Menu: Skip within this page
SBN PDS3/PDS4 Data Reviewers
Minimum Required Feedback
Documentation
- Does the dataset contain all documentation needed to use and understand its data without prior knowledge?
- Is the provided documentation well organized, clear and self-consistent?
- Can the dataset be understood without any external documentation it references, or should the information in said external references be incorporated into the dataset?
- If reviewing calibrated data, does the documentation fully explain the calibration process and contain all necessary parameters needed to repeat it?
PDS Labels and Meta Data
- Are the descriptions and scientific content contained inside the PDS labels sufficient to understand their corresponding data products?
- Is all significant meta data included directly in the PDS labels?
- Do the labels provide all essential description of data values directly in the label, instead of deferring them to external references or documentation?
- Can the data be read programmatically using only the information contained in the PDS labels?
Data
- Does the data look physically reasonable when examining it by eye or via a display tool?
- When displaying the data as plots or images, are there any unexpected deviations?
- Formulate a scientific inquiry and attempt to use the data to answer the inquiry.
- If reviewing both raw and calibrated data, attempt to calibrate a raw data file.
Reviewers should remember that they are reviewing a PDS archive submission. All documentation, calibration observations and other ancillary information needed to understand and use the data should be present in the archive. Additionally, an important part of the review is ensuring that the label describes the data both functionally and scientifically. Please use either PDS Tools (see box on right) or other software written specifically to read the data according to the PDS labels for at least part of your review.
Example issues found by reviewers
- Unexplained gaps in the data (missing files in a series, for example).
- No pointing information included in the label for a space mission.
- A filter number is given, but the filter's center wavelength and bandpass are not provided in the label.
- The results obtained from the data during the review are different from results presented in a publication that used the same data.
- While looking for necessary information about the data, the value was not contained in the PDS labels, instead being found in a FITS header.
- A table column named Observation Time does not describe the time system it is using, nor whether it's recording the start, midpoint or some other point in the observation time.
- It is unclear which calibration parameters are applied to what data.
- The observed object could not be found in the image.
- It is documented that external conditions may have affected some results, but not clearly indicated which results may have been affected.
- The first few rows of a table look physically reasonable, but the rest appears to be noise.
- The data are for a comet flyby, but the actual time of the flyby is not found in a high level overview of the dataset document.
- Units of measurement are not included in the labels.
- The provided log of observations is inconsistent with start and stop times in the labels.
- A figure referenced in a document or label could not be found.
- High resolution observations taken adjacent to low resolution observations show dramatically different results, without any explanation in the documentation.
