Search for: All records

Environmental challenges are rarely confined to national, disciplinary, or linguistic domains. Convergent solutions require international collaboration and equitable access to new technologies and practices. The ability of international, multidisciplinary and multilingual research teams to work effectively can be challenging. A major impediment to innovation in diverse teams often stems from different understandings of the terminology used. These can vary greatly according to the cultural and disciplinary backgrounds of the team members. In this paper we take an empirical approach to examine sources of terminological confusion and their effect in a technically innovative, multidisciplinary, multinational, and multilingual research project, adhering to Open Science principles. We use guided reflection of participant experience in two contrasting teams—one applying Deep Learning (Artificial Intelligence) techniques, the other developing guidance for Open Science practices—to identify and classify the terminological obstacles encountered and reflect on their impact. Several types of terminological incongruities were identified, including fuzziness in language, disciplinary differences and multiple terms for a single meaning. A novel or technical term did not always exist in all domains, or if known, was not fully understood or adopted. Practical matters of international data collection and comparison included an unanticipated need to incorporate different types of data labels from country to country, authority to authority. Sometimes these incongruities could be solved quickly, sometimes they stopped the workflow. Active collaboration and mutual trust across the team enhanced workflows, as incompatibilities were resolved more speedily than otherwise. Based on the research experience described in this paper, we make six recommendations accompanied by suggestions for their implementation to improve the success of similar multinational, multilingual and multidisciplinary projects. These recommendations are conceptual drawing on a singular experience and remain to be sources for discussion and testing by others embarking on their research journey. 

Data Management Plans (DMP) are now a routine part of research proposals but are generally not referred to after funding is granted. The Belmont Forum requires an extensive document, a ‘Data and Digital Object Management Plan’ (D(DO)MP) for its awarded projects that is expected to be kept current over the life of the project. The D(DO)MP is intended to record team decisions about major tools and practices to be used over the life of the project for data and software stewardship, and for preservation of data and software products, aligned with the desired Open Science outcomes relevant to the project. Here we present one of the first instances of the use of Belmont’s D(DO)MP through a case study of the PARSEC project, a multinational and multidisciplinary investigation of the socioeconomic impacts of protected areas. We describe the development and revision of our interpretation of the D(DO)MP and discuss its adoption and acceptance by our research group. We periodically assessed the data management sophistication of team members and their use of the various nominated tools and practices. As a result, for example, we included summaries to enable the key components of the D(DO)MP to be readily viewed by the researcher. To meet the Open Science outcomes in a complex project like PARSEC, a comprehensive and appropriately structured D(DO)MP helps project leaders (a) ensure that team members are committed to the collaboration goals of the project, (b) that there is regular and effective feedback within the team, (c) training in new tools is provided as and when needed, and (d) there is easy access to a short reference to the tools and descriptions of the nominated practices. 

Abstract Many have argued that datasets resulting from scientific research should be part of the scholarly record as first class research products. Data sharing mandates from funding agencies and scientific journal publishers along with calls from the scientific community to better support transparency and reproducibility of scientific research have increased demand for tools and support for publishing datasets. Hydrology domain‐specific data publication services have been developed alongside more general purpose and even commercial data repositories. Prominent among these are the Hydrologic Information System (HIS) and HydroShare repositories developed by the Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc. (CUAHSI). More broadly, however, multiple organizations have been involved in the practice of data publication in the hydrology domain, each having different roles that have shaped data publication and reuse. Bibliographic and archival approaches to data publication have been advanced, but both have limitations with respect to hydrologic data. Specific recommendations for improving data publication infrastructure, support, and practices to move beyond existing limitations and enable more effective data publication in support of scientific research in the hydrology domain include: improving support for journal article‐based data access and data citation, considering the workflow for data publication, enhancing support for reproducible science, encouraging publication of curated reference data collections, advancing interoperability standards for sharing data and metadata among repositories, developing partnerships with university libraries offering data services, and developing more specific data management plans. While presented in the context of CUAHSI's data repositories and experience, these recommendations are broadly applicable to other domains. This article is categorized under:Science of Water > Methods