https://doi.org/10.7490/f1000research.1118466.1
Document
NOT PEER REVIEWED
Download
CITE
How to cite this document:
Martone M, Boline J, Das S et al. Call for community review of the Data Access Quality and Curation for Observational Research Designs (DAQCORD) Guidelines [version 1; not peer reviewed]. F1000Research 2021, 10:11
(document)
(https://doi.org/10.7490/f1000research.1118466.1)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Policy document
Call for community review of the Data Access Quality and Curation for Observational Research Designs (DAQCORD) Guidelines
Maryann Martone1,
Jyl Boline2,
Samir Das3,
Ibrahima Faye4,
Wojtek Goscinski5,
Jeanette Hellgren-Kotaleski6,
Ramona Hicks7,
David Kennedy8,
Trygve Leergaard9,
Roman Moucek10,
Sharmila Venugopal11,
Thomas Wachtler12,
Mathew Abrams2
Published 09 Jan 2021
(https://doi.org/10.7490/f1000research.1118466.1)
Author Affiliations
1 University of California, San Diego, San Diego, USA
2 INCF Secretariat, Stockholm, Sweden
3 McGill University, Montreal, Canada
4 Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar, Malaysia
5 Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
6 KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
7 One Mind, Seattle, USA
8 University of Massachussetts Medical School, Worchester, USA
9 University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
10 University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, Czech Republic
11 University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA
12 Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
2 INCF Secretariat, Stockholm, Sweden
3 McGill University, Montreal, Canada
4 Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar, Malaysia
5 Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
6 KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
7 One Mind, Seattle, USA
8 University of Massachussetts Medical School, Worchester, USA
9 University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
10 University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, Czech Republic
11 University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA
12 Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
Copyright © 2021 Martone M et al. This is an open access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- Metrics
- 384 Views
- 31 Downloads
How to cite this document:
Martone M, Boline J, Das S et al. Call for community review of the Data Access Quality and Curation for Observational Research Designs (DAQCORD) Guidelines [version 1; not peer reviewed]. F1000Research 2021, 10:11
(document)
(https://doi.org/10.7490/f1000research.1118466.1)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Copied OK
Part of the gateway
Published 09 Jan 2021
Policy document
Call for community review of the Data Access Quality and Curation for Observational Research Designs (DAQCORD) Guidelines
[version 1; not peer reviewed]
Maryann Martone1,
Jyl Boline2,
Samir Das3,
Ibrahima Faye4,
Wojtek Goscinski5,
Jeanette Hellgren-Kotaleski6,
Ramona Hicks7,
David Kennedy8,
Trygve Leergaard9,
Roman Moucek10,
Sharmila Venugopal11,
Thomas Wachtler12,
Mathew Abrams2
Author Affiliations
1 University of California, San Diego, San Diego, USA
2 INCF Secretariat, Stockholm, Sweden
3 McGill University, Montreal, Canada
4 Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar, Malaysia
5 Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
6 KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
7 One Mind, Seattle, USA
8 University of Massachussetts Medical School, Worchester, USA
9 University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
10 University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, Czech Republic
11 University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA
12 Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
2 INCF Secretariat, Stockholm, Sweden
3 McGill University, Montreal, Canada
4 Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar, Malaysia
5 Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
6 KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
7 One Mind, Seattle, USA
8 University of Massachussetts Medical School, Worchester, USA
9 University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
10 University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, Czech Republic
11 University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA
12 Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany
Abstract
Competing Interests
No competing interests were disclosed
Keywords
INCF, best practice, observational studies, data access, data quality, data curation, guidelines, project planning, project reporting
Call for community review of the Data Access... | Documents | F1000Research
All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies. The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment.
User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available.
For broader implementation and dissemination, I would suggest:
- listing of BPs by time points to which they are relevant (e.g. in chronological order of design/conduct). Perhaps this option may already be available via the weblink - did not check
- Implementation of a clear Governance structure to ensure oversight and continuity
- Consider implementing a process for feedback and updating as experience and insights involve
- If the above considerations are implemented, I would suggest discussing with Journal Editors if they would be willing to endorse/apply a DAQCORD statement to relevant manuscripts.
For broader implementation and dissemination, I would suggest:
- listing of BPs by time points to which they are relevant (e.g. in chronological order of design/conduct). Perhaps this option may already be available... READ MORE
For broader implementation and dissemination, I would suggest:
- listing of BPs by time points to which they are relevant (e.g. in chronological order of design/conduct). Perhaps this option may already be available via the weblink - did not check
- Implementation of a clear Governance structure to ensure oversight and continuity
- Consider implementing a process for feedback and updating as experience and insights involve
- If the above considerations are implemented, I would suggest discussing with Journal Editors if they would be willing to endorse/apply a DAQCORD statement to relevant manuscripts.
Use of this website is subject to the F1000 Research Limited (F1000) General Terms and Conditions.
Submission of user comments to this website is subject to additional Terms and Conditions. By clicking "I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions" before you submit your first comment, you agree to be bound by these conditions every time you submit a comment.
Terms relating to user comments