PONE-D-24-59078From Ice Cores to Dinosaurs: Physical Collections Managers’ Research Data Curation Perceptions and BehaviorsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bishop,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address all the comments before re-submitting.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 08 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Peter F. Biehl, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: Institute of Museum and Library Services' (IMLS) Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian grant program (RE-13-19-0027-19). Collaborative Analysis Liaison Librarianship. (2019-2024).  Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: The study was partially funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services’ 972 (IMLS) Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian grant program (RE-13-19-0027-19). The 973 authors would also like to thank the various physical collections managers for their time 974 sharing their expertise and experiences as well as Andrea Thomer for recruitment 975 assistance.We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: Institute of Museum and Library Services' (IMLS) Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian grant program (RE-13-19-0027-19). Collaborative Analysis Liaison Librarianship. (2019-2024) Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please address all the comments before re-submitting.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very useful study which will contribute to our understanding of the problems facing collections' use and reuse. I recommend that this article is published basically as is, though it does need a careful check for the few remaining typos.

May I recommend to the authors the following for future research and dissemination of these findings? First, I would recommend that the authors look further into the issues raised at the end of the Metadata section (Lines 333-344). The issues of sufficient metadata, usability of metadata for diverse research queries and standardisation remain vastly under-researched. The fact that this was a major concern of the Collections Managers shows that this also remains an under-researched issue.

Second, may I suggest to the authors that they consider presenting these results, and attending, the following joint conference of The IEEE International Conference on Cyber Humanities (IEEE CH), to be held in September in Florence, Italy. The subject of this paper is particularly apt to the Section T2 - Processing & Curation (https://www.ieee-ch.org)

Reviewer #2: This article investigates data management practices connected to a group of interdisciplinary physical collections to better understand how cyberinfrastructure tools may promote data reuse. They key insights cover the importance of metadata, the need for greater standardization of data, and a shortage of resources needed to upskill workers or hire staff with cyberinfrastructure skills.

The article would appeal to a moderately broad readership within the fields of museum and library studies. The study is well-designed and emphasizes the integration of insights from a diverse group of collection managers across the natural, physical, and social sciences and humanities. Yet the study also has limitations, which are not adequately addressed beyond a brief mention in the discussion on p.20. The qualitative insights derived from open-ended questioning of physical collection managers are interesting, but also subjective. This makes it somewhat challenging for a reader to integrate findings from this study into their own data management practices. A straightforward discussion of the benefits and limitations of the study design would go a long way toward addressing this issue.

The research design relies on the data curation profiling (DCP) method to guide the focus group questioning. The method is not fully explained in this article, although the questions asked to participants are listed, which is helpful. The article does reference other published work about the method (p.4), however a synopsis would be useful.

The article addresses a significant problem, distilling “the most important reuse facets that could inform the design of the cyberinfrastructure tools and services to improve reusability of all physical collections and resulting data” (p.2). It is increasingly important to curate data in ways that adhere to FAIR and CARE principles – and this article collects data that inform these forward-looking practices. The article also does a good job of referencing previous related research, including RDM (Research Data Management), responsible conduct in research, and the pressure for reproducibility in research (p.3).

I applaud the authors for making their data used in this study fully available without restriction, which is a testament to their commitment to open data and data reuse.

Overall, the paper is written in clear and correct English. There is one sentence I found confusing in the abstract (p.1), that I would recommend revising for clarity. The issue is the distinction between physical collections and interdisciplinary physical collections. The sentence reads, “Results indicated that physical collections attempt to use universal metadata and data storage standards to increase discoverability, but interdisciplinary physical collections and derived data reuse require more investments to increase reusability of these invaluable items.”

Overall, this is a well-researched and well-written paper that summarizes the results of important research. My main suggestion that would expand its relevance to a broader readership within museums and libraries is the addition of a discussion about the benefits and limitations of the study/RCP method.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Prof. Robin Boast

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Article review.docx

From Ice Cores to Dinosaurs: Physical Collections Managers’ Research Data Curation Perceptions and Behaviors

PONE-D-24-59078R1

Dear Dr. Bishop,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Peter F. Biehl, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: