This file hosts a contribution to PIDapalooza 2019. It was submitted on 21 September 2018 and accepted on 5 November 2018. In the end, I could not attend, but remain interested in comments and exchanges related to making ethics processes more FAIR, and on the role that persistent identifiers can play in such contexts.
Persisting on making ethics processes Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable
Many research projects require ethical review, and publications resulting from approved ones usually refer to the approval in some fashion, which may or may not involve persistent identifiers. If present, such identifiers are associated with information about certain aspects of the ethics process, which are usually neither public nor FAIR but often could be either or both.
Here, we will look at examples taken from a range of ethics processes from various disciplines and highlight use cases for identifiers in such contexts, as well as the potential for automation, especially in terms of generating, curating and following up on ethics statements in scholarly communications like grant proposals, data management plans or publications. This submission builds on a PIDapalooza 2016 talk and will be given from https://github.com/Daniel-Mietchen/events/blob/master/PIDapalooza-2019.md .
How would you run the session to support the spirit of PIDapalooza as a laid-back, welcoming, energetic and exciting, sociable and serious gathering? (Optional)
- Examples will be drawn from across disciplines, with a certain preference to phrasings that can be interpreted in a funny way.
- Making Ethical Review Processes more Machine Actionable — talk at the 12th RDA Plenary on 7 November 2018 in Gaborone
- Deon — data science ethics checklist
- Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects
- Dynamic jurisdiction mapping — see also this discussion
- PIDs for policy elements — a presentation given at PIDapalooza 2018