Repository Features to Help Researchers: An invitation to a dialogue | Zenodo

Abstract:  A group of publishers came together to discuss how we could reduce the complexity and inconsistency provided in publisher’s advice to researchers when selecting an appropriate data repository. It is a shared goal among publishers and other stakeholders to increase repository use – which remains far from optimal – and we assume that helping researchers find a suitable repository more easily will help achieve this.

To address this a list of features has been created and it is intended only as a framework within which publishers can make recommendations to researchers, not as a way to restrict which repositories researchers may choose for their data. Our intention is that the features we highlight will act to initiate engagement and collaboration among publishers, repositories and the RPOs, government and funders that ultimately make the policies around Open Research. As we start this conversation, it is important that we act together with other stakeholders to raise awareness of the challenges involved around FAIR data and to prevent any perverse consequences.

From the RDA FAIRsharing WG point of view, the ultimate objective is to map repository features across all existing initiatives, and to identify a common core set of metadata fields that all stakeholders want to see in registry of repositories. The FAIRsharing registry in particular is agnostic as to the selection process of standards, repositories and policies, as part of its commitment to working with and for all stakeholder groups.

Joint Position Statement on “Data Repository Selection – Criteria That Matter” | Zenodo

Abstract:  Over the past three years, “Data Repository Selection-Criteria That Matter” – “a set of criteria for the identification and selection of those data repositories that accept research data submissions” – were developed by a group of publishers facilitated by the FAIRsharing initiative. Throughout this time, a large number of organizations and individuals have formulated responses and expressed concern about the criteria and the process through which the criteria were developed. Collectively, our organizations consider that the “Data Repository: Selection Criteria that Matter” recommendations – as currently conceived – will act as an impediment to achieving these aims. As such, we are issuing this Joint Position Statement to highlight the community’s concerns and request that the authors of these criteria respond with specific actions.

 

Commentary on the FAIRsharing Data Repository Selection Proposal – Science Europe

“Too strict and too detailed criteria risk excluding repositories that can offer valuable services to a dedicated scientific user group. Some repositories have been certified as ‘trustworthy’ by one or several acknowledged certification bodies; however, small, institutional, or discipline-specific repositories might not (yet) have the means to seek such certification. Science Europe recommends that researchers should refer to certified repositories or discipline-specific repositories that are broadly recognised as trustworthy by their respective community where and when possible. But there are cases in which no such repository can be identified. Researchers should then be supported in their choice by a minimum selection of core criteria. Any supporting tool should not be prescriptive, overly complicated or exclude important repositories of research communities that may be in active usage for already quite some time, but do not meet formal certification criteria. Science Europe acknowledges that the criteria developed by FAIRsharing are intended to support researchers who wish to publish the data underlying their research findings and publishers in providing adequate guidance. It is understandable that publishers require access to data, for example for the purpose of providing a high quality peer review. However, based on its experience and broad consultations when developing its own criteria, Science Europe would like to point out a number of areas where it has considerable concerns with the suggested FAIRsharing criteria as they currently stand….”