Cadmore media player playing video PerspectivesOnMetadataQualityAndCompleteness
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
PerspectivesOnMetadataQualityAndCompleteness
Description:
PerspectivesOnMetadataQualityAndCompleteness
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/8fc8e391-1491-48c7-b22e-4df4f4411ffe/videoscrubberimages/Scrubber_1.jpg
Duration:
T00H27M06S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/8fc8e391-1491-48c7-b22e-4df4f4411ffe
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/8fc8e391-1491-48c7-b22e-4df4f4411ffe/PerspectivesOnMetadataQualityAndCompleteness .mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=Wah4fiZwbKD%2FP5rGiYXOd1uujVz6x87c0tQzZHlMWLU%3D&st=2025-01-15T11%3A13%3A30Z&se=2025-01-15T13%3A18%3A30Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-03-06T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
All right. I think we're all connecting here. All right. OK maybe I'll just look.
We kind of, like, roughly stabilized in terms of participants to get going. Oh, you're muted. It wouldn't be a Zoom call without that phrase. We're at 48 and it's been holding steady there. So we've got a great turnout. And I think it's a good time to start having the conversation.
Awesome well, thank you all for joining us. And thank you foremost to the panelists for doing double duty here with a recording session and a live conversation. And I sort of put in the document there, but I think maybe a good way to get this conversation going. We're kind of would be transitioning from Maria's questions there for a second. I was saying it would be actually to get us all together singing some Beatles, but maybe before that we can have a conversation.
So really opening the floor here in terms of what are your experiences helping and supporting researchers with metadata? And I think we can even more broaden that to be kind of what are your experiencing help? What are your experiences helping and supporting others with metadata? I think oftentimes we hear at night, so I like to think are kind of the metadata cheerleaders or enthusiasts.
And so how do we kind of help and support others who may be less enthusiastic or Alternatively kind of may not be aware of how important metadata is, as we've just sort of talked about? So I'll look maybe people raise their hands or put anything in the chat. And certainly four panelists have. I see Regina Reynolds.
Hi yeah, we've heard a lot about metadata that seems to be external from a publication, but I want to put in a plug for embedded metadata and for an recommended practice called pi JPE hyphen j presentation and identification of e journals, and it provides guidance to the publishers of journals as to make your title clear.
Don't mix it up with other kinds of information. Give us some information. One of the things ahead of us is the sun center. We find so many publications without a statement about who's publishing it. You know, the smaller I know that one of our speakers talked about small and very small. I think some of those very small folks don't realize you should tell us who you are and you should give us a place where you're published.
So anyway, I just want to point out that I think there's also guidance that librarians and others can provide to those who publish about the metadata they should embed. I don't know if any of the panelists want to weigh in, but I think that's a great point. And thank you. David they're for linking to pi.
Is that how it's pronounced, pj? That's probably the easiest. Yeah PJ. Well, that lends itself to lots of good illustrations in presentations when we started promoting it and always have a slice of this pop. Yeah thank you for mentioning that it was not a recommended practice that I was familiar with, even though I work on a daily basis with journals and I see it dates from a few years now, but these things should be ever, ever new.
And yeah, Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure it's the sort of thing that if we delved into it, we would see that it was in line with a lot of the things that we recommended. But it's always good to have that sort of back up and refer to some other thing that has been vetted by a community. So and there is an ISO standing committee, so we kind of monitor when it might need some updating.
Super and maybe something for us to bear in mind the next time you're looking to put out a call for new committee members. Other kind of experiences that people want to share about supporting, helping others with metadata. And that applies equally to the panelists to not necessarily didn't necessarily talk about that or elaborate in their presentations.
OK well, you're all thinking about that. Ted Haberman and the chat. Any thoughts or insights on approaches to measuring and evaluating metadata, quality or completeness? Ooh, that's a good one to someone. Want to lead off?
Matthew, can I pick on you? Sure you can. Now, that's another great question. And I think that there are probably can have a standard about how the data is presented, but it's kind of the garbage in garbage out analogy that was used earlier as well is that you can lead a publisher or even an author who is supplying keywords and metadata to water, but you can't force them to drink.
