Even if quality evaluation of datasets is a highly active area of research, we will cover current approaches and try to stay up-to-date with the information.
This system was proposed as a proxy for data quality assessment, and aims to operationalise the original FAIR principles to ensure no interactions among the four dimensions in order to ease scoring. The system then considers Reusability as the resultant of the other three, i.e. the average FAIRness score is then (F+A+I)/3=R.
A team of FAIR principles authors and drivers have published a core set of semi-quantitative metrics for the evaluation of FAIRness.
A very early evaluation of “how Findable data is” was proposed as part of a post on linked data by Tim Berners-Lee was published on the W3C website.
|★||Available on the web (whatever format) but with an open licence, to be Open Data|
|★★||Available as machine-readable structured data (e.g. excel instead of image scan of a table)|
|★★★||As (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV instead of Microsoft Excel)|
|★★★★||All the above, plus: Use open standards from W3C (RDF and SPARQL) to identify things, so that people can point at your stuff|
|★★★★★||All the above, plus: Link your data to other people’s data to provide context|
Klimisch et al. (Klimisch et al., 1997) developed a scoring system to assess the reliability of data from toxicological and ecotoxicological studies . This rating system has been extended to physico-chemical studies and is now accepted by many regulatory authorities and organisations. ECHA’s IUCLID 6 software includes rationale for assigning Klimisch scores for toxicology testing, based on utilisation of standard assays. To automate the process of assigning Klimisch scores, ToxRTool (Toxicological data Reliability Assessment Tool) (Schneider et al., 2009), an Excel-based tool, was developed by ECVAM to provide comprehensive criteria and guidance for evaluations of the inherent quality of toxicological data.
The Klimisch score was extensively considered and adapted for application to nano studies within the GUIDEnano project.
- Fernandez-Cruz et al., 2018: Fernández-Cruz, M. L.; Hernández-Moreno, D.; Catalán, J.; Cross, R. K.; Stockmann-Juvala, H.; Cabellos, J.; Lopes, V. R.; Matzke, M.; Ferraz, N.; Izquierdo, J. J.; Navas, J. M.; Park, M.; Svendsen, C.; Janer, G. Quality Evaluation of Human and Environmental Toxicity Studies Performed with Nanomaterials – the GUIDEnano Approach. Environ. Sci.: Nano 2018, 5 (2), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7EN00716G.
- Klimisch et al., 1997: Klimisch, H.-J.; Andreae, M.; Tillmann, U. A Systematic Approach for Evaluating the Quality of Experimental Toxicological and Ecotoxicological Data. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 1997, 25 (1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1006/rtph.1996.1076.
- Schneider et al., 2009: Schneider, K.; Schwarz, M.; Burkholder, I.; Kopp-Schneider, A.; Edler, L.; Kinsner-Ovaskainen, A.; Hartung, T.; Hoffmann, S. “ToxRTool”, a New Tool to Assess the Reliability of Toxicological Data. Toxicology Letters 2009, 189 (2), 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.05.013.