Since the review process would start in mid-Jan, would there be an active discussion regarding submission entries between reviewers and contributors? Would we be able to discuss the entries with the reviewers? Would this discussion be initiated by the reviewers or is there a way we can CC them in?
I created a couple of topics revising submissions by others and suggested corrections. Would these be considered during the review process?
Can government representatives offer feedback and suggestions? I’ve invited some from Bulgaria to answer questions by reviewer if such are raised.
Hi @yurukov, we will consider the discussions started for each dataset as input for the reviewers. In the case of the submitters, since some of the submissions are anonymous and we don’t store information from the people who do use their names, it might prove a bit more complicated.
And yes, government representatives are welcome to join the discussion. In the end, it’s them who make the data available and we want to have the most robust information possible.
@tlacoyodefrijol Will there be an opportunity to discuss reviews that are already done? For example, if a reviewer amends or rejects certain aspects of a submission, what would be the timeframe to dispute them and is there a chance to amend those reviews should we prove our point?
Well, apparently none of that was done. I got one question on the corrections I proposed. However on most of the ones I submitted actual open data, like the water quality, national maps, administrative boundaries, etc., none of the feedback was considered. Mostly, I see that submitters reviewed their own submissions. They gave 0% on water quality in Bulgaria despite the fact that the data is actually open in the government portal: Entry for Water Quality / Bulgaria Even with extended questions, it’s impossible to get 90% on water quality in 2015 (http://index.okfn.org/place/bulgaria/water/) and 0% in 2016.
There are without a doubt shortcoming in some areas like weather and address mapping. Some datasets still need to be paid for and this was reflected. However feedback on flawed submissions on all topics were not considered. Resubmissions were not allowed. These errors are easy to identify if one checks the government site or googles “bulgaria open data” - the government open data portal is the first result.
I will not be endorsing the index this year as a good measure or comparison between countries. The submission and review process degraded significantly.
We fully understand your concerns. We decided to create a more prominent venue for your feedback. That’s why this year we call for a public dialogue phase, which started with our GODI launch yesterday, and which will last for 30 days until 1st of June. This way we want to fully concentrate on your feedback, and document and share the outcomes with you openly in the end of the dialogue phase. We will also document your proposed changes, and the criteria why we will change/not change an existing review 1) to allow for more transparency of the process, and 2) to document learnings for future work, 3) to use these insights when writing our first GODI whitepaper.
To answer your question about whether we amend reviews: Yes, we will take your feedback into account, and amend if other data can be found that meets our characteristics, and if we can make a claim that the data existed during our review (with the exception of data that is usually updated on a daily basis by replacing older data, e.g. environmental data on air pollution).
You can post your feedback as usual by creating a new topic in this forum, or by commenting on an existing topic. We are currently collecting all feedback and will answer asap.
Please do get in touch if you have any further questions.
I will enter my concerns in that thread then. I have been alerting to the problem for 5 months now and I don’t see why this is addressed now. I have entered all of the corrections to other people’s submissions for months now.