The Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System in Scholarly Publishing

Viktor Senderov; Lyubomir Penev

doi:10.3897/rio.2.e7757

Related articles by

PhD Project Plan

Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e7757
https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.2.e7757 (11 Jan 2016)

Reviewed

Other versions:

(Verbatim name)

(Catalog Number)

DES

Invalid DOI was provided, please try again

Alexey Solodovnikov

Citation: Solodovnikov A (2015) Review of: The Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System in Scholarly Publishing. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e7757. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e7757.r21021

Review Form

Questions & Answers

Does the manuscript conform to the focus and scope of this journal?	Yes
Does the manuscript contain unpublishable, for example fraudulent or pseudoscience, content?	No
Do the title, abstract and keywords accurately reflect the contents and data?	Yes
Is the manuscript written in grammatically and stylistically correct English?	Moderately
Does the manuscript contain sufficiently detailed information to merit publication?	Yes
Are the methods relevant to the study and adequately described?	Moderately
Did the authors cite most of the literature pertinent to the subject?	Yes
Are all relevant non-textual data and media (data sets, audio and video files, data from which graphs are produced) available as either supplementary files to the manuscript or through links to external repositories?	N/A
In case data are deposited elsewhere, are they available openly, and do the links to these resolve correctly?	Yes
Are the data consistent, properly recorded internally and described using applicable standards (e.g. in terms of file formats, file names, units and metadata)?	Yes
Are the conclusions supported by the data?	Moderately
If applicable, are taxonomic and nomenclatural novelties compliant to the respective biological Code?	N/A
Are the illustrations of sufficient quality?	N/A
Are conflicts of interest, relevant permissions and other ethical issues addressed in an appropriate manner?	N/A

Notes

This is very needed project! Generally it is well described in this paper that reads well. One minor problem - several typographic mistakes (e.g., both 'philogeny' (incorrect) and 'phylogeny (correct) are used, etc.) and, sometimes, stylistically a bit heavy English. A good editorial run is needed. Another problem is, perhaps, a need to make the project more exact and connect it to a timeline. It looks a bit too ambitious and too general now, given 3 years available for work. For example, showing a bit more exactly which of the BIG4 projects and how could be connected to this project, would be good. I am open to discuss how exactly we can enhance the Copenhagen-based PhD projects via this methodology.

I've reviewed this manuscript and support its publication

Responds and comments to this review:

Viktor Senderov

We did a general overhaul of the text to simplify style and improve grammar. Included a time-line section. A detailed discussion of how the project will integrate with other BIG4 projects is not possible at the time of writing since it requires more coordination between project partners. Collaboration with the BIG4 partner ERA7 is planned in the project proposal and will focus on GraphDB technologies. The other project partners could use the novel methods we develop to publish and disseminate their data and results, serving in this way as first-hand use cases. Also, we would like to get back at Prof. Solodovnikov and accept his invitation to discuss collaboration with Copenhagen-based projects. In terms of simplification of the work-tasks: we would like to explore the different areas before we narrow down our choice on what parts are actually feasible to achieve. These discussions can also take place with the BIG4 project partners. Since this is an open thesis, a revised version of this plan can be reprinted annually, and post-publication comments can be added via the project blog.

Subscribe to email alerts for current Article's categories