Prepared by Renske Gudde - IPBES Technical Support Unit (TSU) for Knowledge and Data and Rainer M. Krug - IPBES Task Force on Knowledge and Data. Reviewed by Aidin Niamir and Yanina V. Sica - IPBES Technical Support Unit for Knowledge and Data and the IPBES Task Force on Knowledge and Data (Hanno Seebens and Xubin Pan)

For any inquires please contact aidin.niamir@senckenberg.de

Version: 1.0 Last Updated: 16 October 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10004407

The IPBES assessment process is a lengthy and complex process, spanning over multiple years and involving many contributors. It is therefore important to track the versions of all files related to the assessment. Here, an IPBES specific versioning scheme for its assessments is being proposed.

There are usually five milestones during an IPBES assessment process; the first, second, and third order drafts, followed by the version submitted to the Plenary and the final approved version. Fast-track assessments have four milestones; they do not have a third order draft.

The suggested versioning scheme builds on the Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 used in software development (https://semver.org), and is adapted for the usage in the context of IPBES.

The IPBES versioning scheme consists of 3 parts separated by a dot (.):

vDRAFT.MAJOR.MINOR.

The DRAFT follows the following scheme:

0. for versions leading up to the first order draft

1. for final version of FOD and for versions leading up to the SOD

2. for final version of SOD and for version leading up to the TOD

3. for final version of TOD and for versions leading up to the Plenary

4. for final versions as submitted to the Plenary for approval and for requested edits

Drafts 5 - 9 are reserved for any potential versions between the version submitted to the Plenary and the final approved version for production.

10. final approved version for production

The MAJOR version starts with 0, going up one number for each new major revision, for example after the addition or removal of paragraphs, figures and/or data.

The MINOR version starts usually with 0 and is not often used (but needs to be specified). Minor versions are used for small changes in the text and/or data that do not lead to changes in the results, such as the addition of a reference or correcting of a spelling mistake. Similar to the major versions, for each new minor revision the number goes up by one.

Draft 0

Before the final draft of the first order draft:

Draft 1

Final version of the first order draft and every version before the final version of the second order draft:

Draft 2

Final version of the first order draft and every version before the final version of the second order draft:

Draft 3

Final version of the third order draft and every version before the final version submitted for the Plenary:

Draft 4

Final version to be submitted to the Plenary:

Final version

Final version that has been approved by the Plenary and is ready for publication:

Prepared by Renske Gudde - IPBES Technical Support Unit (TSU) for Knowledge and Data and Rainer M. Krug - IPBES Task Force on Knowledge and Data. Reviewed by Aidin Niamir and Yanina V. Sica - IPBES Technical Support Unit for Knowledge and Data and the IPBES Task Force on Knowledge and Data (Hanno Seebens and Xubin Pan)

For any inquires please contact

Version: 1.1 Last Updated: 27 February 2024

DOI:

The IPBES assessment process is a lengthy and complex process, spanning over multiple years and involving many contributors and products. It is therefore important to easily track and find files related to the assessment. Here, an IPBES specific file name scheme for the assessments is being proposed.

Files used in IPBES should be named in a consistent and standardised way, while simultaneously informing about the content of the file, to avoid file loss and increase findability of the files, transparency of the final assessments, and reusability. For example, using the filename Fig3.8 or ILK dialogue meeting Asia seems to be informative, but when a user is interested in ILK dialogue meeting reports, it is unclear from which assessment the report comes and when the dialogue meeting took place, and when a user finds ‘Fig3.8’ in the download folder on their computer, the file name does not provide any indication of the contents and topic of that file. Having a standardised way to create file names improves the transparency and findability of information, and also avoids file names like DMR_systematic_review_final_final_JS_final_approved.

Apart from human understanding, the possibility to parse the file names automatically and deduce information about the file is an important second aspect of the naming conventions.

The recommended naming of files is built up in a similar way as the IBAN codes used by banks, and the proposed file name convention for IPBES products is:

IPBES_[assessment abbreviation]_[chapter]_[document type]_[short description]_[version]

In detail: All sections are required to be filled in.

