Journal:Recommended versus certified repositories: Mind the gap - Revision history

Shawndouglas: /* Notes */ Cats

2024-04-29T16:38:48Z

Notes: Cats

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:38, 29 April 2024
Line 230:		Line 230:

	<!--Place all category tags here-->		<!--Place all category tags here-->
	[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles (added in 2017)‎]]		[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles (added in 2017)]]
	[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles (all)‎]]		[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles (all)]]
	[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles on big ~~data‎‎~~]]		[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles on big data]]
	[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles on ~~informatics‎‎~~]]		[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles on FAIR data principles]]
			[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles on informatics]]

Shawndouglas: Updated fix to URLs

2017-10-26T15:43:46Z

Updated fix to URLs

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:43, 26 October 2017
Line 213:		Line 213:
	The additional files for this article can be found as follows:		The additional files for this article can be found as follows:

	Supplementary Table 1: Table “Recommended Criteria Cluster” showing 13 main criteria used by organizations recommending repositories, with separate individual characteristics for each. The occurrence of criteria in the information provided by organizations is represented by an “X.” DOI: https:/doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-042.s1		Supplementary Table 1: Table “Recommended Criteria Cluster” showing 13 main criteria used by organizations recommending repositories, with separate individual characteristics for each. The occurrence of criteria in the information provided by organizations is represented by an “X.” DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-042.s1

	Supplementary Table 2: Table “Certified Criteria Cluster” showing 11 main criteria used by organizations certifying repositories, with separate individual characteristics for each. The occurrence of criteria in the information provided by organizations is represented by an “X.” DOI: https:/doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-042.s2		Supplementary Table 2: Table “Certified Criteria Cluster” showing 11 main criteria used by organizations certifying repositories, with separate individual characteristics for each. The occurrence of criteria in the information provided by organizations is represented by an “X.” DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-042.s2

	==Competing interests==		==Competing interests==
Line 228:		Line 228:
	==Notes==		==Notes==
	This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version — by design — lists them in order of appearance. The BioSharing website has since become the "FAIRSharing" website, and as such the original BioSharing links point to the new website. Several other website URLs have also changed, and the updated URL is used here. The original includes several inline citations that are not listed in the references section; they have been omitted here.		This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version — by design — lists them in order of appearance. The BioSharing website has since become the "FAIRSharing" website, and as such the original BioSharing links point to the new website. Several other website URLs have also changed, and the updated URL is used here. The original includes several inline citations that are not listed in the references section; they have been omitted here.

	~~The original links to the supplementary tables did not function at the time of loading this article. A support e-mail has been sent.~~

	<!--Place all category tags here-->		<!--Place all category tags here-->

Shawndouglas: Finished adding rest of content.

2017-10-18T15:54:54Z

Finished adding rest of content.

Show changes

Shawndouglas: Saving and adding more.

2017-10-17T23:23:45Z

Saving and adding more.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 17 October 2017
Line 42:		Line 42:
	====Recommended repositories====		====Recommended repositories====
	To examine which repositories are being recommended, we looked at the recommendations of 17 different organizations, including academic publishers, funding agencies, and data organizations. These lists of recommended repositories include all the available recommendation lists currently found on the BioSharing (now "FAIRsharing") website under the Recommendations tab<ref name="FAIRsharingRecomm">{{cite web \|url=https://fairsharing.org/recommendations/ \|title=Recommendations \|work=FAIRsharing.org \|publisher=University of Oxford}}</ref> and those found in a web search by using the term “recommended data repositories.” These lists have been compiled by the American Geophysical Union, BBSRC<ref name="BBSRCResources">{{cite web \|url=http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/research/resources/ \|title=Resources \|publisher=BBSRC \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, BioSharing<ref name="FAIRsharingDatabases">{{cite web \|url=https://fairsharing.org/databases/?q=&selected_facets=recommended:true \|title=Databases \|work=FAIRsharing.org \|publisher=University of Oxford}}</ref>, COPDESS<ref name="COPDESSSearch">{{cite web \|url=https://copdessdirectory.osf.io/search/ \|title=Search for Repositories \|publisher=COPDESS \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, DataMed<ref name="DataMedRepos">{{cite web \|url=https://datamed.org/repository_list.php \|title=Repository List \|publisher=bioCADDIE \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Elsevier<ref name="ElsevierSupp">{{cite web \|url=https://www.elsevier.com/authors/author-services/research-data/data-base-linking/supported-data-repositories \|title=Supported Data Repositories \|publisher=Elsevier \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, EMBO Press<ref name="EMBOAuthor">{{cite web \|url=http://msb.embopress.org/authorguide#datadeposition \|title=Data Deposition \|work=Author Guidelines \|publisher=EMBO Press \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, F1000Research<ref name="F1000Data">{{cite web \|url=https://f1000research.com/for-authors/data-guidelines \|title=Data Guidelines \|work=How to Publish \|publisher=F1000 Research \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, GigaScience<ref name="GigsScienceEditor">{{cite web \|url=https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/pages/editorial_policies_and_reporting_standards \|title=Editorial Policies & Reporting Standards \|publisher=Oxford University Press \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, NIH<ref name="NIHDataSharing">{{cite web \|url=https://www.nlm.nih.gov/NIHbmic/nih_data_sharing_repositories.html \|title=NIH Data Sharing Repositories \|publisher=U.S. National Library of Medicine \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, PLOS<ref name="PLOSDataAvail">{{cite web \|url=http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability \|title=Data Availability \|publisher=PLOS \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Scientific Data<ref name="SciDataRecommended">{{cite web \|url=https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories \|title=Recommended Data Repositories \|work=Scientific Data \|publisher=Macmillan Publishers Limited \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Springer Nature/BioMed Central (both share the same list)<ref name="SpringerNatRecomm">{{cite web \|url=http://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/research-data-policy/repositories/12327124?countryChanged=true \|title=Recommended Repositories \|work=Springer Nature \|publisher=Springer-Verlag GmbH \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Web of Science<ref name="WebofScienceMaster">{{cite web \|url=http://wokinfo.com/cgi-bin/dci/search.cgi \|title=Master Data Repository List \|work=Web of Science \|publisher=Clarivate Analytics \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Wellcome Trust<ref name="WellcomeDataRepos">{{cite web \|url=https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/managing-grant/data-repositories-and-database-resources \|title=Data repositories and database resources \|publisher=Wellcome Trust \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, and Wiley. All lists, including links to the online lists, were compiled into one list to compare recommendations (http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/zx2kcyvvwm.1). Not all data repositories indexed by the Web of Science’s Data Citation Index (DCI) were included as there is no publicly available list with all repositories indexed by the DCI, so retrieval of recommended repositories was done through an individual search. The repositories indexed by Re3Data were not included in our list of recommended repositories as Re3data functions as “a global registry of research data repositories”<ref name="RE3DATAAbout">{{cite web \|url=https://www.re3data.org/about \|title=About \|work=re3data.org \|publisher=Karlsruhe Institute of Technology \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref> and thus does not recommend repositories. However, Re3Data was used to verify the repository’s status, persistent identifiers, and obtained certifications.		To examine which repositories are being recommended, we looked at the recommendations of 17 different organizations, including academic publishers, funding agencies, and data organizations. These lists of recommended repositories include all the available recommendation lists currently found on the BioSharing (now "FAIRsharing") website under the Recommendations tab<ref name="FAIRsharingRecomm">{{cite web \|url=https://fairsharing.org/recommendations/ \|title=Recommendations \|work=FAIRsharing.org \|publisher=University of Oxford}}</ref> and those found in a web search by using the term “recommended data repositories.” These lists have been compiled by the American Geophysical Union, BBSRC<ref name="BBSRCResources">{{cite web \|url=http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/research/resources/ \|title=Resources \|publisher=BBSRC \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, BioSharing<ref name="FAIRsharingDatabases">{{cite web \|url=https://fairsharing.org/databases/?q=&selected_facets=recommended:true \|title=Databases \|work=FAIRsharing.org \|publisher=University of Oxford}}</ref>, COPDESS<ref name="COPDESSSearch">{{cite web \|url=https://copdessdirectory.osf.io/search/ \|title=Search for Repositories \|publisher=COPDESS \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, DataMed<ref name="DataMedRepos">{{cite web \|url=https://datamed.org/repository_list.php \|title=Repository List \|publisher=bioCADDIE \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Elsevier<ref name="ElsevierSupp">{{cite web \|url=https://www.elsevier.com/authors/author-services/research-data/data-base-linking/supported-data-repositories \|title=Supported Data Repositories \|publisher=Elsevier \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, EMBO Press<ref name="EMBOAuthor">{{cite web \|url=http://msb.embopress.org/authorguide#datadeposition \|title=Data Deposition \|work=Author Guidelines \|publisher=EMBO Press \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, F1000Research<ref name="F1000Data">{{cite web \|url=https://f1000research.com/for-authors/data-guidelines \|title=Data Guidelines \|work=How to Publish \|publisher=F1000 Research \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, GigaScience<ref name="GigsScienceEditor">{{cite web \|url=https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/pages/editorial_policies_and_reporting_standards \|title=Editorial Policies & Reporting Standards \|publisher=Oxford University Press \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, NIH<ref name="NIHDataSharing">{{cite web \|url=https://www.nlm.nih.gov/NIHbmic/nih_data_sharing_repositories.html \|title=NIH Data Sharing Repositories \|publisher=U.S. National Library of Medicine \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, PLOS<ref name="PLOSDataAvail">{{cite web \|url=http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability \|title=Data Availability \|publisher=PLOS \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Scientific Data<ref name="SciDataRecommended">{{cite web \|url=https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories \|title=Recommended Data Repositories \|work=Scientific Data \|publisher=Macmillan Publishers Limited \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Springer Nature/BioMed Central (both share the same list)<ref name="SpringerNatRecomm">{{cite web \|url=http://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/research-data-policy/repositories/12327124?countryChanged=true \|title=Recommended Repositories \|work=Springer Nature \|publisher=Springer-Verlag GmbH \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Web of Science<ref name="WebofScienceMaster">{{cite web \|url=http://wokinfo.com/cgi-bin/dci/search.cgi \|title=Master Data Repository List \|work=Web of Science \|publisher=Clarivate Analytics \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Wellcome Trust<ref name="WellcomeDataRepos">{{cite web \|url=https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/managing-grant/data-repositories-and-database-resources \|title=Data repositories and database resources \|publisher=Wellcome Trust \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, and Wiley. All lists, including links to the online lists, were compiled into one list to compare recommendations (http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/zx2kcyvvwm.1). Not all data repositories indexed by the Web of Science’s Data Citation Index (DCI) were included as there is no publicly available list with all repositories indexed by the DCI, so retrieval of recommended repositories was done through an individual search. The repositories indexed by Re3Data were not included in our list of recommended repositories as Re3data functions as “a global registry of research data repositories”<ref name="RE3DATAAbout">{{cite web \|url=https://www.re3data.org/about \|title=About \|work=re3data.org \|publisher=Karlsruhe Institute of Technology \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref> and thus does not recommend repositories. However, Re3Data was used to verify the repository’s status, persistent identifiers, and obtained certifications.

			====Certified repositories====
			For our analysis of data repository certification schemes, we examined five certification schemes. These were the DSA, ICSU-WDS, NESTOR, TRAC, and ISO 16363/TDR. These schemes were chosen due to being used for certification (DSA, ICSU-WDS, NESTOR and ISO 16363/TDR) or as a self-assessment check for repositories (TRAC). The DSA<ref name="DSAAss">{{cite web \|url=https://www.datasealofapproval.org/en/assessment/ \|title=Assessment \|work=Data Seal of Approval \|publisher=DSA Board \|accessdate=20 February 2017}}</ref>, ICSU-WDS<ref name="ICSUMember">{{cite web \|url=https://www.icsu-wds.org/community/membership/regular-members \|title=Membership \|publisher=ICSU World Data System \|accessdate=20 February 2017}}</ref>, and NESTOR<ref name="NestorSeal">{{cite web \|url=http://www.langzeitarchivierung.de/Subsites/nestor/EN/Siegel/siegel_node.html \|title=Nestor Seal for Trustworthy Digital Archives \|publisher=nestor-Geschäftsstelle \|accessdate=20 February 2017}}</ref> provide lists of certified repositories on their respective websites. ISO 16363/TDR certification has not yet been awarded.<ref name="LarrimerAccred16">{{cite web \|url=https://anab.qualtraxcloud.com/ShowDocument.aspx?ID=4446 \|format=PDF \|title=Accreditation Program for ISO 16363 Trustworthy Digital Repositories Management Systems \|work=ANAB Heads Up \|author=Larrimer, N. \|date=20 January 2016 \|accessdate=28 October 2016}}</ref> We consulted the websites of the DSA, ICSU-WDS, NESTOR, TRAC, and ISO 16363/TDR certification schemes to see which repositories they certified. The results were compiled into one list (https://doi.org/10.17632/zx2kcyvvwm.1).

			After composing the list of recommended repositories, we investigated which criteria are being used to determine a recommendation or certification, and whether an overlap exists between recommended and certified repositories, and the criteria used (Figure 1).

			* 2.1 Compiled list of criteria for recommendation
			* 2.2 Clustered criteria into the “Recommended Criteria Cluster”
			* 2.3 Compiled list of criteria for certification
			* 2.4 Clustered criteria into the “Certification Criteria Cluster”
			* 3.2 Compared and merged steps 2.2 and 2.4 to create the umbrella categories


			[[File:Fig1 Husen DataSciJourn2017 16-1.png\|640px]]
			{{clear}}
			{\|
			\| STYLE="vertical-align:top;"\|
			{\| border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" width="640px"
			\|-
			\| style="background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;"\| <blockquote>'''Figure 1.''' Flowchart of the methodology used to create the umbrella categories</blockquote>
			\|-
			\|}
			\|}

			These steps will be discussed in turn.

			===Criteria used for recommendation and certification===
			====Criteria for recommendation====
			To understand the motivation behind specific recommendations, we looked at the organizations’ selection criteria for their lists of recommended repositories. Four of the 17 organizations supplied criteria for this online alongside their lists: BioCADDIE, F1000Research, Scientific Data/Springer Nature (SD/SN), and Web of Science (WoS). The Research Data Alliance’s (RDA)<ref name="RDAReposBundle">{{cite web \|url=https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/data-fabric-ig/wiki/repository-bundle.html \|title=Repository Bundle \|publisher=Research Data Alliance \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref> criteria for recommended repositories were also included in this analysis. Although the RDA does not maintain a list of recommended repositories, we included their criteria to balance out the weight between the number of organizations that recommend repositories and the number of organizations that provide criteria for certification. The criteria of the five organizations were then compiled into one list (https://doi.org/10.17632/zx2kcyvvwm.1).

			====Recommended Criteria Cluster====
			We categorized the criteria into 15 subheadings: Recognition, Mission, Transparency, Certification, Interface, Legal, Access, Structure, Retrievability, Preservation/Persistence, Curation, Persistent Identifier, Citability, Language, and Diversity of Data. These subheadings were derived from recurring and shared subjects throughout the different criteria lists. We then filtered out repetitions or criteria unique to one organization, namely Language and Diversity of Data, to create the “Recommended Criteria Cluster.”

			====Criteria for certification====
			We consulted relevant websites to obtain the criteria used by the DSA, ICSU-WDS, NESTOR, TRAC and ISO 16363/TDR certification schemes and compiled a list of all certification criteria of the five schemes. In the case of the DSA<ref name="DSAReqs">{{cite web \|url=https://www.datasealofapproval.org/en/information/requirements/ \|title=Requirements \|work=Data Seal of Approval \|publisher=DSA Board \|accessdate=07 April 2017}}</ref>, ICSU-WDS<ref name="ICSUCert12" />, and NESTOR<ref name="NESTORExplan13">{{cite web \|url=https://d-nb.info/1047613859/34 \|title=Explanatory notes on the nestor Seal for Trustworthy Digital Archives \|publisher=nestor Certification Working Group \|date=July 2013 \|accessdate=07 April 2017}}</ref>, these were found through their respective websites. The criteria for TRAC were found through the website of the Center for Research Libraries (CRL)<ref name="OCLCCRLTrust07">{{cite web \|url=http://www.crl.edu/sites/default/files/d6/attachments/pages/trac_0.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification: Criteria and Checklist \|author=OCLC and CRL \|publisher=Center for Research Libraries \|date=February 2007 \|accessdate=07 April 2017}}</ref>, and the criteria for the ISO 16363/TDR were found through the Primary Trustworthy Digital Repository Authorisation Body, on the website of the Consultative Committee for Space Systems.<ref name="CCSDSRecomm11" />

	==References==		==References==

Shawndouglas: Saving and adding more.

2017-10-17T22:30:21Z

Saving and adding more.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:30, 17 October 2017
Line 32:		Line 32:
	Data sharing and data management are topics that are becoming increasingly important. More information is appearing about their benefits, such as increased citation rates for research papers with associated shared datasets.<ref name="PiwowarDataReuse13">{{cite journal \|title=Data reuse and the open data citation advantage \|journal=PeerJ \|author=Piwowar, H.A.; Vision, T.J. \|volume=1 \|pages=e175 \|year=2013 \|doi=10.7717/peerj.175 \|pmid=24109559 \|pmc=PMC3792178}}</ref><ref name="PiwowarSharing07">{{cite journal \|title=Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate \|journal=PLoS One \|author=Piwowar, H.A.; Day, R.S.; Fridsma, D.B. \|volume=2 \|issue=3 \|pages=e308 \|year=2007 \|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0000308 \|pmid=17375194 \|pmc=PMC1817752}}</ref> A growing number of funding bodies such as the NIH and the Wellcome Trust<ref name="NIHGrants15">{{cite web \|url=https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/nihgps.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=NIH Grants Policy Statement \|publisher=National Institutes of Health \|date=2015 \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref><ref name="WellcomePolicy">{{cite web \|url=https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/managing-grant/policy-data-software-materials-management-and-sharing \|title=Policy on data, software and materials management and sharing \|publisher=Wellcome Trust \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, as well as several journals<ref name="BorgmanTheConun12">{{cite journal \|title=The conundrum of sharing research data \|journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology \|author=Borgman, C.L. \|volume=63 \|issue=6 \|pages=1059-1078 \|year=2012 \|doi=10.1002/asi.22634}}</ref>, have installed policies that require research data to be shared.<ref name="MayernikPeer14">{{cite journal \|title=Peer Review of Datasets: When, Why, and How \|journal=Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society \|author=Mayernik, M.S.; Callaghan, S.; Leigh, R. et al. \|volume=96 \|issue=2 \|pages=191–201 \|year=2014 \|doi=10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00083.1}}</ref> To be able to share data, both now and in the future, datasets not only need to be preserved but also need to be comprehensible and usable for others. To ensure these qualities, research data needs to be managed<ref name="DobratzTheUse10">{{cite journal \|title=The Use of Quality Management Standards in Trustworthy Digital Archives \|journal=International Journal of Digital Curation \|author=Dobratz, S.; Rödig, P.; Borghoff, U.M. et al. \|volume=5 \|issue=1 \|pages=46–63 \|year=2010 \|doi=10.2218/ijdc.v5i1.143}}</ref>, and data repositories can play a role in maintaining the data in a usable structure.<ref name="AssanteAreSci16">{{cite journal \|title=Are Scientific Data Repositories Coping with Research Data Publishing? \|journal=Data Science Journal \|author=Assante, M.; Candela, L.; Castelli, D. et al. \|volume=15 \|issue=6 \|pages=1–24 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.5334/dsj-2016-006}}</ref> However, using a data repository does not guarantee that the data is usable, since not every repository uses the same procedures and quality metrics, such as applying proper metadata tags.<ref name="MersonAvoid16">{{cite journal \|title=Avoiding Data Dumpsters--Toward Equitable and Useful Data Sharing \|journal=New England Journal of Medicine \|author=Merson, L.; Gaye, O.; Guerin, P.J. \|volume=374 \|issue=25 \|pages=2414-5 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1056/NEJMp1605148 \|pmid=27168351}}</ref> As many repositories have not yet adopted generally accepted standards, it can be difficult for researchers to choose the right repository for their dataset.<ref name="DobratzTheUse10" />		Data sharing and data management are topics that are becoming increasingly important. More information is appearing about their benefits, such as increased citation rates for research papers with associated shared datasets.<ref name="PiwowarDataReuse13">{{cite journal \|title=Data reuse and the open data citation advantage \|journal=PeerJ \|author=Piwowar, H.A.; Vision, T.J. \|volume=1 \|pages=e175 \|year=2013 \|doi=10.7717/peerj.175 \|pmid=24109559 \|pmc=PMC3792178}}</ref><ref name="PiwowarSharing07">{{cite journal \|title=Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate \|journal=PLoS One \|author=Piwowar, H.A.; Day, R.S.; Fridsma, D.B. \|volume=2 \|issue=3 \|pages=e308 \|year=2007 \|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0000308 \|pmid=17375194 \|pmc=PMC1817752}}</ref> A growing number of funding bodies such as the NIH and the Wellcome Trust<ref name="NIHGrants15">{{cite web \|url=https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/nihgps.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=NIH Grants Policy Statement \|publisher=National Institutes of Health \|date=2015 \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref><ref name="WellcomePolicy">{{cite web \|url=https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/managing-grant/policy-data-software-materials-management-and-sharing \|title=Policy on data, software and materials management and sharing \|publisher=Wellcome Trust \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, as well as several journals<ref name="BorgmanTheConun12">{{cite journal \|title=The conundrum of sharing research data \|journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology \|author=Borgman, C.L. \|volume=63 \|issue=6 \|pages=1059-1078 \|year=2012 \|doi=10.1002/asi.22634}}</ref>, have installed policies that require research data to be shared.<ref name="MayernikPeer14">{{cite journal \|title=Peer Review of Datasets: When, Why, and How \|journal=Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society \|author=Mayernik, M.S.; Callaghan, S.; Leigh, R. et al. \|volume=96 \|issue=2 \|pages=191–201 \|year=2014 \|doi=10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00083.1}}</ref> To be able to share data, both now and in the future, datasets not only need to be preserved but also need to be comprehensible and usable for others. To ensure these qualities, research data needs to be managed<ref name="DobratzTheUse10">{{cite journal \|title=The Use of Quality Management Standards in Trustworthy Digital Archives \|journal=International Journal of Digital Curation \|author=Dobratz, S.; Rödig, P.; Borghoff, U.M. et al. \|volume=5 \|issue=1 \|pages=46–63 \|year=2010 \|doi=10.2218/ijdc.v5i1.143}}</ref>, and data repositories can play a role in maintaining the data in a usable structure.<ref name="AssanteAreSci16">{{cite journal \|title=Are Scientific Data Repositories Coping with Research Data Publishing? \|journal=Data Science Journal \|author=Assante, M.; Candela, L.; Castelli, D. et al. \|volume=15 \|issue=6 \|pages=1–24 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.5334/dsj-2016-006}}</ref> However, using a data repository does not guarantee that the data is usable, since not every repository uses the same procedures and quality metrics, such as applying proper metadata tags.<ref name="MersonAvoid16">{{cite journal \|title=Avoiding Data Dumpsters--Toward Equitable and Useful Data Sharing \|journal=New England Journal of Medicine \|author=Merson, L.; Gaye, O.; Guerin, P.J. \|volume=374 \|issue=25 \|pages=2414-5 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1056/NEJMp1605148 \|pmid=27168351}}</ref> As many repositories have not yet adopted generally accepted standards, it can be difficult for researchers to choose the right repository for their dataset.<ref name="DobratzTheUse10" />

	Several organizations, including funding agencies, academic publishers, and data organizations provide researchers with lists of supported or recommended repositories, e.g., BioSharing.<ref name="McQuiltonBioSharing16">{{cite journal \|title=BioSharing: ~~curated~~ and crowd-sourced metadata standards, databases and data policies in the life sciences \|journal=Database \|author=McQuilton, P.; Gonzalez-Beltran, A.; Rocca-Serra, P. et al. \|volume=2016 \|pages=baw075 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1093/database/baw075 \|pmid=27189610 \|pmc=PMC4869797}}</ref> These lists vary in length, in the number and type of repositories they list, and in their selection criteria for recommendation. In addition, recommendations for data and data sharing are emerging, such as the [[Journal:The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship\|FAIR Data Principles]], guidelines to establish a common ground for all data to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.<ref name="WilkinsonTheFAIR16">{{cite journal \|title=The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship \|journal=Scientific Data \|author=Wilkinson, M.D.; Dumontier, M.; Aalbersberg, I.J. et al. \|volume=3 \|pages=160018 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1038/sdata.2016.18 \|pmid=26978244 \|pmc=PMC4792175}}</ref> Some data repositories are beginning to incorporate the FAIR principles into their policies, such as the UK Data Service<ref name="UKDSTheFair16">{{cite web \|url=https://www.ukdataservice.ac.uk/news-and-events/newsitem/?id=4615 \|title=The 'FAIR' principles for scientific data management \|publisher=UK Data Service \|date=08 June 2016 \|accessdate=28 October 2016}}</ref> and several funders such as the EU Horizon 2020 program and the NIH.<ref name="ECGuide16">{{cite web \|url=http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=Guidelines on FAIR Data Management in Horizon 2020 \|publisher=European Commission \|date=26 July 2016 \|accessdate=27 October 2016}}</ref><ref name="NIHBigData17">{{cite web \|url=https://commonfund.nih.gov/bd2k \|title=Big Data to Knowledge \|publisher=National Institutes of Health \|date=2017}}</ref> Lists of recommended repositories and guidelines such as these can help researchers decide how and where to store and share their data.		Several organizations, including funding agencies, academic publishers, and data organizations provide researchers with lists of supported or recommended repositories, e.g., BioSharing.<ref name="McQuiltonBioSharing16">{{cite journal \|title=BioSharing: Curated and crowd-sourced metadata standards, databases and data policies in the life sciences \|journal=Database \|author=McQuilton, P.; Gonzalez-Beltran, A.; Rocca-Serra, P. et al. \|volume=2016 \|pages=baw075 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1093/database/baw075 \|pmid=27189610 \|pmc=PMC4869797}}</ref> These lists vary in length, in the number and type of repositories they list, and in their selection criteria for recommendation. In addition, recommendations for data and data sharing are emerging, such as the [[Journal:The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship\|FAIR Data Principles]], guidelines to establish a common ground for all data to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.<ref name="WilkinsonTheFAIR16">{{cite journal \|title=The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship \|journal=Scientific Data \|author=Wilkinson, M.D.; Dumontier, M.; Aalbersberg, I.J. et al. \|volume=3 \|pages=160018 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1038/sdata.2016.18 \|pmid=26978244 \|pmc=PMC4792175}}</ref> Some data repositories are beginning to incorporate the FAIR principles into their policies, such as the UK Data Service<ref name="UKDSTheFair16">{{cite web \|url=https://www.ukdataservice.ac.uk/news-and-events/newsitem/?id=4615 \|title=The 'FAIR' principles for scientific data management \|publisher=UK Data Service \|date=08 June 2016 \|accessdate=28 October 2016}}</ref> and several funders such as the EU Horizon 2020 program and the NIH.<ref name="ECGuide16">{{cite web \|url=http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=Guidelines on FAIR Data Management in Horizon 2020 \|publisher=European Commission \|date=26 July 2016 \|accessdate=27 October 2016}}</ref><ref name="NIHBigData17">{{cite web \|url=https://commonfund.nih.gov/bd2k \|title=Big Data to Knowledge \|publisher=National Institutes of Health \|date=2017}}</ref> Lists of recommended repositories and guidelines such as these can help researchers decide how and where to store and share their data.

	Next to lists of recommended repositories, there are a number of schemes which specifically certify the quality of data repositories. One of the first of these certification schemes is the Data Seal of Approval (DSA), with an objective "to safeguard data, to ensure high quality and to guide reliable management of data for the future without requiring the implementation of new standards, regulations or high costs."<ref name="DSAAbout">{{cite web \|url=https://www.datasealofapproval.org/en/information/about/ \|title=Data Seal of Approval: About \|publisher=DSA Board \|accessdate=18 January 2017}}</ref> Building upon the DSA certification, but with more elaborate and detailed guidelines<ref name="DilloTen15">{{cite journal \|title=Ten Years Back, Five Years Forward: The Data Seal of Approval \|journal=International Journal of Digital Curation \|author=Dillo, I.; de Leeuw, L. \|volume=10 \|issue=1 \|pages=363 \|year=2015 \|doi=10.2218/ijdc.v10i1.363}}</ref>, is the Network of Expertise in Long-Term Storage of Digital Resources (NESTOR) and the ISO 16363 standard/Trusted Data Repository (TDR). DSA, NESTOR, and TDR form a three-step framework for data repository certification.<ref name="DilloTen15" /> The ICSU-WDS membership incorporates guidelines from DSA, NESTOR and Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC), among others, for its data repository framework.<ref name="ICSUCert12">{{cite web \|url=https://www.icsu-wds.org/files/wds-certification-summary-11-june-2012.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=Certification of WDS Members \|publisher=ICSU World Data System \|date=11 June 2012 \|accessdate=28 October 2016}}</ref> Furthermore, the TRAC guidelines were used as a basis for the ISO 16363/TDR guidelines.<ref name="CCSDSRecomm11">{{cite web \|url=https://public.ccsds.org/pubs/652x0m1.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories \|publisher=CCSDS \|date=September 2011 \|accessdate=28 October 2016}}</ref>		Next to lists of recommended repositories, there are a number of schemes which specifically certify the quality of data repositories. One of the first of these certification schemes is the Data Seal of Approval (DSA), with an objective "to safeguard data, to ensure high quality and to guide reliable management of data for the future without requiring the implementation of new standards, regulations or high costs."<ref name="DSAAbout">{{cite web \|url=https://www.datasealofapproval.org/en/information/about/ \|title=Data Seal of Approval: About \|publisher=DSA Board \|accessdate=18 January 2017}}</ref> Building upon the DSA certification, but with more elaborate and detailed guidelines<ref name="DilloTen15">{{cite journal \|title=Ten Years Back, Five Years Forward: The Data Seal of Approval \|journal=International Journal of Digital Curation \|author=Dillo, I.; de Leeuw, L. \|volume=10 \|issue=1 \|pages=363 \|year=2015 \|doi=10.2218/ijdc.v10i1.363}}</ref>, is the Network of Expertise in Long-Term Storage of Digital Resources (NESTOR) and the ISO 16363 standard/Trusted Data Repository (TDR). DSA, NESTOR, and TDR form a three-step framework for data repository certification.<ref name="DilloTen15" /> The ICSU-WDS membership incorporates guidelines from DSA, NESTOR and Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC), among others, for its data repository framework.<ref name="ICSUCert12">{{cite web \|url=https://www.icsu-wds.org/files/wds-certification-summary-11-june-2012.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=Certification of WDS Members \|publisher=ICSU World Data System \|date=11 June 2012 \|accessdate=28 October 2016}}</ref> Furthermore, the TRAC guidelines were used as a basis for the ISO 16363/TDR guidelines.<ref name="CCSDSRecomm11">{{cite web \|url=https://public.ccsds.org/pubs/652x0m1.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories \|publisher=CCSDS \|date=September 2011 \|accessdate=28 October 2016}}</ref>

			Given the multitude of recommendations and certification schemes, we set out to map the current landscape to compare criteria and analyze which repositories are recommended and certified by different parties. This paper is structured as follows: first, we investigate which repositories have been recommended and certified by different organizations. Next, we provide an analysis of the criteria used by organizations recommending repositories and the criteria used by certification schemes, and then derive a set of shared criteria for recommendation and certification. Lastly, we explore what this tells us about the overlap between recommendations and certifications.

			==Methods==
			===Lists of repositories===
			====Recommended repositories====
			To examine which repositories are being recommended, we looked at the recommendations of 17 different organizations, including academic publishers, funding agencies, and data organizations. These lists of recommended repositories include all the available recommendation lists currently found on the BioSharing (now "FAIRsharing") website under the Recommendations tab<ref name="FAIRsharingRecomm">{{cite web \|url=https://fairsharing.org/recommendations/ \|title=Recommendations \|work=FAIRsharing.org \|publisher=University of Oxford}}</ref> and those found in a web search by using the term “recommended data repositories.” These lists have been compiled by the American Geophysical Union, BBSRC<ref name="BBSRCResources">{{cite web \|url=http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/research/resources/ \|title=Resources \|publisher=BBSRC \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, BioSharing<ref name="FAIRsharingDatabases">{{cite web \|url=https://fairsharing.org/databases/?q=&selected_facets=recommended:true \|title=Databases \|work=FAIRsharing.org \|publisher=University of Oxford}}</ref>, COPDESS<ref name="COPDESSSearch">{{cite web \|url=https://copdessdirectory.osf.io/search/ \|title=Search for Repositories \|publisher=COPDESS \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, DataMed<ref name="DataMedRepos">{{cite web \|url=https://datamed.org/repository_list.php \|title=Repository List \|publisher=bioCADDIE \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Elsevier<ref name="ElsevierSupp">{{cite web \|url=https://www.elsevier.com/authors/author-services/research-data/data-base-linking/supported-data-repositories \|title=Supported Data Repositories \|publisher=Elsevier \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, EMBO Press<ref name="EMBOAuthor">{{cite web \|url=http://msb.embopress.org/authorguide#datadeposition \|title=Data Deposition \|work=Author Guidelines \|publisher=EMBO Press \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, F1000Research<ref name="F1000Data">{{cite web \|url=https://f1000research.com/for-authors/data-guidelines \|title=Data Guidelines \|work=How to Publish \|publisher=F1000 Research \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, GigaScience<ref name="GigsScienceEditor">{{cite web \|url=https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/pages/editorial_policies_and_reporting_standards \|title=Editorial Policies & Reporting Standards \|publisher=Oxford University Press \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, NIH<ref name="NIHDataSharing">{{cite web \|url=https://www.nlm.nih.gov/NIHbmic/nih_data_sharing_repositories.html \|title=NIH Data Sharing Repositories \|publisher=U.S. National Library of Medicine \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, PLOS<ref name="PLOSDataAvail">{{cite web \|url=http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability \|title=Data Availability \|publisher=PLOS \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Scientific Data<ref name="SciDataRecommended">{{cite web \|url=https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories \|title=Recommended Data Repositories \|work=Scientific Data \|publisher=Macmillan Publishers Limited \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Springer Nature/BioMed Central (both share the same list)<ref name="SpringerNatRecomm">{{cite web \|url=http://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/research-data-policy/repositories/12327124?countryChanged=true \|title=Recommended Repositories \|work=Springer Nature \|publisher=Springer-Verlag GmbH \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Web of Science<ref name="WebofScienceMaster">{{cite web \|url=http://wokinfo.com/cgi-bin/dci/search.cgi \|title=Master Data Repository List \|work=Web of Science \|publisher=Clarivate Analytics \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, Wellcome Trust<ref name="WellcomeDataRepos">{{cite web \|url=https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/managing-grant/data-repositories-and-database-resources \|title=Data repositories and database resources \|publisher=Wellcome Trust \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, and Wiley. All lists, including links to the online lists, were compiled into one list to compare recommendations (http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/zx2kcyvvwm.1). Not all data repositories indexed by the Web of Science’s Data Citation Index (DCI) were included as there is no publicly available list with all repositories indexed by the DCI, so retrieval of recommended repositories was done through an individual search. The repositories indexed by Re3Data were not included in our list of recommended repositories as Re3data functions as “a global registry of research data repositories”<ref name="RE3DATAAbout">{{cite web \|url=https://www.re3data.org/about \|title=About \|work=re3data.org \|publisher=Karlsruhe Institute of Technology \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref> and thus does not recommend repositories. However, Re3Data was used to verify the repository’s status, persistent identifiers, and obtained certifications.

	==References==		==References==
Line 40:		Line 47:

	==Notes==		==Notes==
	This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version — by design — lists them in order of appearance.		This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version — by design — lists them in order of appearance. The BioSharing website has since become the "FAIRSharing" website, and as such the original BioSharing links point to the new website. Several other website URLs have also changed, and the updated URL is used here. The original includes several inline citations that are not listed in the references section; they have been omitted here.

	<!--Place all category tags here-->		<!--Place all category tags here-->

Shawndouglas: Saving and adding more.

2017-10-17T21:45:45Z

Saving and adding more.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:45, 17 October 2017
Line 33:		Line 33:

	Several organizations, including funding agencies, academic publishers, and data organizations provide researchers with lists of supported or recommended repositories, e.g., BioSharing.<ref name="McQuiltonBioSharing16">{{cite journal \|title=BioSharing: curated and crowd-sourced metadata standards, databases and data policies in the life sciences \|journal=Database \|author=McQuilton, P.; Gonzalez-Beltran, A.; Rocca-Serra, P. et al. \|volume=2016 \|pages=baw075 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1093/database/baw075 \|pmid=27189610 \|pmc=PMC4869797}}</ref> These lists vary in length, in the number and type of repositories they list, and in their selection criteria for recommendation. In addition, recommendations for data and data sharing are emerging, such as the [[Journal:The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship\|FAIR Data Principles]], guidelines to establish a common ground for all data to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.<ref name="WilkinsonTheFAIR16">{{cite journal \|title=The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship \|journal=Scientific Data \|author=Wilkinson, M.D.; Dumontier, M.; Aalbersberg, I.J. et al. \|volume=3 \|pages=160018 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1038/sdata.2016.18 \|pmid=26978244 \|pmc=PMC4792175}}</ref> Some data repositories are beginning to incorporate the FAIR principles into their policies, such as the UK Data Service<ref name="UKDSTheFair16">{{cite web \|url=https://www.ukdataservice.ac.uk/news-and-events/newsitem/?id=4615 \|title=The 'FAIR' principles for scientific data management \|publisher=UK Data Service \|date=08 June 2016 \|accessdate=28 October 2016}}</ref> and several funders such as the EU Horizon 2020 program and the NIH.<ref name="ECGuide16">{{cite web \|url=http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=Guidelines on FAIR Data Management in Horizon 2020 \|publisher=European Commission \|date=26 July 2016 \|accessdate=27 October 2016}}</ref><ref name="NIHBigData17">{{cite web \|url=https://commonfund.nih.gov/bd2k \|title=Big Data to Knowledge \|publisher=National Institutes of Health \|date=2017}}</ref> Lists of recommended repositories and guidelines such as these can help researchers decide how and where to store and share their data.		Several organizations, including funding agencies, academic publishers, and data organizations provide researchers with lists of supported or recommended repositories, e.g., BioSharing.<ref name="McQuiltonBioSharing16">{{cite journal \|title=BioSharing: curated and crowd-sourced metadata standards, databases and data policies in the life sciences \|journal=Database \|author=McQuilton, P.; Gonzalez-Beltran, A.; Rocca-Serra, P. et al. \|volume=2016 \|pages=baw075 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1093/database/baw075 \|pmid=27189610 \|pmc=PMC4869797}}</ref> These lists vary in length, in the number and type of repositories they list, and in their selection criteria for recommendation. In addition, recommendations for data and data sharing are emerging, such as the [[Journal:The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship\|FAIR Data Principles]], guidelines to establish a common ground for all data to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.<ref name="WilkinsonTheFAIR16">{{cite journal \|title=The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship \|journal=Scientific Data \|author=Wilkinson, M.D.; Dumontier, M.; Aalbersberg, I.J. et al. \|volume=3 \|pages=160018 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1038/sdata.2016.18 \|pmid=26978244 \|pmc=PMC4792175}}</ref> Some data repositories are beginning to incorporate the FAIR principles into their policies, such as the UK Data Service<ref name="UKDSTheFair16">{{cite web \|url=https://www.ukdataservice.ac.uk/news-and-events/newsitem/?id=4615 \|title=The 'FAIR' principles for scientific data management \|publisher=UK Data Service \|date=08 June 2016 \|accessdate=28 October 2016}}</ref> and several funders such as the EU Horizon 2020 program and the NIH.<ref name="ECGuide16">{{cite web \|url=http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=Guidelines on FAIR Data Management in Horizon 2020 \|publisher=European Commission \|date=26 July 2016 \|accessdate=27 October 2016}}</ref><ref name="NIHBigData17">{{cite web \|url=https://commonfund.nih.gov/bd2k \|title=Big Data to Knowledge \|publisher=National Institutes of Health \|date=2017}}</ref> Lists of recommended repositories and guidelines such as these can help researchers decide how and where to store and share their data.

			Next to lists of recommended repositories, there are a number of schemes which specifically certify the quality of data repositories. One of the first of these certification schemes is the Data Seal of Approval (DSA), with an objective "to safeguard data, to ensure high quality and to guide reliable management of data for the future without requiring the implementation of new standards, regulations or high costs."<ref name="DSAAbout">{{cite web \|url=https://www.datasealofapproval.org/en/information/about/ \|title=Data Seal of Approval: About \|publisher=DSA Board \|accessdate=18 January 2017}}</ref> Building upon the DSA certification, but with more elaborate and detailed guidelines<ref name="DilloTen15">{{cite journal \|title=Ten Years Back, Five Years Forward: The Data Seal of Approval \|journal=International Journal of Digital Curation \|author=Dillo, I.; de Leeuw, L. \|volume=10 \|issue=1 \|pages=363 \|year=2015 \|doi=10.2218/ijdc.v10i1.363}}</ref>, is the Network of Expertise in Long-Term Storage of Digital Resources (NESTOR) and the ISO 16363 standard/Trusted Data Repository (TDR). DSA, NESTOR, and TDR form a three-step framework for data repository certification.<ref name="DilloTen15" /> The ICSU-WDS membership incorporates guidelines from DSA, NESTOR and Trustworthy Repositories Audit & Certification (TRAC), among others, for its data repository framework.<ref name="ICSUCert12">{{cite web \|url=https://www.icsu-wds.org/files/wds-certification-summary-11-june-2012.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=Certification of WDS Members \|publisher=ICSU World Data System \|date=11 June 2012 \|accessdate=28 October 2016}}</ref> Furthermore, the TRAC guidelines were used as a basis for the ISO 16363/TDR guidelines.<ref name="CCSDSRecomm11">{{cite web \|url=https://public.ccsds.org/pubs/652x0m1.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories \|publisher=CCSDS \|date=September 2011 \|accessdate=28 October 2016}}</ref>

	==References==		==References==

Shawndouglas: Saving and adding more.

