Back to all available

FAIRification of computational workflows in the Destination Earth Data Lake

autonomous-systems
distributed-and-parallel-computing
emerging-technologies
scientific-computing-and-simulation
software-engineering

Abstract

We introduce "workflow.earth", our FAIR workflow platform, which facilitates the execution of machine-actionable workflows and the mobilization of resulting research data. By leveraging Research Object Crates (RO-Crates), a lightweight packaging format for both data and workflows, reusability across domains is facilitated while maintaining data provenance. The platform is currently deployed within the Destination Earth Data Lake (DEDL), a major component of the European flagship initiative Destination Earth, which has the aim of creating a digital replica of the Earth. At DEDL, our platform powers an Agrobiodiversity Digital Twin that fosters the improvement of domesticated crops’ resilience against current environmental changes by opening up the wider genetic diversity of crop wild relatives for crossbreeding. The Agrobiodiversity Digital Twin demonstrates how biodiversity and Earth observation data can be integrated to address grand challenges such as biodiversity loss in the Anthropocene in a FAIR manner.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].