Reviewing is the act of approving or rejecting an item, with feedback, before it becomes publicly available. There are two different types of reviewer:
Institutional reviewer: this role is available only in the Configure institution page. The institutional curator can approve and manage revision requests from every group in the institution and can assign and deassign requests from everyone. They can also edit all the metadata for the items sent in review and assigned to themselves. Institutional reviewers can add comments and send emails to submitting authors, for any of the pending/open requests visible to them.
As Institutional reviewer you can turn on reviewing in the Administration page by selecting the group you want reviewing turned on in (groups inherit reviewing so if you turn it on at the top level, all subgroups will have reviewing turned on, as well), selecting Configure, and scrolling down to Administration. There, you will have the option to turn on reviewing.
Group reviewer (displayed as Reviewer in the role drop down): this role is available only in the Configure group page. The group reviewer can only manage requests coming within their group and subgroups below their managed groups. Group reviewers can only assign requests to themselves. They can also edit all the metadata for the items sent in review and assigned to themselves. Group reviewers can add comments and send emails to submitting authors for any of the pending/open requests visible to them.
When an end user chooses to publish an item on the SciLifeLab Data Repository, an email is automatically sent to every reviewer stated as reviewers for the institutional group the item is published in.
All reviewing requests can be found in the reviewing pool from the reviewer account. All reviewers set either at the group level or institution level will receive both email notifications and will also have them listed in the reviewing pool. If you would like to receive reviewing requests for every subgroup at your institution, you will need to add yourself as a reviewer to each subgroup or you can simply set yourself as an institutional reviewer. While you won’t be displayed as a reviewer on every Edit group page, you will be an implicit reviewer there and you will receive all the requests.
If the user creates the item in My data, then the review request will go to the group the user is assigned to. If the user creates the item in a group project, then the reviewing request is sent to that group.
Please note: when creating items in projects, it is important to remember that reviewing is connected at group level, so depending on the group you select to link the project to might or might not have reviewing turned on.
To view items for review, click on the dropdown menu and select Review requests. You will then see all review requests that are open, whether they’ve been assigned to you or not. You can opt to view only your assigned requests and sort by newest or oldest first. The number you see in the menu displays unassigned, open requests. The number might be different to what you see when you enter the pool. By default, the pool shows all the requests even if they are assigned already, filtered by the group(s) you can review. If you know there are open review requests but you cannot see them, it means they must be assigned to groups that you cannot review.
To process an item through review, select the item and assign it to yourself as the reviewer. As an institutional reviewer, you can assign the request to yourself but also to other reviewers that are assigned to the same group of the request. If you are a group reviewer, you can only assign the request to yourself.
Once a reviewer has been assigned to review an item they will review the item according to the following checks:
✓ Does the item include a Readme.txt file
✓ Does the Readme.txt file include a DOI to the item
✓ Does the item include a manifest file
✓ Does the manifest file contain a checksum
The purpose of filling out the metadata form thoroughly is to make the submitted item reusable. Once an item is published on the SciLifeLab Data Repository it should be self explained. The SciLifeLab Data Repository should be used as a catch-all space, i.e. everything that is connected to the submitted item should also be submitted or linked to here.
This is a mandatory field where a title for the submitted item should be given. The title should have an understandable scientific meaning, strive for an informative yet concise title. If the item is connected to an article, it can be appropriate for the item title to be the same as the title of the article or to include the article title in the item title.
✓ In the case of the item being connected to an article, check if the title corresponds to the title of the article. If not consult with the submitter if this is intentional.
This is a mandatory field where the submitter can add authors of the item. Every author that should be credited for this item shall be added here. Adding all of the authors makes the item more findable.
If the item is connected to an article the authors listed here could be the same as the authors of the article, but this is not always the case.
✓ In the case of the item being connected to an article, check if the authors correspond to the authors of the article. If not consult with the submitter if this is intentional.
This is a mandatory field where a discipline category is chosen for the item. The list of categories is fixed and based on the Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) Fields of Research (FOR) codes. Choose all categories that apply for the item. The list of categories aren’t specified for the field of life science which sometimes can make it difficult to find a correct category. Remember that the keywords can be used as an addition to the category field in those cases.
This is a mandatory field which is filled out by a reviewer. The purpose of this is to connect the item with the correct research group or facility when applicable. The submitter can contact the data center regarding questions about the group assigned for the item.
