Project Plans


Through discussions and additional work, Metadata 2020 project participants have now created 4-6 month project plans for intended execution between May and October 2018, and in some cases have already started to advance the work. Participants are also benefiting from a useful exchange of ideas in meetings. Thanks to everyone giving up their time and contributing their expertise to this important work.

1. Researcher Communications

Led by: Carly Strasser

  • Review existing surveys and articles surrounding researcher attitudes to metadata
  • Consider assigning a student to conduct a literature review
  • Examine publishers who have improved metadata over last 2 years, and interview them about possible reasons (including how they may have encouraged authors to deposit more complete metadata)
  • Conduct informal interviews to researchers in different fields to inform survey questions
  • Create survey
  • Find channels for survey distribution
  • Collect results


2. Metadata Recommendations and Element Mappings

Led by: Jim Swainston

  • Identify list of metadata schemas that are in use (“Metadata Schema Index”)
  • Share list of schemas with MD2020 community to see if there are any missing and to get feedback on which are most used
  • Collaborate with Project 5 to discuss list of tags/elements in each of the schemas of interest and identify concepts that cut across them
  • Map concepts and element names in a table
  • Produce diagram/poster to highlight similarities and differences


3. Defining the Terms We Use About Metadata

Led by: Scott Plutchak

  • Pilot researcher interviews surrounding metadata at Experimental Biology conference
  • In consultation with other project and community groups, refine questions per community into a fuller survey for circulation surrounding metadata terminology
  • In alignment with other community groups, distribute survey(s) and analyze results
  • Contribute to central list of schema (P.2)
  • Contribute to P.5’s list of elements where needed
  • Considering developing a “glossary” to clarify terminology


4. Incentives for Improving Metadata Quality

Led by: Fiona Counsell

  • Discuss illustration of metadata flow through scholarly communications in consultation with community groups
  • In consultation with community groups, start to develop fuller lists of incentives
  • Create a detailed list of outputs for phase 2 of the project
  • Gather material for re-use in business cases
  • Align incentives list with P.5’s best practice guidelines
  • Discuss outreach & education plans for time when first content is available for distribution, including proposals for upcoming conferences


5. Shared Best Practice and Principles

Led by: Howard Ratner and Jennifer Kemp

  • Share and discuss list of tags/elements
  • Survey Metadata 2020 population for best practices resources
  • Catalog and publish list of best practices resources
  • Create set of principles (e.g., FAIR)
  • Follow up with hosting platforms and consultants that work with them to include what is included in RFPs, etc.
  • Create white paper / statement to the community


6. Metadata Evaluation and Guidance

Led by: Ted Habermann

  • Populate Schemas, Tools and Guidance Information
  • Review existing evaluation tools and identify what they are evaluating (completeness, consistency, linking, quality, other).
  • Identify advantages/disadvantages of current evaluation tools and make recommendations for use
  • Together with Project 5, create a guidance document for evaluation tool use for multiple communities and/or create a white paper or statement to the wider scholarly communications community
  • Consider where there might be gaps in evaluation resources and where relevant, scope out the needs for ideal additional tools
  • Complete Project 5’s best practices resources survey