And so much of that, that information that I keep using, that upstream downstream analogy starts with the content provider. So in terms of approaches, I think that someone who's not very closely involved in the editorial area of publishing making sure that the metadata that is being captured from authors or insert it into contents or even at the title level is accurate.
And that it really covers the amounts of content and not just putting in buzz words that. That might get more press. Somewhere I remember when in the very nascent days of the internet when people were trying to load all these keywords into their website pages and geocities and elsewhere to get visibility. That's not really what we want to do is as content providers is rather instead to help foment discovery by providing accurate metadata that discovered that really just describes the outputs of content.
So quantitative measures, I mean, I guess you could try to put in x number of keywords or other pieces that really describe. That's really where my focus is and the description area to format discovery. But I'll, I'll pass to one of the other panelists to describe how they might answer this question. I think there's a lot of possibilities to do things at a platform level.
I know at Nadh we have in the past done things to see how many of our journals have provided reference metadata, how many of those references include versus identifiers such as voice. And so we get platform wide reports that let us track how well we're doing as a platform and providing metadata to our users. I think it's a little bit more difficult when you want to provide that sort of feedback to an individual content provider or to an individual or group that might be the source of the metadata that is eventually sent out elsewhere.
That's a little, little trickier, I think. But certainly like seeing how a whole platform or a whole collection of publications has changed over time is really helpful. Yeah I was trying to read your body language there. If you reaching for the unmute or if we should maybe see if there are other questions or responses here.
OK and any other thoughts again from meant to be kind of an inclusive conversation here about Ted's question about evaluating metadata, quality or completeness? OK maybe we can move on or should move on to the second question.
Maria posed there again is and this ties into to Ted's question, as well as how to motivate researchers and other user groups to enrich scientific outputs with metadata. So sort of the outside or maybe we can elaborate more on the quantitative measures, but there other ways that we can kind of motivate people?
I might be able to find some commentary here, Jason. So as Ted mentioned to you, I mean, almost like a gamification or a piece of authorship, but you know that there's a measurement piece. But really, publishers and providers, they can kind of communicate the impact around metadata and the ways that we've just described in this presentation. Maybe an author submission forms.
I know it's not all coming from authors, but it certainly they are the subject matter experts. They know their material best. They may not know things like by sac subject headings or library of Congress or things like that, but that's more for the publisher or content provider to handle to help map that and enrich metadata. But being able to communicate at the submission stage that the more metadata that you have, the more relevant metadata that you have, is going to lead to things like citations, more discovery, more usage, higher altmetric scores.
These things that are going to really resonate with them and I know that we're probably I'm preaching to the choir here that all of you appreciate all of this as well. But again, just being able to communicate this in a way that's going to resonate with all there is, there is a clear impact for their work. If you want to get your work out there, trying to put as much of that relevant metadata in there and publishers can help get that work out there.
But we are almost limited by what goes into it. Thanks for that, Matthew. And I just want to point out in the chat there a comment include metadata creators, i.e. catalogs and research projects. So the researchers can do the research and the resource describes can do what they are good at creating good quality metadata.
I think that that's kind of a sentiment we can all. Agree with embedding our metadata experts. More comments. I'll add something that I'm being half serious about, but I consider myself a meditative person and I know a number of colleagues who do. And there's like a certain personality type that is drawn to metadata.
It is a very accomplishable task. You know, you sit down for an hour and you scroll through some columns and you touch it up and you make it better. And, you know, there's a certain satisfaction that comes with that. And I don't think us people as metadata people are unique to publishing or to library studies. It's people there are people who love details in every field, every line of work.
So how to engage messages that sort of click with those people and say, hey, there's a place that you can stretch those skills, exert a little bit of your maybe obsessive compulsive disorders in a very productive way. I'm really I'm joking. But yeah, I think there's a little metadata person waiting to happen and many places we just got to find them and engage them.
