Reporting Format Requirements

This page provides an overview of the review process for datasets utilizing reporting formats.

ESS-DIVE’s Reporting Formats are designed to make data and metadata published on ESS-DIVE more FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Consistent formatting of data and metadata enables both machines and humans to better understand and reuse valuable data.

We use reporting formats to enable advanced search within data files. Specifically, the Fusion Database (Fusion DB; documentation coming soon) validates, extracts and indexes data within standardized files.

The contents of public data and metadata files successfully parsed by the FusionDB are made searchable by the Deep Dive API, which is separate from the ESS-DIVE main search and Dataset API. This currently requires the use of the File Level Metadata (FLMD) and Comma Separated Values (CSV) Guidelines Reporting Formats. These reporting formats are widely applicable to data types stored on ESS-DIVE and ensure that data files are described through standardized metadata fields and are machine-readable. The Fusion DB provides feedback to the ESS-DIVE Publication Review Team if any requirements are not met. These requirements are outlined below. For more detailed documentation of all Reporting Formats, please visit the ESS-DIVE Community GitHub.

We plan to expand the FusionDB to incorporate data-type specific reporting formats and associated automated validations in the future.

Reporting Format Checks

A series of checks are performed during the publication review process for datasets using reporting formats. Checks listed as required are necessary for machine readability and parsing, whereas strongly recommended and optional checks are recommended enhancements to metadata.

Example datasets that have passed all reporting format checks are available below.

Example Datasets Using Reporting Formats and Successfully Parsed By Fusion Database

  • Roley et al., (2023) Data and scripts associated with "Coupled primary production and respiration in a large river contrasts with smaller rivers and streams." doi:10.15485/1985922

  • Jastrow et al., (2022) Spatially Averaged Ice Contents of Ice-Wedge Polygon Cross-Sections to 3-m Depth, July 2013, Utqiagvik, Alaska doi:10.15485/1876898

  • Kaufman et al., (2023) Spatial Study 2022: Water Column, Sediment, and Total Ecosystem Respiration Rates across the Yakima River Basin, Washington, USA doi:10.15485/1987520

  • Gooseff et al., (2023) Riverbed and Near-Surface Water Quality Data, Hanford Reach, Columbia River, February 2021 - April 2022 doi:10.15485/2204421

  • Hassett et al., (2023) Carbon flux measurements from chambers collected between July to October 2022 at Old Woman Creek, Huron, Ohio doi:10.15485/2229438

  • Stolze et al., (2024) Aerobic respiration controls on shale weathering, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2023: Dataset doi:10.15485/1987859

  • Wang et al., (2024) Continuous soil temperature measurements from 2019-10-4 to 2020-10-4, Teller road Mile 27, Seward Peninsula, Alaska doi:10.15485/2301692

  • Sala et al., (2024) Plot and Tree Characteristics from the 2022-2023 field experiment at Game Ridge, Missoula County, Montana, USA doi:10.15485/2371850

  • Williams et al., (2024) Anion Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2014-2023) doi:10.15485/1668054

Last updated