![]() You can modify your files after the publication with a version control system. There is no limit on files size if you make them public. Now, you can also use FigShare to upload any file types. If I recall correctly, this was the initial purpose of FigShare. not optimized for downloading many files at onceįigShare is a great repository for visual content.There is no directory structure support, so you can upload a directory only as an archive file. But you cannot edit anything after the submission. You get a DOI for your data and some simple metrics such as a number of page views and downloads. Uploading the data is very simple and fast. I like it for its simple and easy to use interface. On the other hand, such a business model guarantees long term existence of this repository. You need to pay $120 for a submission of up to 20GB, and +$50 for each additional 10GB. By publishing in Molecular Ecology, you get a link to deposit your data to Dryad for free. I used it to publish the supplementary data for my Molecular Ecology paper. Dryadĭryad is the most popular research data repository. Let me briefly summarize my option on each of the repositories I tried. The OSF repository meets these requirements the best. I would like to keep this directories order in my repositories too. The amount of data grows enormously and usually my projects have many files structured in directories. Mistakes are always possible and it is better to be able to correct them. I also would like to have an option to edit or update the data after the initial deposit. A DOI makes it easier to cite the dataset. It is especially useful if you publish a dataset without a link to any paper. A digital object identifier (DOI) is probably a must for any publication. Publishing in open-access journals already costs a fortunate, so I wanted to use a free repository to avoid additional spending. My key criteria when I was looking for the best repository for my scientific data were: Later, I also discovered the Open Science Framework (OSF) and it became my number one research data repository. These were the repositories I found first. The most popular ones are Dryad, FigShare, and Zenodo. Here is an extensive list of data-type specific repositories.īut if you also have some non-standard data formats, you need to use a generalist repository. Usually, you need to make your best to use these repositories because this will increase the chance of your data to be found by other researchers. Scripts and programs should be deposited to GitHub or similar resource with a version control system. For example, nucleic acid sequence data need to be uploaded to the Sequence Read Archive (SRA). You deposit that data to a data-type specific repository. If your data is of specific type then the choice is obvious. I have been in the same situation recently. I think a label like "Repository Paper" is sufficiently general without being that onerous or awkward.You need to deposit your research data to a repository and you are lost in options. Given the mix of Preprint and Working Paper, I'm not sure either is particularly great (e.g., in Psychology, folks who talk about these types of works almost exclusively use "preprint" rather than "working paper"). Institutional repositories seem to mostly use either "Working Paper" (e.g., ) or no label at all (e.g., ). RePEc, ResearchGate, and SSRN mostly use "Working Paper" (as well as "Research Paper" ). The OSF preprint servers (SocArXiv, PsyArXiv, AgriRXiv, etc.), BioRXiv, and PeerJ PrePrints all use "Preprint" even when referring to e-prints, reprints, author-revised accepted manuscripts, etc. Regarding a UI label, there is not clear winner in terms of existing usage between "working paper" and "preprint". CSL article seems like a really good fit, particularly because CSL doesn't do "fallback" types any longer. In terms of how most citation styles talk about "published", it more broadly typically means "publicly available" and often "available with a stable I think there are enough styles that request different formats for Government/Technical Reports (and similar) and Working Papers/Preprints to justify a different item type for them. But perhaps it worth considering them? (Are there standards for these types?)Īlternatively, I would love to have sub-type field in Zotero, where I can just say what the item is (in our context). Proposal, working paper, dataset, lessons, and other could be helpful too.Ĭlearly the typology of assets you anybody would want to record is infinite. I think "preprint" would be really useful for our uses. However, I wonder it may be worth considering some of these (e.g. "how the item should be formatted in a bibliography" (i.e. I understand that the categories in Zotero are partially about "what the item actually is" vs. I've marked the ones that are available in Zotero with "*".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |