# Candidate dataset or simulator proposal

Blank local draft for a standalone resource. No existing task ID or RSI implementation is required. Write “Not yet known” where needed. This is a **source suggestion** for suitability and format discussion, not a reviewed dataset or a data upload.

Use public links and descriptions; do not include private or restricted data, credentials or hidden assessment answers.

## Research track (optional)

Choose the main scientific area: `molecular-discovery`, `materials-science`, `biology-biomedicine`, `physics-engineering`, `earth-environment`, `mathematics-computation`, or `other-interdisciplinary`. For Other, describe the specific field.

- Research track (`research_track`):
- Specific field or secondary area (optional):

This is catalog classification. The package manifest's separate `track` field still identifies the review route (`candidate_resource` or `rsi_task`).

## Resource and rights

- Original name, scientific field and creators:
- Dataset / simulator / both:
- Original paper title, authors, citation or DOI (if available):
- Public source or documentation URL and exact version/date:
- Data host and versioned download or access instructions (full data can stay with its current host):
- What this contribution adapts or adds to the original resource:
- Access conditions, license URL and permissions still needed:
- Your relationship to the resource:

## One representative public case

- Public row/example ID or documentation location and URL:
- Fields or simulator inputs/outputs, formats and units:
- Measured / computed / generated / mixed / unknown; method and conditions:
- Approximate size or query cost (state whether measured or only estimated):
- Related groups, duplicate/derived records and repeated measurements:
- Missing, censored, failed or invalid cases; exclusions and known limitations:

## Possible scientific use

- Scientific objective; what the model would receive and predict, choose or produce:
- Existing method or starting workflow this could support, if known:
- Known limitations or an untested hypothesis, if relevant:
- Reference result or scientific check, if any; what feedback users may inspect after a prediction and when:
- Related scientific groups, available development and independent evaluation cases, and whether further families could support later rounds; state what is missing:
- Optional idea for a changeable improvement mechanism and how it could drive later updates:

Unknowns are acceptable. A resource can remain a resource contribution without an agent, an RSI experiment or a reserved evaluation set. A source suggestion carries no reviewed-data status; package checks and human review come later.

## Participation (optional)

- Bounded help you can offer or would need:

## Contributors (optional)

One shared dataset can have several contributors. Add one row per person; include everyone who prepared the contribution. The source paper keeps its complete author list.

| Name | Institution (optional) | Contribution | Institutional city (optional) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |

- Team notes or contact person:
- Source for paper affiliations, if relevant:
- Map preferences or people who prefer not to appear:

Public profile details are confirmed before publication. Locations represent institutions or voluntarily shared cities, never private addresses. All contributors link to the same dataset listing.

## Permission when submitting publicly

- [ ] I have the right to share this original proposal text under CC BY 4.0. Linked resources retain their own licenses.

## Discuss the draft with the project

Send a review enquiry by email: [xxiao9@utk.edu](mailto:xxiao9@utk.edu), with **RSI4Science** in the subject. Include public source links, a representative example and any preparation questions; attach this draft if useful. Permanent contact page: https://rsi4science.org/contact/.

Agree a permitted transfer route before sharing restricted files. Sending an enquiry does not accept the resource or grant publication permission.

Generating this file submits nothing and grants no license. Resource acceptance, scenario validation and evidence of recursive benefit are separate decisions. Record original creators and actual contributions, with permission for public name attribution.

## When the package is ready

For the current scalar input/target format, use `track: "candidate_resource"` and omit `rsi`; this route also covers ordinary benchmark tasks. For unsupported formats, agree a representation before preparing a package. Before formal review, prepare `manifest.json` and `records.json` using the submission-format guide, run the automatic checker, and resolve every blocking issue. A sample check is preparation only. Provide the complete declared review package and report; retain protected final-test data separately. The team then reviews the science, implementation and rights, and records explicit approval before public release. Original-paper citations and contributor credit accompany approved releases.

The links below provide the package guide, checks and contact route.

- Format and commands: https://rsi4science.org/downloads/submission-format.md
- Local browser check: https://rsi4science.org/check/
- Human review record: https://rsi4science.org/downloads/submission-review.md