Telecon 05.22.14 materials

Workshop Report

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cZEoKBr3S_QDxrVpRs-0Bd_BXQLWmby_aGstaNAQT_M/edit?pli=1#

Chuck's comment: emphasize opportunities to make idea attractive to funders. Anne: this doc reports on what happened at the workshop. Emphasizing opportunities may better fit in morphing the report into a follow on EOS article.

Feedback?

Next steps:

References: EOS categories of contributions and their word limits: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2324-9250/homepage/categories_of_contributions.htm. (This is impossible to find!)

We were asked in an email to consider submitting the article as a Forum, so we are doing so. That has a 1500 word limit.

EOS

The article is here: http://wiki.esipfed.org/images/2/2f/EOSPaper_Forum.docx. Here are reviewer responses, (with major points highlighted by Anne):

Reviewer #1 (Comments for Author):

General Comments The article is very well written and timely. The authors explain concisely and accurately the strategic issues related to data and data access. Publishing this article would serve the community well. I hope it is published, and without many revision requirements, so the authors can get busy doing more good work.

Specific Comments If possible, add line numbers for more clear communication between authors and reviewers.

Making the website for community input (esipfed.org) standout more would be helpful to the reader. Maybe bold or mention it earlier in the manuscript. I realize no one wants to be accused of advertising, but making a bigger deal out of this information in some way would be (potentially) beneficial to the authors, the readers, and the community.

Response: We have decided to hold off on using the website for time being, and thus have removed this reference.

In the second paragraph of page one, the third sentence ends with "effectively address our data grand challenges." The words seem to be out of order--maybe "grand data challenges"?

Response: Changed.

Two issues are touched on and could be expanded to further improve the manuscript: 1) Why is data management and stewardship and access such a low priority to the community as a whole? The quote from CoBabe-Ammann, et al. (2007) seemed to imply as much. The subsection "Changing the Practice of Science" seems to suggest this as well. Some of the groups you mention are asking this question. It seems any NRC-led study will have to address this question. I was left wondering why the authors think (accurately in my opinion) that few resources had been dedicated to data-related issues in the past?

Response: We added the point that a fundamental reason progress hasn't been made because of lack of additional funding, resulting in tension between science and science data infrastructure.

2) The author's give brief mention to users' access to data at the end of the fourth full paragraph on page two. They mention (page two, first full paragraph) that access is made more difficult by issues such as interface mismatches. They close the paragraph with the sentence, "Such issues must be addressed from a cross-sector and interdisciplinary perspective." It would be helpful to give a specific example of how to address the issues. Especially since the next section (Changing the Practice of Science) deals somewhat with access. The phrase "cross-sector and interdisciplinary perspective" is vague.

Response: We reworked that paragraph to hopefully be clearer and provide examples of areas of mismatch.

Reviewer #2 (Comments for Author):

The article is an easy read and lightly touches a number of important points. Two additions would strengthen this publication in my opinion. 1.The authors discuss "One compelling vision for the future is that of an "executable publication," which would allow readers to follow links in a scientific publication to acquire primary data and execute code..." This is related to the idea of publishing data, and of "versioning." Many datasets are re-released multiple times after improved calibrations, scientific algorithms, QC, and other improvements have been made, but this discussion does not treat the handling of metadata which would facilitate users' informed access to the data and interpretation of the results.

Response: We have included a paragraph about the importance of metadata, which leads into the idea of data nano publications.

2. Unlike many other areas of scientific research, Earth science research has real implications for applications that can yield profound societal benefit. In the past this has been achieved as much through serendipity as through deliberation. Focusing these activities on the so-called Pasteur's quadrant from the beginning, as is increasingly happening is new decadal survey missions from NASA, can potentially yield more significant applications payoffs in the Earth sciences that align with the GEOSS areas, and include energy security, water security, food security, and the like. The authors should take the time to highlight this important area.

Response: Thanks to the reviewer for the suggestion. Modified the last paragraph of the article to include "While addressing data management issues is important in most scientific disciplines, focusing on them from the beginning of research activities in Earth sciences is especially beneficial to society. For example, a positive step in this direction is evidenced in the new decadal survey missions from NASA. As part of mission planning, NASA has held several applications workshops informing the applications community of the upcoming capabilities and preparing users for the data from the missions. Such focus on the so-called Pasteur’s quadrant from the beginning can potentially yield significant payoffs is Earth sciences in areas such as security of energy, water and food." Anne reorganized this.