And our Maria. There of you want to elaborate on any of them? Yeah go ahead, Maria. Yeah, yeah, Yeah. I would just would also like to say that the FAIR principles, the whole fair area, the area of the FAIR principles also means a lot about when the researchers are asked to make data findable.
So I think it's up and coming with the motivation and the good experiences among researchers and researchers communities on the value of the data and data to be findable through metadata and the description of the data. And nowadays also, when researchers are asked to make data published and to open up data, it means a lot.
So my experience when speaking with researchers, researchers group nowadays, they are more open to it. And so they are not so close to it anymore. But it's about the process of getting more concrete and getting into procedures and practicals. As I said.
Yeah my view. I think I shared it in my presentation is that I wasn't able to find, at least in the fields which I am related to or with the researchers I talked to in different fields. I never found someone who said, OK, it's important and I'm going to put some energy on that and I'm going to take care of this. So I think that in terms of I try always to think about whose interest is on better data of quality.
I mean, it's in the interest of everybody. I think this is a common sense. It's something that is beneficial to everybody. But at the same time, who is responsible for this quality? I think we have been discussing this in several, several panels. And and I think that they're different things. Who cares? I mean, caring is one thing.
Or recognizing the value or recognizing the importance. And then being responsible for the quality of the metadata is something else. And I think that researchers are ready to. Some researchers are ready to recognize I have a recent case that happened to me that some people I would say senior researchers right around 70 years old from the social science domain, they came to me because they were very it's a couple that published and they came to me because they were very upset, because they are publisher was asking them their awkward ID, they didn't know what it was, they didn't want to know what it was.
And I spent a lot of time trying to help them have access. All all these configurations and authorizations. And stuff, they were getting crazy. I didn't know they ended up hating work it. And I was there explaining to them, it's not Orkin's fault, you know, if someone is responsible or their interlocutor is the editor of the Journal. But the editors of the journal are researchers. They don't care about all of these technicalities and all the backgrounds of the data or I mean, I'm talking about beats.
I'm not even talking about metadata. So what? And when I talk to younger researchers. Right, they do recognize the value, but they don't think it's their responsibility to make this data available in according to standards or compliance to some rules. So in my experience, I think we need researchers need a lot of clear information, clear guidelines, guidelines and not long texts to read, but what is requested from them when they submit the paper, what is requested from them in terms of data when they submit a proposal or when they.
So I think that the universities, through the libraries, through the research offices, right through the team leaders like the Department leaders, they need to convey this, this, this information. They need to request researchers to comply to something. So I know we have been discussing a lot about mandating, not mandating. I mean, but if I think everybody has a part to play and they are complementary.
But but I think that the burden shouldn't be put on the researchers they are producing. They are doing it. They are producing the information that other people have to manage. So I would say this is my, my final position with my research as head right. Lets researchers do what they, what they have to do, which is produce knowledge, create the knowledge and then all the people who are information specialists, they have to, to do this, this work.
Thanks, Anna. Other comments or thoughts from that, either about that, either from the panel or again, from people in the session. Happy to have an engaged conversation. Go ahead, Jessica. Yeah, I. I agree with you, Anna, 100% in the sense of that. It it shouldn't always fall on a researcher's or an author's shoulders to do the hard work around metadata.
The one of the conversations or sort of myths about open access publishing that I often hear is that in an open access environment, what is the publisher doing really, other than just making something available online? And it's like, well, no publishers have always and will continue to add a lot of value. And one of the things that a publisher I believe should add, even my small and very small publishers, part of their job is to add that value of making sure that the metadata associated with the final publication is complete and correct and will be usable downstream.
Thanks, Jessica and Ted. Go ahead. I see your hand is up. Yeah I've heard a lot this week about how busy researchers are. And as someone who has been a researcher and is doing research now, I understand that Maria brought up the FAIR principles and talked about metadata, hope, helping with fine ability. But and I've worked mostly in the data part of the business rather than the article part of the business.
So I think more about data sets and how they're fair and how they're reusable or how they're not reusable in the general case. So this statement about researchers are so busy and we need to make their life easier. I'd just like to recharacterize that statement as users are not busy and we'd like to make their life harder because there is no there is no free lunch in understanding data and understanding data sets and science and how it happens.
So making things easier for researchers means making things harder for users, and it means making re-use either more difficult or impossible, because if you get a data set, no one will ever re-use data that's not well documented and not well described or has incomplete or inconsistent metadata. So I think that whenever someone says researchers are working so hard, we need to make their life easier.
They should also finish that sentence by saying and at the same time make life harder for users, because that's what bad metadata does that. So so and there's this idea of undifferentiated if there's undifferentiated heavy lifting, if there are multiple users and you actually want your data set to be reused, having some inconvenience for the person who's creating that data set is critical for helping many users hopefully downstream use that.
So you can't have one without the other. I think that's a good word. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Anna. No, I completely agree. And by the way, researchers, our producers and users as well. So maybe what I was thinking while you were talking, Ted, is maybe that researchers are not using all those researchers data enough to be able to value the quality of that information.
So when they submit their data sets, they are also good. I don't know. Just thinking out loud how. I don't know if we have some, some information about on which percentage of the papers, for example cite, cite data from other researchers. I don't know if they have any data about this, but it would be interesting to know.
There's a lot of data about re-use. And unfortunately, most of it is about lack of reuse. But when you're dealing with researchers specifically, I just wanted to mention that many of the users of a researcher's data are actually the future that use that researcher in the future. So so some people have called metadata a love note to the future. And when you come back to your own data sets, you know, a week later or a month later or a year later because you don't have the metadata, it's very hard to reuse your own data.
So future you or future us is an important user for good metadata to. Absolutely completely. I love that. A love note to the future that that's great and as well. I like how this conversation kind of came back to the users who ultimately kind of is who we're talking about and obviously researchers as users as well. We are at time.
So I really want to take this opportunity to thank the panel for a really good conversation, really good presentations. I'm just going to do another plug there for the energy guides and mentioned that they are C by and if you go to the last page, you will find that cheat sheet that Jessica was talking about. And I think it is really kind of a nice light way to communicate people to in a simplified manner, if you will.
So unless there's anything else, I think we can kind of close the session and and call it a success. And thank you again, everyone, for your participation and a special thank you as well to Maria for her singing not easy to put yourself out there singing and being recorded. So kudos to you for that. Thank you.
And Thanks to you, Jason, for moderating and being our organizer extraordinaire. Thanks to everyone you're here. Thank you. Bye bye. Bye good bye. Bye
Segment:0 .
All right. I think we're all connecting here. All right. OK maybe I'll just look.
We kind of, like, roughly stabilized in terms of participants to get going. Oh, you're muted. It wouldn't be a Zoom call without that phrase. We're at 48 and it's been holding steady there. So we've got a great turnout. And I think it's a good time to start having the conversation.
Awesome well, thank you all for joining us. And thank you foremost to the panelists for doing double duty here with a recording session and a live conversation. And I sort of put in the document there, but I think maybe a good way to get this conversation going. We're kind of would be transitioning from Maria's questions there for a second. I was saying it would be actually to get us all together singing some Beatles, but maybe before that we can have a conversation.
So really opening the floor here in terms of what are your experiences helping and supporting researchers with metadata? And I think we can even more broaden that to be kind of what are your experiencing help? What are your experiences helping and supporting others with metadata? I think oftentimes we hear at night, so I like to think are kind of the metadata cheerleaders or enthusiasts.
And so how do we kind of help and support others who may be less enthusiastic or Alternatively kind of may not be aware of how important metadata is, as we've just sort of talked about? So I'll look maybe people raise their hands or put anything in the chat. And certainly four panelists have. I see Regina Reynolds.
Hi yeah, we've heard a lot about metadata that seems to be external from a publication, but I want to put in a plug for embedded metadata and for an recommended practice called pi JPE hyphen j presentation and identification of e journals, and it provides guidance to the publishers of journals as to make your title clear.
Don't mix it up with other kinds of information. Give us some information. One of the things ahead of us is the sun center. We find so many publications without a statement about who's publishing it. You know, the smaller I know that one of our speakers talked about small and very small. I think some of those very small folks don't realize you should tell us who you are and you should give us a place where you're published.