IPBES: The acronym IPBES should be always present (in capital letters)

[assessment_abbreviation]: the abbreviation of the assessment as was approved during the scoping of the assessment, e.g., IAS for invasive alien species, NXS for the Nexus, TCA for transformative change and BBA for business and biodiversity (in capital letters).

[chapter]: chapter and subchapter number or “SPM”, e.g. “Ch5.2”. This is an optional field; if there is no chapter, use “__” (i.e. two underscores) to keep the file name machine readable.

[document_type] The kind of document it is (e.g., a meeting report, chapter or dataset). Suggested are the following types (a complete list is maintained by the data tsu):

[short_description] should describe the document in preferably 1-5 words (e.g., “dialogue Asia”, “systematic review topic chapter”). Clear descriptions are much easier to use than ambiguous ones, so when it is not possible to add a description in 1-5 words, it is recommended to use more words.

[version] Version in the format as described in the versioning scheme for IPBES products. The version number indicates at which state in the assessment a file was uploaded. It is therefore important to upload a new version (with updated version in the file name) at every milestone. Access to previous versions can be restricted in order to avoid confusion.

The sections are separated with “_”, and multiple words within a section can be separated with “ ” (space).

Examples

Figure

The final, interoperable, version of figure 3.6 that will be submitted to the Plenary, the phylogeny of marine mammals, of the Sea life assessment:

→ IPBES_SLA_Ch3_figure_fig 3.6_Phylogeny of marine mammals_v10.0.0.ai

Figure 7.8 showing the biodiversity hotspots on a global map, that will be submitted for the second external review as part of chapter 7 of the Hotspots assessment:

→ IPBES_HA_Ch7_figure_fig 7.8 Global biodiversity hotspots_v2.0.0.png

Table

The final version of table 5.4 that will be submitted for the first order draft for the Sea life assessment, containing a list of endangered marine animals:

→ IPBES_SLA_Ch5_table_Table 5.4 Endangered marine animals_v1.0.0.docx

Table 7.11 showing the number of endangered species in biodiversity hotspots, that will be submitted for the third external review as part of chapter 7 of the Hotspots assessment:

→ IPBES_HA_Ch7_table_Table 7.11 Endangered species in hotspots_v3.0.0.docx

Data Management Report

The first data management report for figure 4.1 of the invasive alien species assessment, uploaded to Zenodo before the submission for the first external review, would be:

→ IPBES_IAS_Ch4_DMR_Fig4.1 biodiversity versus water quality_v0.0.0.docx

The version of the data management report for figure 7.8 on the biodiversity hotspots map for the Hotspots assessment that will be submitted for the second external review as part of chapter 7 of the Hotspots assessment:

→ IPBES_HA_Ch7_DMR_Fig7.8 biodiversity hotspots map_v2.0.0.docx

Meeting report

Report about the third meeting to advance the summary for policymakers of the Sea life assessment:

→ IPBES_SLA__meeting report_Third SPM meeting_v1

Dialogue Workshop Report

The third version of a report on the dialogue meeting for Asia taking place after the second external review would be of the MR assessment:

→ IPBES_MR_dialogue__dialogue report_Asia_v2.0.3.zip

Dataset

The references found during a systematic literature search on ILK and nature conservation for the Hotspots assessment:

→ IPBES_HA__Dataset_References systematic literature search ILK and nature conservation_v1

Prepared by Renske Gudde - IPBES Technical Support Unit (TSU) for Knowledge and Data and Rainer M. Krug - IPBES Task Force on Knowledge and Data. Reviewed by Aidin Niamir and Yanina V. Sica - IPBES Technical Support Unit for Knowledge and Data and the IPBES Task Force on Knowledge and Data (Hanno Seebens and Xubin Pan)

For any inquires please contact

Version: 1.0 Last Updated: 16 October 2023

DOI:

Benefit sharing, by giving credit to those who contribute by properly acknowledging them, is important within IPBES. It is therefore important that the technical support units for assessments compile accurate information on the experts and maintain such information in a transparent and comprehensive manner.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

