Dynamic Data Citation Service—Subset Tool for Operational Data Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is a brief report about implementation efforts to achieve RDA recommendations for dynamic data citation. There is not much analysis of the work done and there are not critical observations about the issues to be overcome or pros and cons of the implemented solution. The paper is more a technical report rather than a scientific paper. I suggest to dig more on data citation and to place this work in the broader context of data citation by considering also scientific aspects of the field.
Indeed, there is a large body of work in data citation that cannot be ignored and must be discussed in Section 2. Several issues outlined by the authors have been largely discussed by the information science and computer science community. Also, the RDA recommendations have been criticized and analysed. The paper needs to provide a more solid background before going on with the authors' proposal.
These are fundamental works in data citation that must be considered:
Buneman, P., Davidson, S.B., & Frew, J. (2016). Why data citation is a computational problem. Communications of the ACM (CACM), 59, 50–57.
CODATA-ICSTI Task Group on Data Citation Standards and Practices. (2013). Out of cite, out of mind: The current state of practice, policy, and technology for the citation of data. Data Science Journal, 12, 1–67.
Silvello, G. Theory and Practice of Data Citation. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) (AIS Review), vol. 69 issue 1, pp. 6-20, 2018.
These papers provide many references that should be also considered by the authors.
It is not explained how the "citation text" is automatically created. How are the data subsets managed and the right information retrieved? Is it everything based on manually edited metadata? If so, what is automatic here?
More details are needed.
There are typos to be fixed, for instance "querry" and "the he Unidata Thredds" on page 6.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thanks a lot for your effort and your valuable hints and comments.
Indeed, and here I have to agree with you, the paper is more about technical evidence and demonstration on the feasibility of the RDA recommendation. As operator and responsible party of a research data infrastructure, I'm dealing more with established standards like ISO, OGC, and divers recommendations on how to publish items in the web.
I recognised your concerns about the missing scientific fundamentals on citation in general and tried to add into the text.
Honestly I was not really able to discuss the the RDA recommendation and compare with with other approaches as well as critice or find crucial issues. The RDA paper itself gives just an overview, the detailed aspects on technical implementation and domain specific requirements on our own server and software environment would be out of purpose.
I am a little ashamed of the language quality of my first version. I hope it's better now.
Many thanks and do not hesitate to contact me.
Chris Schubert
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with a valid and up-to-date topic of dynamic data citation.
The abstract is unclear and does not state what is the addressed research problem, what methods were used and what are the key contributions.
Calling the first section of the paper "Summary" does not help and it also misses the above-mentioned elements.
The objective stated in the first section is very general. It is still not clear what the authors aimed at and managed to accomplish.
There is no proper literature review included in the paper.
The language of the paper is appalling.
There are many sentences which are ungrammatical and therefore incomprehensible (e.g. "By knowing..." lacks a verb and object; "Thanks to operators on data infrastructure...", "The overall objective about this article...", "The secondary phase based...", "Especially for such large files..." and many others).
Sometimes, articles are missing (e.g. "of used data set").
Uppercase is used for no reason (e.g. "In-situ", "Data", "Metadata").
All these give an impression that the paper has been machine-translated from German.
The figures should not be titled as they are referenced, e.g. "Gives a structured..." (rather "A structured...").
Some references are broken (e.g. "[Reference ccca git]").
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thanks a lot for your effort and your valuable hints and comments.
Indeed, and here I have to agree with you, the paper is more about technical evidence and demonstration on the feasibility of the RDA recommendation. As operator and responsible party of a research data infrastructure, I'm dealing more with established standards like ISO, OGC, and divers’ recommendations on how to publish items in the web.
I recognized your concerns about the missing scientific fundamentals on citation in general and tried to add into the text.
I am a little ashamed of the language quality of my first version. I hope it's better now.
Many thanks and do not hesitate to contact me.
Chris Schubert
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The Abstract in its current form is completely unacceptable. It should be concise and provide insights on what the paper is generally about, what are its goals, used methods and chief contributions. The current abstract provides none of these.
The paper's objective ("to share our experiences") is too general. It should be redefined in a more strict and scientific way.
The contents of section 5 are not actually conclusions (based on the previous sections) and they should be.
There were many language corrections applied after the first round of review, but the text still needs editing, for example (the pasted fragments may contain passages marked as deleted in the manuscript, yet the comments refer to the current text):
78 The availability of data updates is taking place at even
79 shorter time frames and data update intervals getting closer as well as quality accuracy and robust
80 information taking place into the environment of data infrastructure has to be respect the good
81 scientific manner of data curation
There is a grammar error ("has to be respect"), moreover the whole sentence is incomprehensible (what is the point here?)
83 more people, not only scientific domain experts, get access to climate, earth observation and In-situ
No reason to write in-situ in uppercase.
86 potential on knowledge capacity building through data analytic
Should it really be "analytic" ?
93 Thanks The situation of to operators on data infrastructure, data repositoryrepositories, cloud
94 mechanisms as well as currently establish solution on Open Data Cubes [74,85] software, has been
95 evolving data infrastructure services to curate, manage, and access data.
Incomprehensible (as a whole).
115 to life.What does dynamic data citation mean? A pure allocation of persistent identifiers on demand
116 and associated quotes is far from being dynamic. How are such requirements defined and what is
117 necessary in order to the technical implementation?
Style: this is data science not philiosophy, so questions and dialogues should be avoided.
167 The overall objective about this article
Should be "of this article".
187 data has to be corrected, updated within new versions, such process environment to enable
188 contributes processes to the term dynamic .data.
Incomprehensible ("processes to the term" ??).
205 2.1. The 14 RDA recommendation on dynamic data citation
Should be "recommendations".
218 The recommendations in detail are summarized and modified adapted according the
219 implementation at CCCA Data Centre as listed below. More information equipped with practical
220 examples in Rauber et. al [10].
Wording!
417 Most data sets which are static, citing those data means to provide description for credits and
418 the persistence for access and download of an entire data set. But in many research setting, data is
419 dynamically growing and updating constitutes a challenge for research repositories. New data keeps
420 being added continuous data stream, data are corrected data quality is being enhanced, a lot of
421 updates happening to a data base, this can be happened regularly, like on monthly basis, but also
422 quite agile in in irregularly time frames.
Style, grammar.
441 subsets at the CCCA Server. Reasons for this inhibition could be the small numbers of user in Austria,
[A] reason, users.
Note that the passages listed above are merely examples, the text contains more errors than these. A professional editing is strongly suggested.
Technical rermarks:
217 Figure 1. Gives aA structured order for the RDA recommendation on Dynamic Data Citation.
Is it the Author's own work ?
Author Response
The concerns in general was taken by the author. The article was restructured and it was tried do describe a better scope with more clear messages. In addition to capture a scientific view beyond the technical description of in implementation a new chapter 5 was added regarding discussion and potential of consideration as well as future implementation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
