Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2209.14655

Supporting data discovery: A meta-synthesis comparing perspectives of support specialists and researchers

Abstract

Purpose: Data discovery practices currently tend to be studied from the perspective of researchers or the perspective of support specialists. This separation is problematic, as it becomes easy for support specialists to build infrastructures and services based on perceptions of researchers' practices, rather than the practices themselves. This paper brings together and analyzes both perspectives to support the building of effective infrastructures and services for data discovery. Methods: This is a meta-synthesis of work the authors have conducted over the last six years investigating the data discovery practices of researchers from different disciplines, with a focus on the social sciences, and support specialists. We bring together and re-analyze data collected from in-depth interview studies with 6 support specialists in the field of social science in Germany, with 21 social scientists in Singapore, an interview with 10 researchers and 3 support specialists from multiple disciplines, a global survey with 1630 researchers and 47 support specialists from multiple disciplines, an observational study with 12 researchers from the field of social science and a use case analysis of 25 support specialists from multiple disciplines. Results: We found that there are many similarities in what researchers and support specialists want and think about data discovery, both in social sciences and in other disciplines. There are, however, some differences which we have identified, most notably the interconnection of data discovery with web search, literature search and social networks. Conclusion: We conclude by proposing recommendations for how different types of support work can address these points of difference to better support researchers' data discovery practices.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Guangyuan Sun, Tanja Friedrich, Kathleen Gregory, Brigitte Mathiak. 2023-02-09. Supporting data discovery: A meta-synthesis comparing perspectives of support specialists and researchers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14655

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

The illusion of neutrality in metric-based research evaluation

Venue prestige and citation counts are two widely used, albeit imperfect, signals of research quality. When the two signals conflict, evaluators must decide how much weight to assign each. Yet, it remains unknown how researchers across disciplines trade off these two signals when evaluating research outcome. To fill this gap, we surveyed 869 researchers using paired choices between hypothetical departmental hiring rules that assigned different weights to venue prestige and citation counts, asking which would produce better science. Among 795 respondents whose choices were largely internally consistent, choices placed nearly equal aggregate weight on the two signals. This apparent balance concealed substantial individual heterogeneity: nearly two in five respondents occupied the most venue-heavy or citation-heavy intervals. Moreover, respondents on average chose more citation-heavy rules than they believed their departments used in hiring. By revealing the subjective judgments that arise when research indicators conflict, our findings reinforce calls for greater caution when quantitative indicators are used to evaluate research.

cs.DL

Reading the Data Back: Enriching Variable-Level Metadata for Model-Data Consistency Checks

Purpose: Research data repositories often lack variable-level metadata. Model-choice screening, checking whether a reported model suits the values of its outcome variable, also requires summaries of those values and links to the analyses that use them. We ask how repositories can represent and acquire them as metadata with evidence and review histories. Methods: We propose a metadata application profile compatible with the Data Documentation Initiative Cross-Domain Integration (DDI-CDI) model, linking versioned variables and empirical profiles to reported analyses, estimators, and analysis roles. Extraction provenance and review decisions are recorded separately. We evaluate streaming data profiling, deterministic extraction from Stata and R code, and language-model extraction of analysis records from papers. Results: A worked export of one replication package illustrates the profile: it passes shape and interchange checks and answers four queries, one of which returns the analyses that raise no alert. Screening 4,868 replication datasets from six political-science journals links outcomes to profiled columns in 1,440 deposits and flags 965, including 14 of the 21 deposits with a hand-verified linear model on a count, proportion, binary, or ordinal outcome. AI-assisted adjudication yields 55% precision on a near-balanced sample of 119 count and proportion candidates; screening rules were developed on the same corpus. Conclusion: The profile makes analysis-variable relationships queryable while preserving evidence and review history; screening yields review candidates with context. Code, metadata, and measurements are released.

cs.DL

From Code Archival to Knowledge Graph: Bridging Software Heritage, COAR Notify and Wikidata

Software is a first-class scientific object, yet validated links between source code and the scholarly record remain largely absent from the Linked Open Data (LOD) cloud, isolating archived artefacts from semantic discovery. This paper presents an end-to-end reconciliation pipeline that harvests, validates, and models publication-to-repository pairs from sources where the link between a paper and its source code is explicit and editorially verified: the software-centric journals JOSS, SoftwareX, and IPOL, together with the reproducibility reports of the SIGMOD Availability and Reproducibility Initiative (ARI). This yields a curated corpus of 4,397 $\langle$DOI, repository-URL$\rangle$ pairs. We design two distinct application profiles grounded in Wikidata classes (one for scholarly articles, one for software instances) aligned with the schema.org and CodeMeta vocabularies. This architectural separation enables rule-based reconciliation at two granularities: lightweight, inline publication references or standalone, first-class Wikidata software nodes equipped with SWHIDs, Software Heritage's content-addressed identifiers. A read-only lookup against Wikidata shows that only 82 of the harvested repositories were already modelled there; human-reviewed batches have since created 4{,}182 new software items cross-linked to their articles. We further show that payloads of the emerging COAR Notify protocol, an external effort we do not develop, map natively onto our input format, so the same backend could later serve a live enrichment stream. Our core contribution is a pair of application profiles that turn Wikidata into a connector between the scholarly record and archived source code; we openly release all code, application profiles, and harvested datasets.

cs.DL