[x] I'm not 100% on how to cite the data or how to phrase the data accessibility statement. The data for the analysis are (mostly) the same as Baldridge (2016), the exception being that I accessed Misc Abund from figshare. I downloaded the .csvs from weecology/sadcomparison. The data on GitHub are identical to what is on Zenodo. This crops up in the data accessibility statement and when we discuss the source of the data. Currently:
Data accessibility statement: All data used are available publicly via Zenodo and figshare. Upon publication, all code and data will be archived and made publicly available via Zenodo.
In methods - does this need to more explicitly say that the data were accessed from the repo for the 2016 paper (except Misc. Abund, which I got from figshare):
We used a compilation of community abundance data for trees, birds, mammals, and miscellaneous other taxa that has been used in recent macroecological explorations of the SAD (White et al 2012 , Baldridge 2016, Baldridge 2015).
In refs, citing both the Baldridge paper and "Data from" that paper:
Baldridge, E. (2015). Miscellaneous Abundance Database. figshare. Available at: MiscAbundanceDB_main. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.95843.v4
Baldridge, E., Harris, D.J., Xiao, X. & White, E.P. (2016). An extensive comparison of species-abundance distribution models. PeerJ, 4, e2823.
Baldridge, E., Harris, D.J., Xiao, X. & White, E.P. (2016). Data from An extensive comparison of species-abundance distribution models. Zenodo. Available at: https://zenodo.org/record/166725.
White, E.P., Thibault, K.M. & Xiao, X. (2012). Characterizing species abundance distributions across taxa and ecosystems using a simple maximum entropy model. Ecology, 93, 1772–1778.
[ ] Is it OK that I'm getting the data from GitHub and figshare? (GH data exactly matches Zenodo, for what it's worth; it seems excessive and not fully transparent to retrofit the code so it downloads from Zenodo instead of GH at this stage...?)
[ ] when ready to archive, include language (see Ethan's comment in #51) that this is copy for reproducibility, but that for other uses, probably best to access original sources
Details:
Data
In methods - does this need to more explicitly say that the data were accessed from the repo for the 2016 paper (except Misc. Abund, which I got from figshare):
In refs, citing both the Baldridge paper and "Data from" that paper: