## Best Practices for Data Sharing Sub-committee Meeting *9 Sept 2025* --- ## Agenda - HPAI in SAR manuscript - GUID manuscript --- ### HPAI in SAR manuscript update <font size = 6> - Pre-galleys submitted - Next step will be galleys for review - Will go online as "ahead of print", then actual publication </font> --- ### The "Conversation" *https://theconversation.com/ca*  --- ### The "Conversation" <font size = 5> - Publishes articles written by academics, often tied to a scientific publication - Since its 2017 launch, published over 1,300 articles, viewed more than 20 million times. - Articles are republished by over 500 media outlets globally, including major organizations like Canadian Press and National Post. - The Creative Commons license allows any Canadian media outlet to freely republish articles, further amplifying reach. - Excellent bridge from scientific literature to the public ---  ---  --- ### "The Pitch" <font size = 5> - "As the effect of the current avian influenza panzootic on wildlife is often overlooked, we are proposing a story discussing species at risk in Canada affected by avian influenza, conservation implications, and how the public can help." - "Further, this work is a product of a national collaboration between the Federal government, all provinces and territories, academia, and the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative ... an excellent example of how a "Canadian collaboration" can demonstrate tangible results in the field of animal health." </font> Fortunately, we were accepted! --- ### Details <font size = 6> - Draft due Oct 30, 900 words - **Four** authors </font> --- ### Possible outline of article <font size = 6> - Overview of avian influenza in wildlife, current situation - Discussion of potential conservation impacts - Importance of engagement with the public for disease monitoring and wildlife conservation </font> --- ### Problem: <font size =6> - Only four authors allowed - How do we address this? </font> --- ## Globally Unique ID Manuscript --- ### Options <font size = 6> 1. "Technical Bulletin" on CWHC site 2. Scientific literature </font> --- ### CWHC site https://www.cwhc-rcsf.ca/publications.php </font>  --- ### Scientific publication <font size = 4> | Journal Title | Section | Section Description | Word Limit | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Canada Communicable Disease Report | Commentary | Addresses a stand-alone issue, setting forth strengths and arguments to support a point of view, as well as potential weaknesses and counter-arguments | 1,000–1,500 | | Journal of Wildlife Diseases | Letter | Brief notes and case reports that describe novel findings that contribute significantly to understanding of wildlife diseases within scope for the Journal | ~1,000 | | FACETS | Communication | Intended for the presentation of brief observations | ~1,400 | | FACETS | Editorial | A discussion of a current hot topic or an issue of importance in a given field | ~1,400 | | Canadian Veterinary Journal | Commentary | Opinions on any aspect of the veterinary profession | ≤2,000 | </font> --- <font size = 5> | Option | Pros | Cons | | --- | --- | --- | | **Technical Note on CWHC Website** | - Faster publication, immediate visibility<br>- Full control over content, style, and messaging<br>- Easier to update or revise as implementation evolves<br>- Direct reach to partners, agencies, and practitioners who use CWHC resources | - Not peer-reviewed, so less academic credibility<br>- Limited citation potential in the scientific literature<br>- May be perceived as advocacy rather than evidence-based scholarship<br>- Smaller reach beyond the CWHC network | | **Peer-Reviewed Scientific Paper** | - Academic legitimacy and peer-reviewed validation, citable <br>- Broader reach to international One Health, informatics, and veterinary science communities<br>- Helps set a precedent and standard for GUID use in the literature<br>- Longer shelf life in the scientific record | - Slower publication timeline<br>- Requires tailoring to journal scope/format<br>- Less flexibility to revise once published<br>- May not be as accessible to practitioners | | | </font> --- ### Thoughts?