BioSharing Information Resource - Enhancements Questionnaire
BioSharing is an Information Resource that maps the landscape of community developed content standards in the life sciences, to ensure these are informative and discoverable, monitoring their (i) development, evolution and integration; (ii) implementation and use in databases; and (iii) adoption in data policies by funders and journals. More at https://www.biosharing.org

An initial survey of the nascent RDA/Force11 BioSharing Working Group and Advisory Board (https://www.biosharing.org/communities) produced a list of possible enhancements and features for the registry. We would like you to help us decide which new features are most important to you so that we can prioritize our work. You will be presented with a number of possible enhancements, all suggested by respondents to the original request for use cases. You then choose the level of importance each feature has for your work.

Thank you very much for your time!

The BioSharing Operational Team (biosharing-contact-us@lists.sf.net)
What is your name?
This is an optional question. We would use it to contact you if we would like talk with you more about your answers.
What is your email address?
This is an optional question. We would use it to contact you if we would like talk with you more about your answers.
Enhancements Across Information Resources
This section of the questionnaire covers enhancements to BioSharing that would affect the entire site (standards, databases, policies, and views where applicable) as opposed to one particular area or record type.
Please rate the importance of the possible enhancements to all information resource types. *
Unimportant
Somewhat important
Very important
Killer feature
User endorsements of records
Journal/funder endorsements (via policy documents?)
Link records with events such as meetings on that topic
Record when a standard, database or policy was last updated by the owning community
Predicting tags for records based on publication abstracts (via PMID) or based on the user's description
Versioning system to allow documentation of changes to the underlying resource
Please describe any additional enhancements to all records you would like to see.
Policy Information Resource
This section covers possible enhancements to policy records (https://www.biosharing.org/policies) on BioSharing.
Displaying funders and other owners of data policies more prominently. *
Funders (e.g. BBSRC) may find it useful to see, at a glance, who owns data policies (e.g. other funders, large projects or journals). Improving the prominence of this authorship information could help such groups to assess how other organizations are approaching data sharing.
Unimportant
Killer Feature
Please describe any additional enhancements you would like to see to the policy information resource.
Standards Information Resource
This section covers possible enhancements to standards records (https://www.biosharing.org/standards/) on BioSharing.
Please rate the importance of the possible enhancements to standards records listed below. *
Unimportant
Somewhat important
Very important
Killer feature
Include journal checklists (i.e. standards guidelines for authors) as reporting guideline records
Provide journal checklist templates to improve and aid author compliance, perhaps based on a View structure
Clearer display of exactly what sorts of data each standard is good for
Is the standard community endorsed?
Please describe any additional enhancements you would like to see to the standards information resource.
Database Information Resource
This section covers possible enhancements to database records (https://www.biosharing.org/biodbcore/) on BioSharing.
Be able to model the following set of connections: Funder/Journal A requires that database B must be used when data type C is provided by the researcher.
Unimportant
Killer Feature
Clear selection
What other connections (similar to the one above) would you like us to describe?
Additionally, please rate the importance of these enhancements to database records listed below. *
Unimportant
Somewhat important
Very important
Killer feature
Data preservation requirements
Cost of submission information
Data access (unrestricted/restricted)
Human / machine readable
Unique persistent identifiers used
Can datasets be deleted by creator
Retracted datasets remain in place with a retraction notice
New persistent ID created
Quality Control: No curation, curation, or curation + peer review
Ethics: Repository’s specific ethical requirements (e.g. de-identification, IRB approval etc.)
Addition of links (if present) to re3data records
Size of current user base
Number of datasets are currently hosted by the repository
Restrictions (if any) on who may deposit data
Provide method of describing acceptable I/O data types which are non-compliant with known standards
Maximum file size accepted by resource
Description of limitations (if any) on number of data items a user can submit
A method of storing if individual records in the resource have their own licensing statements?
Type of identifier minted (e.g. DOIs)
Whether or not data can be modified or removed after deposition to the resource
Store information about cost to researchers wishing to deposit their data
Is persistent access to data guaranteed?
current and long-term cost recovery plans
If funded via academic grant, plan for maintaining access to hosted data should funding be withdrawn in the future
Please describe any additional enhancements you would like to see to the database information resource.
Views
This section covers possible enhancements to Views (https://www.biosharing.org/views/) on BioSharing.
Records present in a view(s) should have a link to those view(s) from their record page.
Unimportant
Killer Feature
Clear selection
Please describe any additional enhancements to any specific record type you would like to see.
Metrics for Scoring All Types of BioSharing Records
Many respondents have stated that having more ways of rating records would be very useful. Some respondents have described a need for respected, neutral authorities to classify and assess which are suitable repositories and resources, and BioSharing would be a good fit for this role. This section outlines their recommendations in this regard that would work across all standards, policies and databases.
Please rate the importance of the possible metrics listed below for all BioSharing record types. *
Unimportant
Somewhat important
Very important
Killer feature
Amount of/percentage coverage for particular scientific communities (are there gaps?)
Number of journals using the resource
Last updated and frequency of updates of the underlying resource
Last viewed and frequency of views within BioSharing
Activity/strength of a particular community
Record most recently commented on (if comments were allowed)
Relevance of a record
Reputation of a resource
If you would like us to measure the activity of a community, what measurements would be good proxies for such a metric?
An example of this might be the level of activity of the mailing list for a record.
If you would like us to measure the relevance of a record, please record below what methods you would like us to use to measure this relevance.
Perhaps measured by the number of times people clicked through to the underlying resources? How current the record is (e.g. recently updated)? How much it is "used"?
If you would like us to measure the reputation of a record, please record below what methods you would like us to use to measure this reputation.
Metrics for Standards Records
Many respondents have stated that having more ways of rating records would be very useful. This section outlines their recommendations in this regard that would work for standards records.
Please rate the importance of the possible metrics listed below for BioSharing standards records. *
Unimportant
Somewhat important
Very important
Killer feature
Frequency of adoption/Quality of standards by groups.
Number of mentions in data policies
Number of databases using the standard
If the frequency of adoption/quality metric was important to you, how would you measure this? The number of research groups using a standard? Funding groups? Journals?
Please provide your suggestions of how we might measure this.
Metrics for Database Records
Many respondents have stated that having more ways of rating records would be very useful. This section outlines their recommendations in this regard that would work for database records.
Number of mentions in data policies.
Unimportant
Killer Feature
Clear selection
Please describe any additional metrics you would like to see.
Badges for Records as an Alternative Metric
Some respondents described certain methods of scoring records that would not be as numbers based as the metrics already described above. We could have badges that resources aspire to attain based on how well they meet certain criteria. A badge could have different levels (e.g. gold, silver and bronze) based on how well they've met the criteria. These may reward resources and contributors for the quality of their resource and also perhaps for helping us through claiming a record.

