Difference between revisions of "Living Sources in Lexical Description"
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
One of the main new possibilities for scientific publishing offered by the online electronic format is that publication and quality control can be separated. In a publication system where each publication is costly, the quality control has to precede the physical publication. In contrast, in electronic form, the cost of each publication if small (the main costs relate to the up keeping of the overall system). This allows for '''a system in which publication itself (i.e "making available") can happen independent of the assessment of the quality ("peer review")'''. We would like to encourage people to publish smaller amounts of data, but such smaller datasets of course should be distinguished from large publications (for example complete dictionaries). To allow for different kinds of publications, some kind of stratification is needed. This stratification of publication will happen through the (open) peer review system. For lexical data, we propose a two-layered system. The first level of publication will be called "Words of the World" and consists of a technically correct submissions that do not (yet) have been peer-reviewed. Peer review can (but need not) happen to obtain more scientific recognition, and (if successful) lead to publication in more prestigious series, like "Dictionaries of the World's Languages". | One of the main new possibilities for scientific publishing offered by the online electronic format is that publication and quality control can be separated. In a publication system where each publication is costly, the quality control has to precede the physical publication. In contrast, in electronic form, the cost of each publication if small (the main costs relate to the up keeping of the overall system). This allows for '''a system in which publication itself (i.e "making available") can happen independent of the assessment of the quality ("peer review")'''. We would like to encourage people to publish smaller amounts of data, but such smaller datasets of course should be distinguished from large publications (for example complete dictionaries). To allow for different kinds of publications, some kind of stratification is needed. This stratification of publication will happen through the (open) peer review system. For lexical data, we propose a two-layered system. The first level of publication will be called "Words of the World" and consists of a technically correct submissions that do not (yet) have been peer-reviewed. Peer review can (but need not) happen to obtain more scientific recognition, and (if successful) lead to publication in more prestigious series, like "Dictionaries of the World's Languages". | ||
'''Submission''' | '''Step 1: Submission''' | ||
Submission consists mainly of a technical check by editors. | Submission consists mainly of a technical check by editors. | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
*these steps can be iterated until all technical requirements are met | *these steps can be iterated until all technical requirements are met | ||
'''Bare publication''' | '''Step 2: Bare publication''' | ||
To allow of the availability of data, irrespective of scientific recognition, there should be a level of "bare" publication, with its own brand name. | To allow of the availability of data, irrespective of scientific recognition, there should be a level of "bare" publication, with its own brand name. | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
*data that passes the technical check will be announced as published in a special series, for example called '''Words of the World''' | *data that passes the technical check will be announced as published in a special series, for example called '''Words of the World''' | ||
'''Review''' | '''Step 3: Review''' | ||
There can be different, independent, more prestigious series. Such series simply consist of an editorial board and an active community of peer-reviewers. If that particular scientific sub-community accepts a submission, it can give it's own "stamp" of recognition by branding a special series. In the context of lexical data, one could think of series like "Dictionaries of the "World's Languages", "Intercontinental Dictionary Series", "Loanword Typology Wordlists", or "Cognate set collections". The branding and recognition of such series completely depend on the effort and success of the editors and the community or reviewers. Initially, only one such brand will be established, namely '''Dictionaries of the "World's Languages'''. | There can be different, independent, more prestigious series. Such series simply consist of an editorial board and an active community of peer-reviewers. If that particular scientific sub-community accepts a submission, it can give it's own "stamp" of recognition by branding a special series. In the context of lexical data, one could think of series like "Dictionaries of the "World's Languages", "Intercontinental Dictionary Series", "Loanword Typology Wordlists", or "Cognate set collections". The branding and recognition of such series completely depend on the effort and success of the editors and the community or reviewers. Initially, only one such brand will be established, namely '''Dictionaries of the "World's Languages'''. | ||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
*individual errors/shortcomings can and should be corrected, but should not ban scientific recognition (except of course when the errors are too widespread). | *individual errors/shortcomings can and should be corrected, but should not ban scientific recognition (except of course when the errors are too widespread). | ||
'''Full publication''' | '''Step 4: Full publication''' | ||
On the basis of the reviews, the editors decide on acceptance. After acceptance, the result will be a peer-reviewed dictionary, meaning "the principle of collecting and organising data is good, though there might be discussion about individual items". The submission is then published in the series called "Dictionaries of the World's Languages" | On the basis of the reviews, the editors decide on acceptance. After acceptance, the result will be a peer-reviewed dictionary, meaning "the principle of collecting and organising data is good, though there might be discussion about individual items". The submission is then published in the series called "Dictionaries of the World's Languages" | ||
'''Editions/Supplements''' | '''Step 5: Editions/Supplements''' | ||
A central part of the Living Sources concept is that published data is changeable. Authors can add and correct data, users can add commentary or additional information. Any collections of such additions to the system can be in turn submitted to review. The idea is that once a particular author/user has added a lot of new information (i.e an author has added much information to his/her dictionary, or a user has collected many sets of cognates across different languages), such a collection of new information can be given to the scrutiny of the peers, resulting in either a new edition of an available publication, or a supplement to an available publication, or a completely new publication. Such substantially new version should count as publications worthy of being listed on a cv. | A central part of the Living Sources concept is that published data is changeable. Authors can add and correct data, users can add commentary or additional information. Any collections of such additions to the system can be in turn submitted to review. The idea is that once a particular author/user has added a lot of new information (i.e an author has added much information to his/her dictionary, or a user has collected many sets of cognates across different languages), such a collection of new information can be given to the scrutiny of the peers, resulting in either a new edition of an available publication, or a supplement to an available publication, or a completely new publication. Such substantially new version should count as publications worthy of being listed on a cv. | ||
===Citation=== | |||
===Functional specification/Requirements=== | ===Functional specification/Requirements=== | ||
Revision as of 13:16, 19 May 2008
This is a protected page.