So anyway, I just want to point out that I think there's also guidance that librarians and others can provide to those who publish about the metadata they should embed. I don't know if any of the panelists want to weigh in, but I think that's a great point. And thank you. David they're for linking to pi.
Is that how it's pronounced, pj? That's probably the easiest. Yeah PJ. Well, that lends itself to lots of good illustrations in presentations when we started promoting it and always have a slice of this pop. Yeah thank you for mentioning that it was not a recommended practice that I was familiar with, even though I work on a daily basis with journals and I see it dates from a few years now, but these things should be ever, ever new.
And yeah, Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure it's the sort of thing that if we delved into it, we would see that it was in line with a lot of the things that we recommended. But it's always good to have that sort of back up and refer to some other thing that has been vetted by a community. So and there is an ISO standing committee, so we kind of monitor when it might need some updating.
Super and maybe something for us to bear in mind the next time you're looking to put out a call for new committee members. Other kind of experiences that people want to share about supporting, helping others with metadata. And that applies equally to the panelists to not necessarily didn't necessarily talk about that or elaborate in their presentations.
OK well, you're all thinking about that. Ted Haberman and the chat. Any thoughts or insights on approaches to measuring and evaluating metadata, quality or completeness? Ooh, that's a good one to someone. Want to lead off?
Matthew, can I pick on you? Sure you can. Now, that's another great question. And I think that there are probably can have a standard about how the data is presented, but it's kind of the garbage in garbage out analogy that was used earlier as well is that you can lead a publisher or even an author who is supplying keywords and metadata to water, but you can't force them to drink.
And so much of that, that information that I keep using, that upstream downstream analogy starts with the content provider. So in terms of approaches, I think that someone who's not very closely involved in the editorial area of publishing making sure that the metadata that is being captured from authors or insert it into contents or even at the title level is accurate.
And that it really covers the amounts of content and not just putting in buzz words that. That might get more press. Somewhere I remember when in the very nascent days of the internet when people were trying to load all these keywords into their website pages and geocities and elsewhere to get visibility. That's not really what we want to do is as content providers is rather instead to help foment discovery by providing accurate metadata that discovered that really just describes the outputs of content.
So quantitative measures, I mean, I guess you could try to put in x number of keywords or other pieces that really describe. That's really where my focus is and the description area to format discovery. But I'll, I'll pass to one of the other panelists to describe how they might answer this question. I think there's a lot of possibilities to do things at a platform level.
I know at Nadh we have in the past done things to see how many of our journals have provided reference metadata, how many of those references include versus identifiers such as voice. And so we get platform wide reports that let us track how well we're doing as a platform and providing metadata to our users. I think it's a little bit more difficult when you want to provide that sort of feedback to an individual content provider or to an individual or group that might be the source of the metadata that is eventually sent out elsewhere.
That's a little, little trickier, I think. But certainly like seeing how a whole platform or a whole collection of publications has changed over time is really helpful. Yeah I was trying to read your body language there. If you reaching for the unmute or if we should maybe see if there are other questions or responses here.
OK and any other thoughts again from meant to be kind of an inclusive conversation here about Ted's question about evaluating metadata, quality or completeness? OK maybe we can move on or should move on to the second question.
Maria posed there again is and this ties into to Ted's question, as well as how to motivate researchers and other user groups to enrich scientific outputs with metadata. So sort of the outside or maybe we can elaborate more on the quantitative measures, but there other ways that we can kind of motivate people?
I might be able to find some commentary here, Jason. So as Ted mentioned to you, I mean, almost like a gamification or a piece of authorship, but you know that there's a measurement piece. But really, publishers and providers, they can kind of communicate the impact around metadata and the ways that we've just described in this presentation. Maybe an author submission forms.
I know it's not all coming from authors, but it certainly they are the subject matter experts. They know their material best. They may not know things like by sac subject headings or library of Congress or things like that, but that's more for the publisher or content provider to handle to help map that and enrich metadata. But being able to communicate at the submission stage that the more metadata that you have, the more relevant metadata that you have, is going to lead to things like citations, more discovery, more usage, higher altmetric scores.
