4.2 Article

Recommendations for Advancing FAIR and Open Data Standards in the Water Treatment Community

期刊

ACS ES&T ENGINEERING
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 337-346

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsestengg.1c00245

关键词

data; informatics; accessibility; interoperability; reusability

资金

  1. National Alliance for Water Innovation (NAWI) - U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Advanced Manufacturing Office [DEFOA-0001905]
  2. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1656518]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy I-Corps program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discusses the implementation of FAIR/O principles to maximize insights from data in water treatment research, and proposes practical steps and opportunities for building effective and sustainable water treatment data infrastructure.
Water treatment researchers will maximize insights from data by implementing FAIR and Open (FAIR/O) principles for data storage and management. Progress toward domain-specific FAIR/O data infrastructure and practices advance data synthesizability, data extensibility, and stakeholder diversity. Embracing FAIR/O data principles in domain research would enable datadriven research breakthroughs that benefit a diverse array of water treatment research stakeholders. These breakthroughs arise from increased data density to improve research scope, better crossmode data translation between experimental and modeling research outputs, and improved multiscale data integration to answer key questions across research scales. This paper addresses the gap between the current state of data sharing and the envisioned potential of FAIR/O data by offering practical steps toward building effective and sustainable water treatment data infrastructure, engaging key stakeholders, and motivating their participation. We clarify essential activities of a water treatment research data repository and suggest opportunities for communicating and growing its value.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据