Summary[edit]
Living Sources is an infrastructure for publishing scientific data. There are many general issues concerning the publication of data (in contrast to the publication of results) that are applicable to most scientific fields (specifically, issues like persistence, quality control and scientific recognition). The Living Sources concept aims to address these problems, so different fields of scientific inquiry can profit from the solutions proposed. The general plan of publishing data will be approached through a concrete case, namely the Living Sources in Lexical Description, an online data-journal for the publication of dictionaries of the world's languages.
The Living Sources concept[edit]
Current situation[edit]
In contrast to the common practice of publishing and discussing research results, currently most scientists do not disclose the underlying research data. They do not make them available to a wider audience because of various reasons, like:
- failure to see wider applicability of data ("Why would anybody be interested in this?")
- insufficient quality (e.g. the data collection is not finished, it is not properly cross-checked, or the data is not complete)
- fear of plagiarism (others might not properly acknowledge the data)
- loss of control over interpretation (others might misunderstand the data, with undeserved blame being cast on the original creator of the data)
- loss of primacy of discovery (others might come up with important discoveries that the original creator also observed, but did not have time to work out and publish)
- lack of suitable publications to publish the data (most publishers are not interested to publish large tables with raw data)
- lack of technical knowledge how to make data available
- limited scientific recognition for making data available
All these - completely legitimate - reasons lead to the current situation in which data are mostly unavailable for inspection and scientific scrutiny, unavailable for reanalysis, and unavailable for meta-analysis. When much more (raw) data would be available, many new possibilities for research, both within disciplines but also across disciplines, will become possible.
Prospects[edit]
Recent developments in computational infrastructure ("web 2.0") are showing the possibility for new kinds of information exchange. Living Sources will be an online repository of information created for and by scientists, tailored to the goals and needs of these scientists. To reach this goal, the concept of Living Sources will tackle problems that are general enough to be of importance to many field on inquiry:
- persistence of data (storage and archiving)
- systems of quality control ("peer review")
- securing of scientific recognition and citability
The electronic format of publication offers various additional possibilities:
- incremental publications (corrections and additions possible which is difficult for traditional forms of publications)
- comments on and citation of individual datapoints (micro-publication too small for traditional forms of publication)
- open peer review schemes
- addition of digitalized legacy material to supplement the newly published data
- persistence of data through grid-like backup
Strategy[edit]
Living Sources will not attempt to force scientists to adapt to new paradigms of how to deal with data. It will function more as a service to those (sub)fields that have a need for data publication and dissemination. An instance of the Living Sources concept will be in need of:
- Availability of data with high level quality
- Support from scientists in the field
- Editiorial board (technical checks, organisation of field)
- Peer review (content check)
There are at least two complementary scenarios for the application of the Living Sources concept. First, the construction of a dedicated technical infrastructure which enhances the usability of data. This should be a "one stop shop" for scientists who look for a hosting environment, including all features needed for usage and deployment of such a system (including, e.g., user interfaces for editors, casual browsers and power users, searchability, persistent data storage, etc.). Second, Living Sources aims to set standards for the structure of data portals (like data journals or data archives) as for issues of citation and quality control. This is specifically geared towards groups of scientists who want to keep a strong hold on their data can build their own systems, that are still interoperable with the dedicated Living Sources infrastructure.
Living Sources in Lexical Description[edit]
The Living Sources in Lexical Description is the first implementation of the Living Sources concept. It is specifically geared towards the publication of dictionaries and other lexical resourced of the world's languages. It will be primarily focussed on lexical resources of lesser studies and often endangered languages, offering specialists for such languages to publish their resources for which there is mostly no real interest among traditional publishers. Also, the published lexical data will offer cross-searchability and cross-annotation, opening up new possibilities for research, like the investigation of cognate words for historical comparison of the world's languages.
Scientific scope[edit]
Words are of prime interest to linguists and the general audience alike. Various branches of linguistics are interested in well-organized and cross-searchable lexical resources, like:
- Lexicography and terminology research
- Description and documentation of endangered languages
- Dialectology
- Ethnolinguistics
- Historical linguistics
- Computational linguistics
- Psycholinguistics
Also, in the context of the recent movement in linguistics to recognize constructions (including both "set expressions" and "grammatical structures") as language-particular entities on a par with lexical items ("words"), the infrastructure for lexical resources can be expanded to a much larger scope of language description in the future.