These things that are going to really resonate with them and I know that we're probably I'm preaching to the choir here that all of you appreciate all of this as well. But again, just being able to communicate this in a way that's going to resonate with all there is, there is a clear impact for their work. If you want to get your work out there, trying to put as much of that relevant metadata in there and publishers can help get that work out there.
But we are almost limited by what goes into it. Thanks for that, Matthew. And I just want to point out in the chat there a comment include metadata creators, i.e. catalogs and research projects. So the researchers can do the research and the resource describes can do what they are good at creating good quality metadata.
I think that that's kind of a sentiment we can all. Agree with embedding our metadata experts. More comments. I'll add something that I'm being half serious about, but I consider myself a meditative person and I know a number of colleagues who do. And there's like a certain personality type that is drawn to metadata.
It is a very accomplishable task. You know, you sit down for an hour and you scroll through some columns and you touch it up and you make it better. And, you know, there's a certain satisfaction that comes with that. And I don't think us people as metadata people are unique to publishing or to library studies. It's people there are people who love details in every field, every line of work.
So how to engage messages that sort of click with those people and say, hey, there's a place that you can stretch those skills, exert a little bit of your maybe obsessive compulsive disorders in a very productive way. I'm really I'm joking. But yeah, I think there's a little metadata person waiting to happen and many places we just got to find them and engage them.
And our Maria. There of you want to elaborate on any of them? Yeah go ahead, Maria. Yeah, yeah, Yeah. I would just would also like to say that the FAIR principles, the whole fair area, the area of the FAIR principles also means a lot about when the researchers are asked to make data findable.
So I think it's up and coming with the motivation and the good experiences among researchers and researchers communities on the value of the data and data to be findable through metadata and the description of the data. And nowadays also, when researchers are asked to make data published and to open up data, it means a lot.
So my experience when speaking with researchers, researchers group nowadays, they are more open to it. And so they are not so close to it anymore. But it's about the process of getting more concrete and getting into procedures and practicals. As I said.
Yeah my view. I think I shared it in my presentation is that I wasn't able to find, at least in the fields which I am related to or with the researchers I talked to in different fields. I never found someone who said, OK, it's important and I'm going to put some energy on that and I'm going to take care of this. So I think that in terms of I try always to think about whose interest is on better data of quality.
I mean, it's in the interest of everybody. I think this is a common sense. It's something that is beneficial to everybody. But at the same time, who is responsible for this quality? I think we have been discussing this in several, several panels. And and I think that they're different things. Who cares? I mean, caring is one thing.
Or recognizing the value or recognizing the importance. And then being responsible for the quality of the metadata is something else. And I think that researchers are ready to. Some researchers are ready to recognize I have a recent case that happened to me that some people I would say senior researchers right around 70 years old from the social science domain, they came to me because they were very it's a couple that published and they came to me because they were very upset, because they are publisher was asking them their awkward ID, they didn't know what it was, they didn't want to know what it was.
And I spent a lot of time trying to help them have access. All all these configurations and authorizations. And stuff, they were getting crazy. I didn't know they ended up hating work it. And I was there explaining to them, it's not Orkin's fault, you know, if someone is responsible or their interlocutor is the editor of the Journal. But the editors of the journal are researchers. They don't care about all of these technicalities and all the backgrounds of the data or I mean, I'm talking about beats.
I'm not even talking about metadata. So what? And when I talk to younger researchers. Right, they do recognize the value, but they don't think it's their responsibility to make this data available in according to standards or compliance to some rules. So in my experience, I think we need researchers need a lot of clear information, clear guidelines, guidelines and not long texts to read, but what is requested from them when they submit the paper, what is requested from them in terms of data when they submit a proposal or when they.
So I think that the universities, through the libraries, through the research offices, right through the team leaders like the Department leaders, they need to convey this, this, this information. They need to request researchers to comply to something. So I know we have been discussing a lot about mandating, not mandating. I mean, but if I think everybody has a part to play and they are complementary.
