Peer Review of RO-1

• Author: Anita Bandrowski, Tom Gillespie, Monique Surles-Zeigler, Gabrielle Pine, Jeffrey Grethe and Mary Ann Martone.
• Title: How BIDs and BIDs validator has informed the data aggregation needs of the Stimulating Peripheral Activity to Relieve Conditions, SPARC, consortium
• Submission: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3265460
• Submitted as: RO2019 abstract
• Decision: accept talk (accepted for oral presentation)

Review 1

• Review by: (anonymous)

Quality of Writing

Is the text easy to follow? Are core concepts defined or referenced? Is it clear what is the author’s contribution?

• fair

Hard to follow.

Research Object / Zenodo

URL for a Research Object or Zenodo record provided?   Guidelines followed?   Open format (e.g. HTML)?   Sufficient metadata, e.g. links to software?   Some form of Data Package provided?   Add text below if you need to clarify your score.

• good (followed guidelines, demonstrating own format, related resources included, but some details missing)

Overall evaluation

Please provide a brief review, including a justification for your scores. Both score and review text are required.

• accept

The authors provide a compelling project that will allow creation of a unified standard for data capture and metadata reporting across diverse types of biological data. This will be done through the use of BIDs standard format for Research Objects.

Major comments

1. It will be great if the authors could evaluate BioCompute Objects which also has similar goals https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30596645 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27974626 https://biocomputeobject.org/specification.html
2. The title needs to be reworded. Maybe make it more generic? It does not mean anything to someone who is not familiar with BID and the cited projects.

Minor comment

1. The abstract seems to be a collection of thoughts. It is quite hard to read. Spell out acronyms the first time it is used.

Review 2

• Review by: (anonymous)

Quality of Writing

Is the text easy to follow? Are core concepts defined or referenced? Is it clear what is the author’s contribution?

• excellent

The description of the initial BIDS work and the new SPARC-BIDS effort is clear, succinct and easy to follow. The core concepts are defined and well-referenced.

Research Object / Zenodo

URL for a Research Object or Zenodo record provided?   Guidelines followed?   Open format (e.g. HTML)?   Sufficient metadata, e.g. links to software?   Some form of Data Package provided?   Add text below if you need to clarify your score.

• basic (e.g. Zenodo with PDF and minimal metadata)

RTF file on Zenodo with minimal metadata

Overall evaluation

Please provide a brief review, including a justification for your scores. Both score and review text are required.

• strong accept

Both the BIDS and SPARC-BIDS initiatives are compelling examples of research objects which have seen relatively broad adoption in a short period of time. The experiences of this team will be of interest to participants and should usefully inform related data packaging efforts.