetics, 29(4), 365-371.

[sarahcd]

Some minimal reporting for bio-logging data are proposed in Bodey et al. 2017, see especially Box 1.