But but I think that the burden shouldn't be put on the researchers they are producing. They are doing it. They are producing the information that other people have to manage. So I would say this is my, my final position with my research as head right. Lets researchers do what they, what they have to do, which is produce knowledge, create the knowledge and then all the people who are information specialists, they have to, to do this, this work.
Thanks, Anna. Other comments or thoughts from that, either about that, either from the panel or again, from people in the session. Happy to have an engaged conversation. Go ahead, Jessica. Yeah, I. I agree with you, Anna, 100% in the sense of that. It it shouldn't always fall on a researcher's or an author's shoulders to do the hard work around metadata.
The one of the conversations or sort of myths about open access publishing that I often hear is that in an open access environment, what is the publisher doing really, other than just making something available online? And it's like, well, no publishers have always and will continue to add a lot of value. And one of the things that a publisher I believe should add, even my small and very small publishers, part of their job is to add that value of making sure that the metadata associated with the final publication is complete and correct and will be usable downstream.
Thanks, Jessica and Ted. Go ahead. I see your hand is up. Yeah I've heard a lot this week about how busy researchers are. And as someone who has been a researcher and is doing research now, I understand that Maria brought up the FAIR principles and talked about metadata, hope, helping with fine ability. But and I've worked mostly in the data part of the business rather than the article part of the business.
So I think more about data sets and how they're fair and how they're reusable or how they're not reusable in the general case. So this statement about researchers are so busy and we need to make their life easier. I'd just like to recharacterize that statement as users are not busy and we'd like to make their life harder because there is no there is no free lunch in understanding data and understanding data sets and science and how it happens.
So making things easier for researchers means making things harder for users, and it means making re-use either more difficult or impossible, because if you get a data set, no one will ever re-use data that's not well documented and not well described or has incomplete or inconsistent metadata. So I think that whenever someone says researchers are working so hard, we need to make their life easier.
They should also finish that sentence by saying and at the same time make life harder for users, because that's what bad metadata does that. So so and there's this idea of undifferentiated if there's undifferentiated heavy lifting, if there are multiple users and you actually want your data set to be reused, having some inconvenience for the person who's creating that data set is critical for helping many users hopefully downstream use that.
So you can't have one without the other. I think that's a good word. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Anna. No, I completely agree. And by the way, researchers, our producers and users as well. So maybe what I was thinking while you were talking, Ted, is maybe that researchers are not using all those researchers data enough to be able to value the quality of that information.
So when they submit their data sets, they are also good. I don't know. Just thinking out loud how. I don't know if we have some, some information about on which percentage of the papers, for example cite, cite data from other researchers. I don't know if they have any data about this, but it would be interesting to know.
There's a lot of data about re-use. And unfortunately, most of it is about lack of reuse. But when you're dealing with researchers specifically, I just wanted to mention that many of the users of a researcher's data are actually the future that use that researcher in the future. So so some people have called metadata a love note to the future. And when you come back to your own data sets, you know, a week later or a month later or a year later because you don't have the metadata, it's very hard to reuse your own data.
So future you or future us is an important user for good metadata to. Absolutely completely. I love that. A love note to the future that that's great and as well. I like how this conversation kind of came back to the users who ultimately kind of is who we're talking about and obviously researchers as users as well. We are at time.
So I really want to take this opportunity to thank the panel for a really good conversation, really good presentations. I'm just going to do another plug there for the energy guides and mentioned that they are C by and if you go to the last page, you will find that cheat sheet that Jessica was talking about. And I think it is really kind of a nice light way to communicate people to in a simplified manner, if you will.
So unless there's anything else, I think we can kind of close the session and and call it a success. And thank you again, everyone, for your participation and a special thank you as well to Maria for her singing not easy to put yourself out there singing and being recorded. So kudos to you for that. Thank you.
And Thanks to you, Jason, for moderating and being our organizer extraordinaire. Thanks to everyone you're here. Thank you. Bye bye. Bye good bye. Bye
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode