This page is intended to capture information related to NDS-211 - Getting issue details... STATUS .
Background
Registries of Research Data Repositories
There are (at least) two major registries of research data repositories. Publishers and funding agencies often direct researchers to search for repositories using these tools:
Approved and Recommended Repositories
Publishers, funding agencies, research/domain organizations, and libraries often provide lists of recommended or supported repositories for depositing research data. The motivations and requirements are often different, but the lists themselves might serve as the basis for our analysis. We can review these (and other) lists to determine the factors in recommending data repositories to researchers.
NIH:
Elsevier:
Nature
PLOS
Libraries
Other
- http://www.ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/viewFile/9.1.152/349
- http://www.rdc-drc.ca/wp-content/uploads/Review-of-Research-Data-Repositories-2015.pdf
- AMS: https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/authors/journal-and-bams-authors/journal-and-bams-authors-guide/data-archiving-and-citation/
- AGU: http://publications.agu.org/files/2014/06/Data-Repositories.pdf
- http://openarchaeologydata.metajnl.com/about/#repo
- https://www.datacite.org/services/find-repository.html
SEAD C3PR/Matchmaker
The SEAD Matchmaker is used to pair datasets to repositories. It was originally part of the SEAD Virtual Archive, which enabled automatic depositing of data into institutional repositories via OAIS Submission Information Packages (SIP). The matchmaker is now part of the SEAD 2.0 C3PR service (https://github.com/Data-to-Insight-Center/sead2/tree/master/sead-matchmaker). Repositories can register with C3PR, providing information including accepted data types, maximum collection depth, maximum dataset size, minimum metadata fields, affiliations, and global identifier requirements. These are to some extent technical requirements.
See also:
Other sources of information:
- Researcher identifiers, such as ORCID Persistent digital identifier for researchers – might be helpful in collecting researcher profile information for recommendation.
- Journal/publication information: Can we relate journals to where data has been published. If you will publish in a certain journal, here's where people put their data. This leads us back to a big search engine.
- https://www.datacite.org/
Harvesting information
- Some of these repositories are crawlable or implement standard APIs (OAI-PMH) for harvesting metadata. It might be interesting to consider whether we can harvest descriptive metadata – particularly citation information – and use journal or other publication metadata as part of the recommendation process.
Analysis
Reviewing the above lists and registries, we can identify factors in the recommendation of repositories to researchers:
Factor | Description |
---|---|
Funding agency approval | Funding agencies (e.g. NIH) have lists of approved repositories |
Researcher communities | Some repositories restrict to researchers in certain communities |
Publisher integration | Publishers (e.g., Elsevier) have arrangements with repositories (e.g., bi-directional linking) |
Domain | Repositories are often restricted by domain, with some generalist services |
Technical restrictions | Repositories have technical restrictions (e.g., maximum file size, supported formats) |
Community mandates | Some research communities have mandated repositories (see Nature list) |
Data type | Some repositories are restricted to specific types of data. These criteria vary, for example:
Data types are often directly related to domain/field of study. |
Metadata format | Some repositories are restricted to specific types of metadata (e.g., MIAME) |
Publishers, funding agencies, and libraries construct these lists of approved repositories to meet the needs of researchers, Many of these sites now link to centralized services, such as re3data.org. However, re3data.org does not capture all of the information needed to make a recommendation (e.g., technical restrictions).
Use cases