Badging would be a particularly good idea for those metrics where we don't want to penalize a resource for being newly-entered into the public arena. For instance a new resource cannot be highly cited until a paper has been published for a while. Therefore a badge for being highly cited is a better alternative to a low score on a metric which they cannot change (due to it being a new resource).
Please let us know the importance of these badge ideas. *
Unimportant
Somewhat important
Very important
Killer feature
Would you like to see badges for records?
Highly Cited Badge
Openness Badge
Activity Badge
Stability Badge
"Core" Resource Badge
Sustainability Badge
If you would like us to offer any of the above badges, please provide a list of which metrics should go into deciding how the badge(s) are given.
What other badges might be useful?
Credit for Maintainers
We do not want to directly compare users via metrics, but enhancements and badges for achievements like the following could give them a sense of reward and acknowledgement. It would be nice to make the claimant more prominent so their work is recognized more appropriately.
Please let us know the importance of these possible methods of acknowledgement.
Unimportant
Somewhat important
Very important
Killer feature
Make their claim section more visible
Have a featured record and user of the month
Recognition as a resource maintainer or developer could be added to people's ORCID profile via BioSharing.
Clear selection
Do you have any other ideas for how to acknowledge our users better?
Badges for Users
We may also want to encourage our users through the use of badges.
We may also want to encourage our users through the use of badges. *
Unimportant
Somewhat important
Very important
Killer feature
Would you like to see badges for users?
Number of claimed records
Level of profile completeness
Their connectivity against the average connectivity of BioSharing records
What other badges might be useful?
Tutorials and Examples
A number of people have pointed out that examples of usage, primarily of standards, would be useful. Users may switch fields of study and not know where to start, or they may be bioinformaticians who are familiar with one field but not another.
Make links to already existing help or tutorials more prominent.
This might include tutorials from both third party sites and within the BioSharing family (which also includes for ISA and BII).
Unimportant
Killer Feature
Clear selection
Create "conversations" to guide users to the correct BioSharing records for their needs
BioSharing could be the one-stop shop for users who want to use standards, but have no idea how to get started. “Conversations” could go a long way with this. These might take the form of simple yes/no questions we ask the user (perhaps based on the BioSharing ontology mimicking the structure of the site) which would lead them through an internal decision tree to a personalized View just for their results.
Unimportant
Killer Feature
Clear selection
Examples of usage for a selection of "gold-standard" databases or standards.
We could ask for examples of gold standard records using a particular standard from users (e.g. publishers or data curators) or find them ourselves. Many researchers need incentives to use standards. Therefore examples from the major standards might provide researchers with an example of how a standard adds value and benefits them. Such examples/tutorials would be beautifully presented advertisements for a particular standard, and would show a newbie user how to do each step, from the downloading of the standard and formatting of their data (if the standard being described is a format), all the way through to data deposition.
Unimportant
Killer Feature
Clear selection
Community centric articles detailing the motivations behind the different standards. This could also be useful in facilitating uptake
Unimportant
Killer Feature
Clear selection
What other kinds of tutorials or examples would you like to see?
Submit
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy