Catalogue Reviews

When records are reviewed (needs editing for the new version of the review form!)

A record should be reviewed prior to it being "published" (Obs, Obs Collections, Projects) or as soon as possible after it has been worked up (Instrument, Platform, Computation).

Requesting a review

Send an email to stating:

  • the record type (model|atmos|satellite|eo|other)
  • URL to the user view of the record to review
  • what to review (e.g. just that record or connected ones)
  • deadline if urgent

Who Reviews what?

Don't review your own record! It's very easy to miss things and make assumptions. Ideally the review should be done by a data scientist covering a different type of data, e.g. someone responsible for model data could look at satellite data or observation data; aircraft data should be reviewed by someone looking after model/satellite data etc.

Reviewing a record

There will mostly likely be a series of records to review. Start with a sample Observation record, then review connected Project and Observation Collection records before looking at the Procedure. If the sample passes OK, review other observation records - if common issues arise then there's no need to repeat that for all the records! Just flag that up to the requester for amendment before reviewing further records.

Keep in mind that the records should be understandable by someone at undergraduate level with a reasonable awareness of the field.

Watch a video on reviewing records

  • Open up the record to review
  • Open up the MOLES Review Google Form
    • Add in the user view link to the record
    • Add in the title
    • Select the record type
    • Review fields requested
      • If Observation record also check the archive location (is it at the right point? does it resolve?)
      • Note, feel free to make small amendments (e.g. typos, adding in missing Priority numbers for Parties)
      • Parties - ask for full names if possible, check it's the right party type
    • Make a decision on the next step for the record owner
      • Return for review - if substantial changes are needed (e.g. title, abstract fields need overhaul, links to other records needed)
      • Minor changes and self-publish - small changes (typos, update to temporal/geographic areas)

What next?

  • When you receive the review email follow the link in the email.
  • Address issues raised, updating the review with initialled comments 
  • Re-submit for review if requested or publish the record

Common Issues and what to do

  • duplicate Party used
    • Making sure the one to keep is as complete as possible
    • Flag to Graham which to keep, which to destroy (!), he has a script to "merge" party records
  • Other duplicate record used (e.g. instrument, platform)
    • Flag to Graham - we need to carefully manage the migration of content here before destroying the duplicate record!
  • Linked record is re-used by other records (e.g. a Project record from an Observation, or a geographic extent) - can we change it?
    • Check which other records it is linked to and the potential impact of your desired change! 
    • If they would all benefit fro the change and it won't affect fields such as the citation string (i.e. publisher, author names) then make the change
    • Otherwise consider "cloning" the record in question, modifying it and making use of that to isolate the change
Did this answer your question? Thanks for the feedback There was a problem submitting your feedback. Please try again later.

Still need help? Contact Us Contact Us