Standardised data on initiatives-STARDIT: Beta version.
Data
Democracy
Evidence
Genomics
Health
Indigenous
Open
Participatory
Standardised
Systematic
Journal
Research involvement and engagement
ISSN: 2056-7529
Titre abrégé: Res Involv Engagem
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101708164
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Jul 2022
19 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
29
09
2021
accepted:
20
06
2022
entrez:
19
7
2022
pubmed:
20
7
2022
medline:
20
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is currently no standardised way to share information across disciplines about initiatives, including fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, media and international development. All problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Current reporting methods also lack information about the ways in which different people and organisations are involved in initiatives, making it difficult to collate and appraise data about the most effective ways to involve different people. The objective of STARDIT (Standardised Data on Initiatives) is to address current limitations and inconsistencies in sharing data about initiatives. The STARDIT system features standardised data reporting about initiatives, including who has been involved, what tasks they did, and any impacts observed. STARDIT was created to help everyone in the world find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT enables multiple categories of data to be reported in a standardised way across disciplines, facilitating appraisal of initiatives and aiding synthesis of evidence for the most effective ways for people to be involved in initiatives. This article outlines progress to date on STARDIT; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved. STARDIT development is guided by participatory action research paradigms, and has been co-created with people from multiple disciplines and countries. Co-authors include cancer patients, people affected by rare diseases, health researchers, environmental researchers, economists, librarians and academic publishers. The co-authors also worked with Indigenous peoples from multiple countries and in partnership with an organisation working with Indigenous Australians. Over 100 people from multiple disciplines and countries have been involved in co-designing STARDIT since 2019. STARDIT is the first open access web-based data-sharing system which standardises the way that information about initiatives is reported across diverse fields and disciplines, including information about which tasks were done by which stakeholders. STARDIT is designed to work with existing data standards. STARDIT data will be released into the public domain (CC0) and integrated into Wikidata; it works across multiple languages and is both human and machine readable. Reports can be updated throughout the lifetime of an initiative, from planning to evaluation, allowing anyone to be involved in reporting impacts and outcomes. STARDIT is the first system that enables sharing of standardised data about initiatives across disciplines. A working Beta version was publicly released in February 2021 (ScienceforAll.World/STARDIT). Subsequently, STARDIT reports have been created for peer-reviewed research in multiple journals and multiple research projects, demonstrating the usability. In addition, organisations including Cochrane and Australian Genomics have created prospective reports outlining planned initiatives. STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems. All major problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics, require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Such problems require evidence-informed collaborative methods, multidisciplinary research and interventions in which the people who are affected are involved in every stage. However, there is currently no standardised way to share information about initiatives and problem-solving across and between fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, education, media and international development. A multi-disciplinary international team of over 100 citizens, experts and data-users has been involved in co-creating STARDIT to help everyone in the world share, find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as ‘initiatives’. STARDIT is an open access data-sharing system to standardise the way that information about initiatives is reported, including information about which tasks were done by different people. Reports can be updated at all stages, from planning to evaluation, and can report impacts in many languages, using Wikidata. STARDIT is free to use, and data can be submitted by anyone. Report authors can be verified to improve trust and transparency, and data checked for quality. STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems. Among its main benefits, STARDIT offers those carrying out research and interventions access to standardised information which enables well-founded comparisons of the effectiveness of different methods. This article outlines progress to date; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
There is currently no standardised way to share information across disciplines about initiatives, including fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, media and international development. All problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Current reporting methods also lack information about the ways in which different people and organisations are involved in initiatives, making it difficult to collate and appraise data about the most effective ways to involve different people. The objective of STARDIT (Standardised Data on Initiatives) is to address current limitations and inconsistencies in sharing data about initiatives. The STARDIT system features standardised data reporting about initiatives, including who has been involved, what tasks they did, and any impacts observed. STARDIT was created to help everyone in the world find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as 'initiatives'. STARDIT enables multiple categories of data to be reported in a standardised way across disciplines, facilitating appraisal of initiatives and aiding synthesis of evidence for the most effective ways for people to be involved in initiatives. This article outlines progress to date on STARDIT; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.
METHOD
METHODS
STARDIT development is guided by participatory action research paradigms, and has been co-created with people from multiple disciplines and countries. Co-authors include cancer patients, people affected by rare diseases, health researchers, environmental researchers, economists, librarians and academic publishers. The co-authors also worked with Indigenous peoples from multiple countries and in partnership with an organisation working with Indigenous Australians.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Over 100 people from multiple disciplines and countries have been involved in co-designing STARDIT since 2019. STARDIT is the first open access web-based data-sharing system which standardises the way that information about initiatives is reported across diverse fields and disciplines, including information about which tasks were done by which stakeholders. STARDIT is designed to work with existing data standards. STARDIT data will be released into the public domain (CC0) and integrated into Wikidata; it works across multiple languages and is both human and machine readable. Reports can be updated throughout the lifetime of an initiative, from planning to evaluation, allowing anyone to be involved in reporting impacts and outcomes. STARDIT is the first system that enables sharing of standardised data about initiatives across disciplines. A working Beta version was publicly released in February 2021 (ScienceforAll.World/STARDIT). Subsequently, STARDIT reports have been created for peer-reviewed research in multiple journals and multiple research projects, demonstrating the usability. In addition, organisations including Cochrane and Australian Genomics have created prospective reports outlining planned initiatives.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems.
All major problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics, require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Such problems require evidence-informed collaborative methods, multidisciplinary research and interventions in which the people who are affected are involved in every stage. However, there is currently no standardised way to share information about initiatives and problem-solving across and between fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, education, media and international development. A multi-disciplinary international team of over 100 citizens, experts and data-users has been involved in co-creating STARDIT to help everyone in the world share, find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as ‘initiatives’. STARDIT is an open access data-sharing system to standardise the way that information about initiatives is reported, including information about which tasks were done by different people. Reports can be updated at all stages, from planning to evaluation, and can report impacts in many languages, using Wikidata. STARDIT is free to use, and data can be submitted by anyone. Report authors can be verified to improve trust and transparency, and data checked for quality. STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems. Among its main benefits, STARDIT offers those carrying out research and interventions access to standardised information which enables well-founded comparisons of the effectiveness of different methods. This article outlines progress to date; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
All major problems, including complex global problems such as air pollution and pandemics, require reliable data sharing between disciplines in order to respond effectively. Such problems require evidence-informed collaborative methods, multidisciplinary research and interventions in which the people who are affected are involved in every stage. However, there is currently no standardised way to share information about initiatives and problem-solving across and between fields such as health, environment, basic science, manufacturing, education, media and international development. A multi-disciplinary international team of over 100 citizens, experts and data-users has been involved in co-creating STARDIT to help everyone in the world share, find and understand information about collective human actions, which are referred to as ‘initiatives’. STARDIT is an open access data-sharing system to standardise the way that information about initiatives is reported, including information about which tasks were done by different people. Reports can be updated at all stages, from planning to evaluation, and can report impacts in many languages, using Wikidata. STARDIT is free to use, and data can be submitted by anyone. Report authors can be verified to improve trust and transparency, and data checked for quality. STARDIT can help create high-quality standardised information on initiatives trying to solve complex multidisciplinary global problems. Among its main benefits, STARDIT offers those carrying out research and interventions access to standardised information which enables well-founded comparisons of the effectiveness of different methods. This article outlines progress to date; current usage; information about submitting reports; planned next steps and how anyone can become involved.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35854364
doi: 10.1186/s40900-022-00363-9
pii: 10.1186/s40900-022-00363-9
pmc: PMC9294764
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
31Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
WHO. One Health Definition. WHO. 2017. https://www.who.int/news/item/01-12-2021-tripartite-and-unep-support-ohhlep-s-definition-of-one-health . Accessed 12 Jan 2020.
World Economic Forum. Annual report 2018–2019; 2019. https://www.weforum.org/reports/annual-report-2018-2019 . Accessed 12 Jan 2020.
von Bertalanffy L. General system theory: foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller; 1969.
Rosling H, Rosling O, Rönnlund AR. Factfulness; 2018.
Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258
pubmed: 25791983
pmcid: 4366184
Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges. The Evidence Commission report. 2022. https://www.mcmasterforum.org/networks/evidence-commission/report/english . Accessed 14 Apr 2022.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x
pubmed: 22809132
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient. 2014;7(4):387–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0065-0
pubmed: 25034612
Nunn JS, Tiller J, Fransquet PD, Lacaze P. Public involvement in global genomics research: a scoping review. Front Public Health. 2019;7:79. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPUBH.2019.00079 .
doi: 10.3389/FPUBH.2019.00079
pubmed: 31024880
pmcid: 6467093
Marchal B, van Belle S, van Olmen J, Hoerée T, Kegels G. Is realist evaluation keeping its promise? A review of published empirical studies in the field of health systems research. Evaluation. 2012;18(2):192–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389012442444 .
doi: 10.1177/1356389012442444
United Nations. Data Strategy of the Secretary-General for Action by Everyone, Everywhere; 2020. https://www.un.org/en/content/datastrategy/images/pdf/UN_SG_Data-Strategy.pdf . Accessed 12 Nov 2020.
United Nations. Paris Agreement; 2015. http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf . Accessed 15 Apr 2021.
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). What is GBIF? https://www.gbif.org/what-is-gbif . Accessed 11 May 2020.
UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre. A review of barriers to the sharing of biodiversity data and information, with recommendations for eliminating them; 2012. https://web.archive.org/web/20171010204051/https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/information/cop-11-inf-08-en.doc . Accessed 15 Apr 2021.
Ganzevoort W, van den Born RJG, Halffman W, Turnhout S. Sharing biodiversity data: citizen scientists’ concerns and motivations. Biodivers Conserv. 2017;26(12):2821–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1391-z .
doi: 10.1007/s10531-017-1391-z
Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M, Cowan K, Chalmers I. Patients’, clinicians’ and the research communities’ priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0003-x
pubmed: 29062491
pmcid: 5598091
Wikidata. Participatory action research. Wikidata. https://web.archive.org/web/20200920040614/https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7140444 . Accessed 20 Sept 2020.
Wikidata. Citizen Science. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1093434 . Accessed 22 Apr 2022.
Silvertown J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009;24(9):467–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 .
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017
pubmed: 19586682
Auerbach J, Barthelmess EL, Cavalier D, et al. The problem with delineating narrow criteria for citizen science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(31):15336–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1909278116 .
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1909278116
pubmed: 31363074
pmcid: 6681715
UNESCO. UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science; 2021. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378841 .
Staley K, Barron D. Learning as an outcome of involvement in research: what are the implications for practice, reporting and evaluation? Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-019-0147-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-019-0147-1
pubmed: 30915234
pmcid: 6416961
Dawson S, Ruddock A, Parmar V, et al. Patient and public involvement in doctoral research: reflections and experiences of the PPI contributors and researcher. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00201-w .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00201-w
pubmed: 32426162
pmcid: 7216324
Dukhanin V, Topazian R, DeCamp M. Metrics and evaluation tools for patient engagement in healthcare organization- and system-level decisionmaking: a systematic review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2018.43 .
doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.43
pubmed: 30316241
pmcid: 6186472
Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;363:k4738. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.K4738 .
doi: 10.1136/BMJ.K4738
pubmed: 30487232
pmcid: 6259046
Regan de Bere S, Nunn S. Towards a pedagogy for patient and public involvement in medical education. Med Educ. 2016;50(1):79–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12880 .
doi: 10.1111/medu.12880
pubmed: 26695468
Aitken M, Tully MP, Porteous C, et al. Consensus statement on public involvement and engagement with data-intensive health research. Under Rev. 2018. https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v4i1.586 .
doi: 10.23889/ijpds.v4i1.586
Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):785–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.12888
pubmed: 31012259
pmcid: 6737756
Bergold J, Stefan T. Participatory research methods : a methodological approach in motion. Forum Qual Soc Res. 2012;13(1). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1801/3334 . Accessed 19 June 2017.
Chambers R. The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev. 1994;22(7):953–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90141-4 .
doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(94)90141-4
Kullenberg C, Kasperowski D. What is citizen science?—A scientometric meta-analysis. Dorta-González P, ed. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(1):e0147152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147152 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147152
pubmed: 26766577
pmcid: 4713078
Eitzel MV, Cappadonna JL, Santos-Lang C, et al. Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms. Citiz Sci Theory Pract. 2017;2(1):1. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.96 .
doi: 10.5334/cstp.96
Vetter J. Introduction: lay participation in the history of scientific observation. Sci Context. 2011;24(2):127–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889711000032 .
doi: 10.1017/S0269889711000032
pubmed: 21797076
Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1(2):181–94. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer.12.7 .
doi: 10.2217/cer.12.7
pubmed: 22707880
Burton H, Adams M, Bunton R, et al. Developing stakeholder involvement for introducing public health genomics into public policy. Public Health Genom. 2009;12(1):11–9. https://doi.org/10.1159/000153426 .
doi: 10.1159/000153426
Komesaroff PA, Kerridge I, Lipworth W. Conflicts of interest: new thinking, new processes. Intern Med J. 2019;49(5):574–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.14233 .
doi: 10.1111/imj.14233
pubmed: 30693633
Gross M, McGoey L. Routledge international handbook of ignorance studies (Routledge international handbooks); 2015. https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-International-Handbook-of-Ignorance-Studies/Gross-McGoey/p/book/9780415718967 .
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326(7400):1167–70. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167
pubmed: 12775614
pmcid: 156458
Katz AS, Hardy BJ, Firestone M, Lofters A, Morton-Ninomiya ME. Vagueness, power and public health: use of ‘vulnerable’ in public health literature. Crit Public Health. 2020;30(5):601–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2019.1656800 .
doi: 10.1080/09581596.2019.1656800
Nunn JS, Scott CL, Stubbs JW, Cherry SF, Bismark MM. Involving the public in rare cancer care and research. Textb Uncommon Cancer. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119196235.ch3 .
doi: 10.1002/9781119196235.ch3
Nunn J, Crawshaw M, Lacaze P. Co-designing genomics research with a large group of donor-conceived siblings. Res Involv Engagem. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00325-7 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00325-7
pubmed: 34915936
pmcid: 8674833
Nunn JS, Gwynne K, Gray S, Lacaze P. Involving people affected by a rare condition in shaping future genomic research. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00256-3 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00256-3
pubmed: 33722276
pmcid: 7958104
Thorogood A, Zawati MH. International guidelines for privacy in genomic biobanking (or the unexpected virtue of pluralism). J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43(4):690–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12312 .
doi: 10.1111/jlme.12312
pubmed: 26711410
CC0 - Creative Commons. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ . Accessed 16 Sept 2021.
United Nations Evaluation Group. Detail of impact evaluation guidance document. 2013. https://web.archive.org/web/20190909065035/http://www.uneval.org/document/detail/1433 . Accessed 6 May 2020.
Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. Tregenza T, ed. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(5):e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
pubmed: 19478950
pmcid: 2685008
Clark TD. Science, lies and video-taped experiments. Nature. 2017;542(7640):139. https://doi.org/10.1038/542139a .
doi: 10.1038/542139a
pubmed: 28179685
Huber B, Barnidge M, Gil de Zúñiga H, Liu J. Fostering public trust in science: the role of social media. Public Underst Sci. 2019;28(7):759–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519869097 .
doi: 10.1177/0963662519869097
pubmed: 31524092
Braun R. The public’s growing distrust of science? Nat Biotechnol. 1999;17(S5):14–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/70359 .
doi: 10.1038/70359
UNESCO. Local knowledge, global goals. 2017. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259599 . Accessed 21 Apr 2021.
Linklater WL. Science and management in a conservation crisis: a case study with rhinoceros. Conserv Biol. 2003;17(4):968–75. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01449.x .
doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01449.x
Plotz RD, Grecian WJ, Kerley GIH, Linklater WL. Standardising home range studies for improved management of the critically endangered black rhinoceros. Roca AL, ed. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(3):e0150571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150571 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150571
pubmed: 27028728
pmcid: 4814105
Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, et al. World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice. Bioscience. 2017;67(12):1026–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125 .
doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix125
Marine Stewardship Council. Marine Stewardship Council. 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20200421033733/https://www.msc.org/ .
B Lab. Certified B Corporations. 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20200421033526/https://bcorporation.net/ .
Nordheim LV, Gundersen MW, Espehaug B, Guttersrud Ø, Flottorp S. Effects of school-based educational interventions for enhancing adolescents abilities in critical appraisal of health claims: a systematic review. Zhou X, ed. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(8):e0161485. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161485 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161485
pubmed: 27557129
pmcid: 4996462
Nsangi A, Semakula D, Oxman AD, et al. Effects of the informed health choices primary school intervention on the ability of children in Uganda to assess the reliability of claims about treatment effects: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390(10092):374–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31226-6 .
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31226-6
pubmed: 28539194
National Institute for Health Research. Briefing note eight: Ways that people can be involved in the research cycle. National Institute for Health Research. 2017. http://web.archive.org/web/20170605035051/http://www.invo.org.uk/posttyperesource/where-and-how-to-involve-in-the-research-cycle/ . Accessed 5 June 2017.
Health Research Authority. Public Involvement (Health Research Authority). 2019. https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/best-practice/public-involvement/ . Accessed 18 Jul 2019.
Woolley JP, McGowan ML, Teare HJA, et al. Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0117-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0117-1
Sousa S. Social participation in the assessment of health technologies for health systems: findings from a synthesis of qualitative evidence. 2017. https://aagts.brasilia.fiocruz.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Relatorio_POPART_final.pdf . Accessed May 5, 2021.
Nickerson RC, Varshney U, Muntermann J. A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. Eur J Inf Syst. 2013;22(3):336–59. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2012.26 .
doi: 10.1057/ejis.2012.26
Gruber T. Ontology of folksonomy: a mash-up of apples and oranges. Int J Semant Web Inf Syst. 2007;3(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.4018/jswis.2007010101 .
doi: 10.4018/jswis.2007010101
Zhang Y, Ogletree A, Greenberg J, Rowell C. Controlled vocabularies for scientific data: users and desired functionalities. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2015;52(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010054 .
doi: 10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010054
Cook T, Abma T, Gibbs L, et al. Position paper no. 3: impact in participatory health research. 2020. http://www.icphr.org/uploads/2/0/3/9/20399575/icphr_position_paper_3_impact_-_march_2020__1_.pdf . Accessed 24 May 2020.
International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research (ICPHR). Position paper 1: what is participatory health research? Version: May 2013. 2013. http://www.icphr.org/uploads/2/0/3/9/20399575/ichpr_position_paper_1_defintion_-_version_may_2013.pdf . Accessed 13 June 2017.
Kemmis S, Nixon R, McTaggart R. The action research planner: doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2 .
doi: 10.1007/978-981-4560-67-2
Baum F, Macdougall C, Smith D. Participatory action research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(60):854–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.028662 .
doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.028662
pubmed: 16973531
pmcid: 2566051
United Nations. Universal declaration of human rights. 1948. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf . Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
Report of the Secretary-General, Nations U, Assembly UNG. Strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization. 2013. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/827187 . Accessed 17 Apr 2019.
UN Environment Programme. Why does environmental rights and governance matter?. 2021. https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/environmental-governance/why-does-environmental-governance-matter . Accessed 5 Feb 2021.
United Nations For Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous peoples at the UN. 2018. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/about-us.html . Accessed 16 Apr 2019.
Nunn JS, Sulovski M, Tiller J, Holloway B, Ayton D, Lacaze P. Involving elderly research participants in the co-design of a future multi-generational cohort study. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00271-4 .
doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00271-4
pubmed: 33941290
pmcid: 8094476
Bromley DW. The commons, common property, and environmental policy. Environ Resour Econ. 1992;2(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00324686 .
doi: 10.1007/BF00324686
Butler JRA, Tawake A, Skewes T, Tawake L, McGrath V. Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and fisheries management in the Torres strait, Australia: the catalytic role of turtles and dugong as cultural keystone species. Ecol Soc. 2012. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05165-170434 .
doi: 10.5751/ES-05165-170434
Rachel Feltman. Orangutan granted rights of personhood in Argentina. The Washington Post. 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2014/12/22/orangutan-granted-rights-of-personhood-in-argentina/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.53d1313c54bc . Accessed 17 Apr 2019.
Hutchison A. The Whanganui river as a legal person. Altern Law J. 2014;39(3):179–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X1403900309 .
doi: 10.1177/1037969X1403900309
O’Donnell E. Legal rights for rivers: competition, collaboration and water governance. 2018. https://www.routledge.com/Legal-Rights-for-Rivers-Competition-Collaboration-and-Water-Governance/ODonnell/p/book/9780367584160 . Accessed 26 Apr 2021.
Genome British Columbia. Genomics positively affects life, every day. 2019. https://www.genomebc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GBC-4228-2018-AR-FINAL_WEB.pdf?utm_source=Master+List&utm_campaign=8c36d44d96-ANNUAL_RPT_CAMPAIGN_2019_07_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_007b42effb-8c36d44d96-96302171&mc_cid=8c36d44d96&mc_eid=40205f8c68 . Accessed 18 Jul 2019.
Indigenous Corporate Training. Who owns traditional ecological knowledge?. 2013. https://www.ictinc.ca/blog/owns-tek . Accessed 18 Jul 2019.
Rubis JM. The orang utan is not an indigenous name: knowing and naming the maias as a decolonizing epistemology. Cult Stud. 2020;34(5):811–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2020.1780281 .
doi: 10.1080/09502386.2020.1780281
Rubis JM, Theriault N. Concealing protocols: conservation, indigenous survivance, and the dilemmas of visibility. Soc Cult Geogr. 2020;21(7):962–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2019.1574882 .
doi: 10.1080/14649365.2019.1574882
Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2): e1000217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
pubmed: 20169112
pmcid: 2821895
INVOLVE. Guidance on Co-Producing a Research Project. 2018. https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Copro_Guidance_Feb19.pdf . Accessed 14 Mar 2018.
Macaulay AC. Participatory research: What is the history? Has the purpose changed? Fam Pract. 2016;351(3):117. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmw117 .
doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw117
Nunn J, Chang S. Guidance for planning, reporting and evaluating initiatives: A multidisciplinary scoping review [pre-print]. https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_Preprints/Guidance_for_planning,_reporting_and_evaluating_initiatives:_A_multidisciplinary_scoping_review . Accessed 24 Aug 2021.
Nunn JS, Gwynne K, Gray S, Lacaze P. Involving people affected by a rare condition in shaping future genomic research. 2020. https://doi.org/10.21203/RS.3.RS-62242/V1 .
Nunn JS, Sulovski M, Tiller J, Holloway B, Ayton D, Lacaze P. Involving elderly research participants in the co-design of a future multi-generational cohort study. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-54058/v1
Jack S Nunn. WikiJournal Youth Salon Evaluation Report: Future Knowledge. Melbourne, Australia; 2019. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/WikiJournal_Youth_Salon_Evaluation_Report_-_Science_for_All.pdf . Accessed 3 Sept 2020.
Science for All. About - Science For All. https://web.archive.org/web/20210426041650/https://scienceforall.world/about/ . Accessed 26 Apr 2021.
The EQUATOR Network. Developing your reporting guideline. 2018. https://www.equator-network.org/toolkits/developing-a-reporting-guideline/developing-your-reporting-guideline/ . Accessed 7 May 2020.
Nunn JS. Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) public consultation report—September 2019 to May 2021. 2021. https://doi.org/10.26181/611dfcf12c6a9 .
Wang X, Chen Y, Yang N, et al. Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15(1):74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0069-z .
doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0069-z
pubmed: 26395179
pmcid: 4579604
Banno M, Tsujimoto Y, Kataoka Y. The majority of reporting guidelines are not developed with the Delphi method: a systematic review of reporting guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;124:50–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.010
pubmed: 32302679
Nunn JS. “Standardised Data on Initiatives” WikiCite/2020 Virtual conference – Meta. 2020. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite/2020_Virtual_conference . Accessed 6 May 2021.
Nunn JS. Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT), 9th annual research showcase program.2020. https://pochehealth.edu.au/2020/12/20/9th-annual-research-showcase-program/ . Accessed 6 May 2021.
Nunn JS. Involving People In DNA Research - presentation for Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft. https://ppie.lbg.ac.at/en/resources/ppie-webinars . Published 2020.
Nunn J. Genomics research and involving people—PhD presentation by Jack Nunn 13.10.20. 2020. https://doi.org/10.26181/5F8664AE962A9 .
Australian Citizen Science Association. EMCR seminar update. 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20220309051427/https://citizenscience.org.au/emcr-working-group/ . Accessed 6 May 2021.
Nunn j. STARDIT public consultation report—September to December 2019. 2020. https://doi.org/10.26181/5e8c0dd2976b8 . Accessed 30 Apr 2020.
Science For All. STARDIT. https://scienceforall.world/stardit/ . Accessed 17 Jan 2021.
Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-SA 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ . Accessed 27 Aug 2021.
Nunn JS, Sulovski M, Tiller J, Holloway B, Ayton D, Lacaze P. Involving elderly research participants in the co-design of a future multi-generational cohort study. 2020. https://doi.org/10.21203/RS.3.RS-54058/V1 .
Cheng Y-Y, Nunn J, Skinner J, et al. A pathway to precision medicine for aboriginal Australians: a study protocol. Methods Protoc. 2021;4(2):42. https://doi.org/10.3390/MPS4020042 .
doi: 10.3390/MPS4020042
pubmed: 34205718
pmcid: 8293410
Nunn JS, Crawshaw M, Lacaze P, et al. Co-designing genomics research with donor-conceived siblings (STARDIT Beta Version Report). https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q108618394 . Accessed 7 Sept 2021.
Nunn JS, Smith M. Cochrane Values Statement (STARDIT Report). 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20211116065920/https://wikispore.wmflabs.org/wiki/Cochrane_Values_Statement . Accessed 30 Nov 2021.
Nunn J. Cochrane values statement: a proposal for a co-creation protocol. 2021. https://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline-files/Council paper 011221-2 cochrane values statement—a proposal for a co-design protocol %5BOPEN ACCESS%5D.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2022.
Sherburn I, Boughtwood T, Nunn J. Involve Australia prospective STARDIT Report 2021–2023. 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20210929085305/https://wikispore.wmflabs.org/wiki/Involve_Australia_Prospective_Report_2021-2023 . Accessed 29 Sept 2021.
Science For All. Beta - Science For All. https://scienceforall.world/stardit/beta/ . Accessed 6 Aug 2021.
ORCID. ORCID. https://orcid.org/ . Published 2020. Accessed May 17, 2020.
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). RDF—Semantic Web Standards. https://www.w3.org/RDF/ . Accessed 18 Jan 2021.
Wikimedia Foundation. Wikidata. 2020. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page . Accessed 17 May 2020.
Internet Archive. Internet Archive: About IA. 2018. https://archive.org/about/ . Accessed 2 Feb 2018.
Staniszewska S, Denegri S, Matthews R, Minogue V. Reviewing progress in public involvement in NIHR research: developing and implementing a new vision for the future. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7): e017124. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJOPEN-2017-017124 .
doi: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2017-017124
pubmed: 30061427
pmcid: 6067369
Nunn J, Smith M. STARDIT Report: Cochrane Values Statement.; 2021. https://wikispore.wmflabs.org/wiki/Cochrane_Values_Statement .
Nunn J, Chang S. What are systematic reviews? WikiJournal Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.15347/WJM/2020.005 .
doi: 10.15347/WJM/2020.005
STARDIT Report: what is a systematic review?—Wikidata. https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q101116128&oldid=1303112868 . Accessed 21 Apr 2021.
Nunn JS. Science for All—publicly funded research report (June 2018–December 2019). 2019. https://doi.org/10.26181/5eba630a64e08 . Accessed 12 May 2020.
Nunn JS. STARDIT: Wild DNA. 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20211013092257/https://wikispore.wmflabs.org/wiki/Wild_DNA . Accessed 6 Aug 2021.
Wikispore. Wikispore FAQ. https://wikispore.wmflabs.org/w/index.php?title=FAQ&oldid=3822#How_does_Wikispore_work.3F .
Taylor MJ, McNicholas C, Nicolay C, Darzi A, Bell D, Reed JE. Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(4):290–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862
pubmed: 24025320
World Health Organisation. Declaration of Alma-Ata. 1978. http://www.who.int/publications/almaata_declaration_en.pdf?ua=1 . Accessed 25 Jun 2018.
Oliver JL, Brereton M, Watson DM, Roe P. Listening to save wildlife: lessons learnt from use of acoustic technology by a species recovery team. In: DIS 2019—proceedings of the 2019 ACM designing interactive systems conference. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc; 2019, pp. 1335–48. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322360 .
Patient Focused Medicines Development. Patient engagement quality guidance tool. 2018. https://patientfocusedmedicine.org/peqg/patient-engagement-quality-guidance-scenario-1.pdf . Accessed 13 Mar 2019.
Collins M. PiiAF the public involvement impact assessment framework guidance. 2014. http://piiaf.org.uk/documents/piiaf-guidance-jan14.pdf . Accessed 4 Oct 2017.
WHO. Supporting the use of research evidence (SURE). WHO. 2013. https://www.who.int/evidence/sure/en/ . Accessed 5 Apr 2019.
Stickley T, Basset T. Learning about mental health practice. New York: Wiley; 2008. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470699300 .
doi: 10.1002/9780470699300
Alison Faulkner. National involvement standards involvement for influence. 2015. http://www.nsun.org.uk/assets/downloadableFiles/4PiNationalInvolvementStandardsFullReport20152.pdf . Accessed 30 Aug 2017.
Hancock T, Bezold C. Possible futures, preferebale futures. Healthc Forum J. 1994;(March/April):23–29.
INVOLVE. National standards for public involvement. 2018. http://www.invo.org.uk/posttypepublication/national-standards-for-public-involvement/ . Accessed 29 Jan 2019.
Pecl G, Gillies C, Sbrocchi C, Roetman P. Building Australia through citizen science. 2015. http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Citizen-science-OP_web.pdf . Accessed 24 Aug 2017.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Seers K, Herron-marx S, Bayliss H. The PIRICOM study: a systematic review of the conceptualisation, measurement, impact and outcomes of patients and public involvement in health and social care research. 2010:1–292. http://www.ukcrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Piricom+Review+Final+2010.pdf . Accessed 27 Mar 2017.
BehaviourWorks Australia. The BehaviourWorks Method. 2019. https://www.behaviourworksaustralia.org/the-method/ . Accessed 30 Apr 2020.
European Patients’ forum. The Value + Toolkit. 2013. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/chafea_pdb/assets/files/pdb/2007117/2007117_value_toolkit.pdf . Accessed 22 Aug 2016.
Australian Research Council. Engagement and impact assessment pilot report. 2018. https://www.arc.gov.au/engagement-and-impact-assessment/ei-pilot-overview . Accessed 5 Feb 2019.
INVOLVE. Co-production in action: number one. Southampton; 2019. https://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Copro_In_Action_2019.pdf . Accessed 16 Jul 2019.
Gagnon Thompson SC, Barton MA. Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. J Environ Psychol. 1994;14(2):149–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80168-9 .
doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80168-9
Science for All (charity). Science for All - Values 2019. https://ia903004.us.archive.org/14/items/ScienceForAllOurValuesPublicConsulatation10.5.19/Science for All - Our Values - Public Consulatation 10.5.19.pdf. 2019. Accessed 7 Mar 2022.
Australian Geographic. The worst bushfires in Australia’s history. https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2011/11/the-worst-bushfires-in-australias-history/ . Accessed 14 Apr 2022.
Farrell J, McConnell K, Brulle R. Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation. Nat Clim Change. 2019;9(3):191–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0368-6 .
doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0368-6
Jan Van Oldenborgh G, Krikken F, Lewis S, et al. Attribution of the Australian bushfire risk to anthropogenic climate change. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci. 2021;21(3):941–60. https://doi.org/10.5194/NHESS-21-941-2021 .
doi: 10.5194/NHESS-21-941-2021
World Health Organisation. Infodemic. 2022. https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic . Accessed 14 Apr 2022.
Andrea Carson. Fighting Fake News; 2021. https://www.latrobe.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/1203553/carson-fake-news.pdf . Accessed 14 Apr 2022.
Rampersad G, Althiyabi T. Fake news: acceptance by demographics and culture on social media. J Inf Technol Polit. 2019;17(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2019.1686676 .
doi: 10.1080/19331681.2019.1686676
Banaji S. WhatsApp vigilantes: an exploration of citizen reception and circulation of WhatsApp misinformation linked to mob violence in India—LSE Research Online. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/104316/ . Accessed 14 Apr 2022.
NATO. What is information warfare?.
Turki H, Shafee T, Hadj Taieb MA, et al. Wikidata: a large-scale collaborative ontological medical database. J Biomed Inform. 2019;99:103292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103292 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103292
pubmed: 31557529
Turki H, Taieb MAH, Shafee T, et al. Representing COVID-19 information in collaborative knowledge graphs: a study of Wikidata. 2020. Semant Web. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4028483 .
Waagmeester A, Stupp G, Burgstaller-Muehlbacher S, et al. Wikidata as a knowledge graph for the life sciences. Elife. 2020. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52614 .
doi: 10.7554/eLife.52614
pubmed: 32180547
pmcid: 7077981
Fazey I, Bunse L, Msika J, et al. Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Glob Environ Change. 2014;25:204–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2013.12.012 .
doi: 10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2013.12.012
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7): e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
pubmed: 19621072
pmcid: 2707599
Gradinger F, Britten N, Wyatt K, et al. Values associated with public involvement in health and social care research: a narrative review. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):661–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12158 .
doi: 10.1111/hex.12158
pubmed: 24325553
INVOLVE. Public involvement in research: values and principles framework. 2015;(October). http://www.invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Values-Principles-framework-Jan2016.pdf . Accessed 14 Mar 2018.
Biggio B, Roli F. Wild patterns: Ten years after the rise of adversarial machine learning. Pattern Recognit. 2018;84:317–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2018.07.023 .
doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2018.07.023
Science For All. STARDIT - Science For All. 2020. https://scienceforall.world/stardit/ . Accessed 17 May 2020.
Kharas H. Trends and issues in development aid; 2007. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/11_development_aid_kharas.pdf . Accessed 15 Apr 2021.
Sainsbury Institute. What is a Japanese Living National Treasure?. 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20200908051559/https://www.sainsbury-institute.org/info/what-is-a-japanese-living-national-treasure . Accessed 8 Sept 2020.
Chambers LE, Plotz RD, Dossis T, et al. A database for traditional knowledge of weather and climate in the Pacific. Meteorol Appl. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1648 .
doi: 10.1002/met.1648
Malsale P, Sanau N, Tofaeono TI, et al. Protocols and partnerships for engaging Pacific Island communities in the collection and use of traditional climate knowledge. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2018;99(12):2471–89. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0163.1 .
doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0163.1
Lane R, McNaught R. Building gendered approaches to adaptation in the Pacific. Gend Dev. 2009;17(1):67–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070802696920 .
doi: 10.1080/13552070802696920
Balakrishnan R. Rural women and food security in Asia and the Pacific: prospects and paradoxes. 2005.
Open Data Institute. Data ethics maturity model: benchmarking your approach to data ethics. https://theodi.org/article/data-ethics-maturity-model-benchmarking-your-approach-to-data-ethics/ . Accessed 22 Apr 2022.
UNESCO. Convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict with regulations for the execution of the convention. 1999. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html . Accessed 3 May 2021.
Organizing Engagement. Participatory action research and evaluation. 2022. https://organizingengagement.org/models/participatory-action-research-and-evaluation/ . Accessed 22 Apr 2022.
WHO. Health technology assessment. 2022. https://www.who.int/teams/health-product-policy-and-standards/assistive-and-medical-technology/medical-devices/assessment . Accessed 22 Apr 2022.
Research Activity Identifier (RAiD). https://web.archive.org/web/20210916045637/https://www.raid.org.au/ . Accessed 16 Sept 2021.
Frequently Asked Questions - ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/faq . Accessed 16 Sept 2021.
ISRCTN Registry. https://www.isrctn.com/ . Accessed 16 Sept 2021.
Introduction to MeSH. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/introduction.html . Accessed 16 Sept 2021.
Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IjJ, et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data. 2016;3:160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 .
doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
pubmed: 26978244
pmcid: 4792175
Carroll SR, Garba I, Figueroa-Rodríguez OL, et al. The CARE principles for indigenous data governance. Data Sci J. 2020;19(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043 .
doi: 10.5334/dsj-2020-043
CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance - Wikidata. https://web.archive.org/web/20210916042534/https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q108558452 . Accessed 16 Sept 2021.