Open submission and peer review[edit]
One of the main new possibilities for scientific publishing offered by the online electronic format is that publication and quality control can be separated. In a publication system where each publication is costly, the quality control has to precede the physical publication. In contrast, in electronic form, the cost of each publication if small (the main costs relate to the up keeping of the overall system). This allows for a system in which publication itself (i.e "making available") can happen independent of the assessment of the quality ("peer review"). We would like to encourage people to publish smaller amounts of data, but such smaller datasets of course should be distinguished from large publications (for example complete dictionaries). To allow for different kinds of publications, some kind of stratification is needed. This stratification of publication will happen through the (open) peer review system. For lexical data, we propose a two-layered system. The first level of publication will be called "Words of the World" and consists of a technically correct submissions that do not (yet) have been peer-reviewed. Peer review can (but need not) happen to obtain more scientific recognition, and (if successful) lead to publication in more prestigious series, like "Dictionaries of the World's Languages".
Step 1: Submission
Submission consists mainly of a technical check by editors.
- data is directly uploaded (in a first phase some technical assistance should be available)
- this leads automatically to an evaluation by to editors (possibly closed, if requested by the author)
- editorial check will be on technical issues and requirements only (data structure, terminology, preface, etc.)
- retraction from peer review at this point still possible, but data remain available (with restricted access if wanted)
- these steps can be iterated until all technical requirements are met
Step 2: Bare publication
To allow of the availability of data, irrespective of scientific recognition, there should be a level of "bare" publication, with its own brand name.
- data that does not meet all technical requirements can still remain openly available, categorized as Draft
- data that passes the technical check will be announced as published in a special series, for example called Words of the World
Step 3: Review
There can be different, independent, more prestigious series. Such series simply consist of an editorial board and an active community of peer-reviewers. If that particular scientific sub-community accepts a submission, it can give it's own "stamp" of recognition by branding a special series. In the context of lexical data, one could think of series like "Dictionaries of the "World's Languages", "Intercontinental Dictionary Series", "Loanword Typology Wordlists", or "Cognate set collections". The branding and recognition of such series completely depend on the effort and success of the editors and the community or reviewers. Initially, only one such brand will be established, namely Dictionaries of the "World's Languages.
- if wanted by the author, any technically accepted publication can be opened up for peer review to obtain more scientific recognition
- this peer-review will be time restricted and openly available to the whole community
- review should be a critical assessment of submission as a whole (i.e. commentary on kind of collection, and on larger samples of submitted data points)
- comments on individual entries should be seen separate from commentary on the whole enterprise.
- individual errors/shortcomings can and should be corrected, but should not ban scientific recognition (except of course when the errors are too widespread).
Step 4: Full publication
On the basis of the reviews, the editors decide on acceptance. After acceptance, the result will be a peer-reviewed dictionary, meaning "the principle of collecting and organising data is good, though there might be discussion about individual items". The submission is then published in the series called "Dictionaries of the World's Languages"
Step 5: Editions/Supplements
A central part of the Living Sources concept is that published data is changeable. Authors can add and correct data, users can add commentary or additional information. Any collections of such additions to the system can be in turn submitted to review. The idea is that once a particular author/user has added a lot of new information (i.e an author has added much information to his/her dictionary, or a user has collected many sets of cognates across different languages), such a collection of new information can be given to the scrutiny of the peers, resulting in either a new edition of an available publication, or a supplement to an available publication, or a completely new publication. Such substantially new version should count as publications worthy of being listed on a cv.
Citation[edit]
Functional specification/Requirements[edit]
Submission:
Required information, seen as a preface:
- scientific background/research field
- editorial background/rational of the data
- selection criteria: e.g. sampling, fields, etc.
- data category/use of data: e.g. ODD specification, schema, specification of orthography, terminology specification etc.
- links to other databases/sources
Required informtion about the data itself:
- upload vs. URL
- upload on Lexus
- fulltext/XML
- webservice
Infrastructure[edit]
Technical issues:
- Formats (TMF, LMF, TEI/dic.)
- Technical infrastructure: Lexus (MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen), eSciDoc
- Unique identification of data objects
- Direct reusability of data (local databases, linking of databases)
- Formats for commentaries
- Formats for orthography profiles
- Citation structure (receipts, recipy, granularity)
Rights
- Open Access
- Creative Commons Licence for data and metadata (by default: attribution)
- No copyright transfer
- agreement with authors that Living Sources in Lexical Description has the rights (to store) and distribute the data under the Creative Commons Licence
Miscellaneous
- possibility of third party commentaries by any registered user
Open issues[edit]
- check if Living Reviews infrastructure for the peer review process can be re-used
- need of a sampling strategy on the data
- sample of full entries
- full overview of specific fields (e.g. all parts of speech, all etymological fields)
Application[edit]
Needed man-power:
- Lexical Curator
- Infrastructure programmer
Support
- Potential scientific support from MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig and other Max Planck Instituts
- Potential financial support: ESF call BABEL, Volkswagenstiftung, Heinz-Nixdorf-Stiftung
Other
- applied for domains livingsources.org, livingsources.com, livingsources.eu (request processed by AEI Potsdam)