✓ Choose the correct group for the item. If the item does not have a clear connection to one specific group, choose the highest group level, Science For Life Laboratory.
This is a mandatory field where the submitter can choose a type for the item. The following item types can be uploaded to the SciLifeLab Data Repository:
✓ Check if the uploaded item is labelled with the correct item type.
This is a mandatory field where the submitter can add keywords to the item. The keywords can be more specific than the categories and should be used as a means to make the item more findable. There is no upper limit of the number of keywords, but remember to keep the keywords accurate and relevant. In order to increase interoperability of the item the keywords should be written in a formal, accessible, shared and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.
It is a free-text field and requires extra attention on the spelling of the words. Misspelling keywords will decrease the findability of the item. When searching for items based on keywords the search is not case sensitive.
✓ Check if the keywords appear to be spelled correctly. Consider contacting the submitter if you have doubts about the spelling.
This is a mandatory, free-text field where a description of the item can be added. For someone interested in the item it can be informative to add the purpose of the item, e.g. why was it generated/produced. If the item is connected to an article, the abstract of the article could be included in the description. In this field information about specific software needed to open a file and the necessary version of the software should be stated. Add a URL or DOI to this software in the metadata field labelled References. In order to increase interoperability of the item the description should be written in a formal, accessible, shared and broadly applicable language for knowledge representation.
Specific things to consider depending on the item type:
State who generated or collected the data and if possible, specify the date of this event.
Specify whether the data is raw or processed. In case of processed data, describe how it has been processed.
✓ In the case of the item being connected to an article, check if the article abstract is included in the description.
This is a non-mandatory field that should be used if the research was funded. If the research was funded one or several funders and/or grant number can be added here.
This is a non-mandatory field that should be used to reference a publication that is connected to the item. Only the title of the connected article should be included here.
When the item is published, a title and link to the publication will appear in a box on the right-hand side of the public page for the item. This requires that both this field and the field labelled Resource DOI are filled out.
✓ Check that nothing more than the title of the connected article is stated here.
✓ If this field is filled out, check that the Resource DOI field is filled out as well.
This is a non-mandatory field that should be used to reference a publication that is connected to the item. If the item is connected to an article the DOI of that article should be included here.
When the item is published, a title and link to the publication will appear in a box on the right-hand side of the public page for the item. This requires that both this field and the field labelled Resource title are filled out.
✓ If this field is filled out, check that the Resource title field is filled out as well.
✓ Check if the resource DOI matches the stated resource title.
This is a non-mandatory field where all references besides the reference to the connected article should be listed.
Below follow some examples of references that can be added:
This is a mandatory field where a licence for the item is stated. A licence normally limits how the item can be reused and altered, in what context it can be used and how the creator should be credited. It is recommended to choose a licence as open as possible. The appropriate licence can sometimes be specified by the founder or the publisher. If the item is under some restricted access the Restricted Access licence should be chosen. Available licences:
✓ If it is a metadata record only, check that the licence is Restricted Access.
This is a non-mandatory field where the submitter can state a publisher. The publisher can for instance be the university, the institute or the facility to which the submitter is affiliated.
✓ Check that a publisher has been stated.
This is a mandatory field where an email address to the person that should be contacted regarding questions about the item should be stated.
This is a non-mandatory field where the submitter can state an email address to which any access request of the files should be sent. This is useful when the item, for different reasons, has restricted access.
✓ If possible, check that the email address stated is a functioning email address.
After the reviewer has checked the item and its metadata, they will be given three options.
This option is relevant when the item can be published as it is or when you only detect small ‘errors’ in the metadata that can be edited directly by you without consulting the submitter.
This option is relevant when the item is unsuitable for publication on the repository. The submitter will be notified of this by email.
This option is relevant when there are more substantial ‘errors’ in the item/metadata that needs to be edited by the submitter. Tick the Notify owner by email box and the comment will be sent to the submitter of the item by email. The submitter can then reply to this email. This way, the comments can be discussed in order to arrive at a state where both the reviewer and the submitter are content with the uploaded item.
If there is mandatory metadata missing or if you simply want to change some of the metadata, please use the Save button from the Edit item tab before approving. If you do not save the changes, you will approve the previous version.
When the reviewer is content with both the item and its metadata the reviewer should choose the option Approve and publish. The submitter will be notified of this by email.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.