Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37360326›Full record

ArticleArchival science2023

Record DNA: reconceptualising digital records as the future evidence base.

Julie McLeod, Elizabeth Lomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archival science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Julie McLeod *Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 1XE UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3330-898X
Elizabeth Lomas *iSchool, Department of Information Studies, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5619-6725

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A major issue facing society is the extent to which the usability of the digital evidence base is at risk because, in the digital era, the concept of the record has been eroded. The nature and reality of a record are no longer agreed. Addressing the challenges that the digital presents for managing records and assuring their future usability is not one that records and archives scholars and professionals can tackle alone. This article argues that this is a 'grand challenge' which requires a broad range of perspectives and expertise and convergence research to resolve. It discusses findings from an international multidisciplinary research network established to critically explore, through a grounded theory approach, the nature of a digital record and the implications of the digital era for the usability and functionality of the future evidence base. A series of different visions of a digital record emerged alongside a wide-ranging set of research questions that form the basis of an agenda for future collaborative (convergence) research.

Indexed as

ConceptsDataDigital recordsEvidence

Identifiers

PMID37360326
PMCPMC10091344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.