dblp Advisory Board
The purpose of the dblp Advisory Board is to provide support for and scientific supervision of the dblp computer science bibliography. In particular, the board advises the dblp team in all matters regarding the strategic development of dblp as a database and as a service, defines the guidelines and standards regulating the inclusion of new data into dblp, monitors the development of the database, supports the dblp team by providing their expertise, and represents dblp in the scientific community.
The dblp Advisory Board consists of established computer scientists and research information infrastructure experts. The University of Trier is represented by at least one member, as is Schloss Dagstuhl LZI. Board members have a 4-year mandate, renewable once. In the deliberations on the nomination of new board members, such characteristics as internationality and gender are taken into account in order to avoid uniformity of any kind. The dblp Advisory Board convenes at least once a year. A summary of each meeting, recording its decisions, is prepared and made publicly available on the web.
Selection of content
In order to cope with the ever-growing publication landscape in computer science and to guarantee the high quality of the database, it is indispensable to assign priorities for the inclusion of new publication venues into dblp. These priorities are mainly based on a venue’s scientific relevance to the international computer science community. Beside the scientific merit, technical aspects such as the availability of processable high-quality meta data have to be considered also.
To facilitate a fair assessment, the dblp advisory board has defined a set of criteria that guides the assessment process executed by the dblp staff. These criteria consider the role of a venue in the computer science community, aspects regarding their editors and authors, its publication standards, and its accessibility and long-term availability. A summary of these criteria is given in our F.A.Q.. Please be aware that beside the eligibility of a publication venue, the dblp team's workload and the resources available to it are always a limiting factor in the inclusion of new venues to dblp.
Handling of metadata errors
We always seek to correct flawed metadata and to complete missing information. We are therefore very grateful for every hint and notification we receive in this regard. To inform us of errors and incompleteness in our data, users may send a brief email to firstname.lastname@example.org, ideally accompanied by the necessary information specified in our F.A.Q.. We will correct flaws and defects in our metadata as soon as we become aware of them.
Handling of withdrawn publications
Publishers may – at their own discretion or on request from authors – withdraw or retract scientific publications for several reasons, including scientific misconduct. After becoming aware of a successful withdrawal or retraction, the dblp team will visibly mark the publication as "withdrawn", will remove any person-related metadata (such as author names or affiliations) from its record and unlist the publication from any author bibliography. All other core metadata (such as title, publishing venue, volume and issue information, pagination, DOI or hyperlinks to publisher sites) of the record will remain to be findable in dblp as a "withdrawn publication".
Handling of privacy concerns
The dblp computer science bibliography indexes bibliographic core metadata that is usually published together with scholarly publications. This includes person-related metadata (such as names, persistent IDs, institutional affiliations, or hyperlinks to academic websites) published by authors and editors about themselves in publicly available sources for the purpose of identification. This metadata is obtained from publicly available sources, such as publisher websites or open metadata APIs.
Our metadata is processed and provided for scientific or historical research and archival purposes, and on the basis of the legitimate interests of the international research community to access public metadata. All collected metadata is republished indefinitely and globally accessible on our servers through web pages, data interfaces ("APIs"), and as a full download. If a researcher wishes to not have their bibliography listed on dblp and made available through the websites and APIs, they can informally contact the dblp team at email@example.com or our data protection officer at firstname.lastname@example.org in order to have their bibliography unlisted from dblp.
Handling of name change requests
Generally, dblp indexes publications using author and editor names as they are given at the time of publication. That notwithstanding, dblp is committed to protecting the rights and identities of authors. We understand that authors may want to change their names for various personal reasons, and we want to be respectful of such decisions. If an author or editor wishes to change their name as it is displayed in dblp, they can informally contact the dblp team through email@example.com in order to have their bibliography updated.
User feedback and surveys
Understanding the needs and desires of the international computer science research community is crucial to dblp's mission . Accordingly, we welcome any kind of feedback as well as feature and content requests via email at firstname.lastname@example.org. We may not be able to reply to each and every email received through this channel, but we do read and consider all of them.
A general, broader user survey that aims to generate insights on how dblp and its features are used and perceived by the community in general is conducted at least once every five years. In addition, smaller targeted surveys that aim to generate understanding of the community's opinion on specific topics are conducted more often and whenever needed.
Evaluation by the Leibniz Association
At least every seven years, Schloss Dagstuhl LZI is evaluated by the Senate of the Leibniz Association. The evaluation focuses on an independent assessment of the institute's development with respect to the services provided over the past years, as well as the strength and viability of its plans for the future. On the basis of the evaluation results, the Federal Government and the funding federal states examine whether the institution fulfills its mission and continues to meet the requirements for the joint funding. The principles guiding the evaluation process are explained in detail on the Leibniz Association's website.
Links to standards and guidelines
- Good Scientific Practice at Schloss Dagstuhl LZI
- Good Scientific Practice and Ombuds Services of the Leibniz Association
- Good Research Practice of the German Research Foundation (DFG)