The , which protects the privacy and personal data of all EU citizens. It is rooted in seven principles for privacy: lawfulness, fairness and transparency (gathering data with a valid legal basis in the best interest of the people data is collected from, and transparent in a way that it is clear what, how and why data is collected); purpose limitation (using the data only for the initially stated purpose); data minimisation (not gathering more data than is necessary); accuracy (data must be correct and up to date); storage limitations (deleting personal data when it is not needed anymore); integrity and confidentiality (ensuring that the data cannot be manipulated by others and making sure that the only people with access to personal data are the ones processing it); and accountability (taking responsibility for proper processing of personal data and compliance with the rules of the GDPR).

There are , such as the Data Protection Act 2018 in the UK, the Privacy Amendment to Australia’s Privacy Act, the Personal Information Protection Law in China, the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation, the South Africa’s Protection of Personal Information Act, and the Digital Charter Implementation Act in Canada. Personal data can be sensitive, and it is therefore important that these data are collected and stored with the consent of the experts.

In compliance with the GDPR, IPBES ensures to collect the minimum personal data that is required to guarantee that each expert and contributor is properly and sufficiently acknowledged. The information required is therefore: full name; preferred name which will be used in the citation or acknowledgement; title; gender; country of nationality and country of residence (if different); email address, and, optional, an ORCID iD.

• Name: Last name; first name; full name and preferred spelling of name (if different from the full name, for example, when Peter John Smith prefers to be called John Smith, or when authors prefer their names without the original accent marks).

• Country: Both the country of nationality and the country of residence, if different. The country names have to follow the .

• Affiliation: The complete affiliation(s) of the expert that are relevant to their IPBES contribution. For example, when an experts works for a specific lab or department at the School of Biological Sciences of the University of Edinburgh, the affiliation would be: University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. If an expert has more than one affiliation, these should all be added.

• Email: Any email address, work related or private (preferably both), which is the preferred way of IPBES and/or assessment related communication

• ORCID iD: Optional. An is a personal digital identifier, which is often used by researchers to increase findability of their work and the distinguishing from other researchers with the same or a similar name. It is highly recommended for all contributors to obtain an ORCID iD to make them uniquely attributable, even if they are not publishing in the academic sector. The tsu for data can help with any problems encountered during the registration process.

The assessment technical support unit has to submit the list of experts to the secretariat to add them to the internal expert database and avoid duplication and different personal details. To ensure data protection and privacy protection, each assessment should have their own expert dataset, containing only the experts involved in that assessment.

Roles and responsibilities

Secretariat:

• assigns the expert id to the experts upon their first role within IPBES

• keeps the experts database up to date and available to the technical support units for the assessments

• answer any questions that may arise about data protection

Assessment TSU:

• Before each submission of a draft, confirm with the authors that all details are still correct.

Lead Authors:

• make sure that all authors and new contributing authors and other contributors are communicated to the Assessment TSU

TSU for data:

• include a section on the GDPR and the way that personal data is collected, handled and stored in the IPBES data and knowledge management policy, and making sure that this information is regularly updated with any updates on the GDPR

Authors / Experts:

• ensure that all your information is correct and complete, and that any updates and changes are communicated as soon as possible. It is in their interest that the information is up to date and correct.

Required experts' information

These technical guidelines have been prepared by the technical support unit on knowledge and data and reviewed by the task force on knowledge and data within IPBES.

Version: 1.0 DOI: https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.10004399

The Organisation of Work, consists of three separate parts:

• A - File Naming Convention,

• B - Versioning Scheme and

• C - Experts Lists

These guidelines are intended to support the technical support units for the assessments, the other technical support units within IPBES and the assessment experts. Adopting these practices will increase the consistency and coherence within IPBES, and will facilitate the use of IPBES products for internal and external users.

All source files are also available on our GitHub. For any questions, feedback, or suggestions for future guidelines, contact aidin.niamir@senckenberg.de.