Data citation is core to DataCite’s mission and DataCite is involved in several projects that try to facilitate data citation, including THOR, Data Citation Implementation Pilot (DCIP), Research Data Alliance (RDA), and COPDESS. The biggest roadblock for wider data citation adoption might be insufficient incentives for individual researchers, but another major challenge is that implementing data citation is still too complicated.
The following is a guest post by Daniel S. Katz, cross-posted from his blog. After a number of general discussions in the research communication community, mostly focused on software citation, and then a few separate discussions with Anita Bandrowski and Martin Fenner, it’s become clear to me that we need something like a group (perhaps hierarchical) object identifier (GROUPID), which is somewhat different than a DOI, or at least
In a guest post two weeks ago Elizabeth Hull explained that only 6% of Dryad datasets associated with a journal article are found in the reference list of that article, data she also presented at the IDCC conference in February [@https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.32412]. This number has increased from 4% to 8% between 2011-2014, but is still low.
The DataCite Metadata Working Group has prepared a DataCite to Dublin Core application profile (DC2AP) and would love to hear your comments about it! The profile will help you building Dublin Core compatible DataCite metadata records, using Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) metadata terms and other ontologies. Along with the DC2AP, we are also releasing a DataCite Ontology.
We are pleased to announce the publication of version 3.0 of the “Metadata Schema for the Description of Research Data Repositories” [@https://doi.org/10.2312/RE3.008]. This updated version of the re3data.org schema incorporates feedback from users as well as changes in registry policies and structural adjustments to the schema designed to better reflect changes in the landscape of research data repositories.
One of the first tasks for DataCite in the European Commission-funded THOR project, which started in June, was to contribute to a comparison of the ORCID and DataCite metadata standards.
In the first post of this new blog a few weeks ago I talked about Data-Driven Development, and that service monitoring is an important aspect of this. The main service DataCite is providing is registration of digital object identifiers (DOIs) for scholarly content, in particular research data.
Geoff Bilder from CrossRef likes to show the following slide at scholarly conferences, and then asks the audience what they see: Most of us probably immediately recognize this document as a scholarly article.