2017-10-17T21:16:42Z

Saving and adding more.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:16, 17 October 2017
Line 31:		Line 31:
	==Introduction==		==Introduction==
	Data sharing and data management are topics that are becoming increasingly important. More information is appearing about their benefits, such as increased citation rates for research papers with associated shared datasets.<ref name="PiwowarDataReuse13">{{cite journal \|title=Data reuse and the open data citation advantage \|journal=PeerJ \|author=Piwowar, H.A.; Vision, T.J. \|volume=1 \|pages=e175 \|year=2013 \|doi=10.7717/peerj.175 \|pmid=24109559 \|pmc=PMC3792178}}</ref><ref name="PiwowarSharing07">{{cite journal \|title=Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate \|journal=PLoS One \|author=Piwowar, H.A.; Day, R.S.; Fridsma, D.B. \|volume=2 \|issue=3 \|pages=e308 \|year=2007 \|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0000308 \|pmid=17375194 \|pmc=PMC1817752}}</ref> A growing number of funding bodies such as the NIH and the Wellcome Trust<ref name="NIHGrants15">{{cite web \|url=https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/nihgps.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=NIH Grants Policy Statement \|publisher=National Institutes of Health \|date=2015 \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref><ref name="WellcomePolicy">{{cite web \|url=https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/managing-grant/policy-data-software-materials-management-and-sharing \|title=Policy on data, software and materials management and sharing \|publisher=Wellcome Trust \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, as well as several journals<ref name="BorgmanTheConun12">{{cite journal \|title=The conundrum of sharing research data \|journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology \|author=Borgman, C.L. \|volume=63 \|issue=6 \|pages=1059-1078 \|year=2012 \|doi=10.1002/asi.22634}}</ref>, have installed policies that require research data to be shared.<ref name="MayernikPeer14">{{cite journal \|title=Peer Review of Datasets: When, Why, and How \|journal=Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society \|author=Mayernik, M.S.; Callaghan, S.; Leigh, R. et al. \|volume=96 \|issue=2 \|pages=191–201 \|year=2014 \|doi=10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00083.1}}</ref> To be able to share data, both now and in the future, datasets not only need to be preserved but also need to be comprehensible and usable for others. To ensure these qualities, research data needs to be managed<ref name="DobratzTheUse10">{{cite journal \|title=The Use of Quality Management Standards in Trustworthy Digital Archives \|journal=International Journal of Digital Curation \|author=Dobratz, S.; Rödig, P.; Borghoff, U.M. et al. \|volume=5 \|issue=1 \|pages=46–63 \|year=2010 \|doi=10.2218/ijdc.v5i1.143}}</ref>, and data repositories can play a role in maintaining the data in a usable structure.<ref name="AssanteAreSci16">{{cite journal \|title=Are Scientific Data Repositories Coping with Research Data Publishing? \|journal=Data Science Journal \|author=Assante, M.; Candela, L.; Castelli, D. et al. \|volume=15 \|issue=6 \|pages=1–24 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.5334/dsj-2016-006}}</ref> However, using a data repository does not guarantee that the data is usable, since not every repository uses the same procedures and quality metrics, such as applying proper metadata tags.<ref name="MersonAvoid16">{{cite journal \|title=Avoiding Data Dumpsters--Toward Equitable and Useful Data Sharing \|journal=New England Journal of Medicine \|author=Merson, L.; Gaye, O.; Guerin, P.J. \|volume=374 \|issue=25 \|pages=2414-5 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1056/NEJMp1605148 \|pmid=27168351}}</ref> As many repositories have not yet adopted generally accepted standards, it can be difficult for researchers to choose the right repository for their dataset.<ref name="DobratzTheUse10" />		Data sharing and data management are topics that are becoming increasingly important. More information is appearing about their benefits, such as increased citation rates for research papers with associated shared datasets.<ref name="PiwowarDataReuse13">{{cite journal \|title=Data reuse and the open data citation advantage \|journal=PeerJ \|author=Piwowar, H.A.; Vision, T.J. \|volume=1 \|pages=e175 \|year=2013 \|doi=10.7717/peerj.175 \|pmid=24109559 \|pmc=PMC3792178}}</ref><ref name="PiwowarSharing07">{{cite journal \|title=Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate \|journal=PLoS One \|author=Piwowar, H.A.; Day, R.S.; Fridsma, D.B. \|volume=2 \|issue=3 \|pages=e308 \|year=2007 \|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0000308 \|pmid=17375194 \|pmc=PMC1817752}}</ref> A growing number of funding bodies such as the NIH and the Wellcome Trust<ref name="NIHGrants15">{{cite web \|url=https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/nihgps.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=NIH Grants Policy Statement \|publisher=National Institutes of Health \|date=2015 \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref><ref name="WellcomePolicy">{{cite web \|url=https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/managing-grant/policy-data-software-materials-management-and-sharing \|title=Policy on data, software and materials management and sharing \|publisher=Wellcome Trust \|accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, as well as several journals<ref name="BorgmanTheConun12">{{cite journal \|title=The conundrum of sharing research data \|journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology \|author=Borgman, C.L. \|volume=63 \|issue=6 \|pages=1059-1078 \|year=2012 \|doi=10.1002/asi.22634}}</ref>, have installed policies that require research data to be shared.<ref name="MayernikPeer14">{{cite journal \|title=Peer Review of Datasets: When, Why, and How \|journal=Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society \|author=Mayernik, M.S.; Callaghan, S.; Leigh, R. et al. \|volume=96 \|issue=2 \|pages=191–201 \|year=2014 \|doi=10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00083.1}}</ref> To be able to share data, both now and in the future, datasets not only need to be preserved but also need to be comprehensible and usable for others. To ensure these qualities, research data needs to be managed<ref name="DobratzTheUse10">{{cite journal \|title=The Use of Quality Management Standards in Trustworthy Digital Archives \|journal=International Journal of Digital Curation \|author=Dobratz, S.; Rödig, P.; Borghoff, U.M. et al. \|volume=5 \|issue=1 \|pages=46–63 \|year=2010 \|doi=10.2218/ijdc.v5i1.143}}</ref>, and data repositories can play a role in maintaining the data in a usable structure.<ref name="AssanteAreSci16">{{cite journal \|title=Are Scientific Data Repositories Coping with Research Data Publishing? \|journal=Data Science Journal \|author=Assante, M.; Candela, L.; Castelli, D. et al. \|volume=15 \|issue=6 \|pages=1–24 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.5334/dsj-2016-006}}</ref> However, using a data repository does not guarantee that the data is usable, since not every repository uses the same procedures and quality metrics, such as applying proper metadata tags.<ref name="MersonAvoid16">{{cite journal \|title=Avoiding Data Dumpsters--Toward Equitable and Useful Data Sharing \|journal=New England Journal of Medicine \|author=Merson, L.; Gaye, O.; Guerin, P.J. \|volume=374 \|issue=25 \|pages=2414-5 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1056/NEJMp1605148 \|pmid=27168351}}</ref> As many repositories have not yet adopted generally accepted standards, it can be difficult for researchers to choose the right repository for their dataset.<ref name="DobratzTheUse10" />

			Several organizations, including funding agencies, academic publishers, and data organizations provide researchers with lists of supported or recommended repositories, e.g., BioSharing.<ref name="McQuiltonBioSharing16">{{cite journal \|title=BioSharing: curated and crowd-sourced metadata standards, databases and data policies in the life sciences \|journal=Database \|author=McQuilton, P.; Gonzalez-Beltran, A.; Rocca-Serra, P. et al. \|volume=2016 \|pages=baw075 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1093/database/baw075 \|pmid=27189610 \|pmc=PMC4869797}}</ref> These lists vary in length, in the number and type of repositories they list, and in their selection criteria for recommendation. In addition, recommendations for data and data sharing are emerging, such as the [[Journal:The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship\|FAIR Data Principles]], guidelines to establish a common ground for all data to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.<ref name="WilkinsonTheFAIR16">{{cite journal \|title=The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship \|journal=Scientific Data \|author=Wilkinson, M.D.; Dumontier, M.; Aalbersberg, I.J. et al. \|volume=3 \|pages=160018 \|year=2016 \|doi=10.1038/sdata.2016.18 \|pmid=26978244 \|pmc=PMC4792175}}</ref> Some data repositories are beginning to incorporate the FAIR principles into their policies, such as the UK Data Service<ref name="UKDSTheFair16">{{cite web \|url=https://www.ukdataservice.ac.uk/news-and-events/newsitem/?id=4615 \|title=The 'FAIR' principles for scientific data management \|publisher=UK Data Service \|date=08 June 2016 \|accessdate=28 October 2016}}</ref> and several funders such as the EU Horizon 2020 program and the NIH.<ref name="ECGuide16">{{cite web \|url=http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-data-mgt_en.pdf \|format=PDF \|title=Guidelines on FAIR Data Management in Horizon 2020 \|publisher=European Commission \|date=26 July 2016 \|accessdate=27 October 2016}}</ref><ref name="NIHBigData17">{{cite web \|url=https://commonfund.nih.gov/bd2k \|title=Big Data to Knowledge \|publisher=National Institutes of Health \|date=2017}}</ref> Lists of recommended repositories and guidelines such as these can help researchers decide how and where to store and share their data.

	==References==		==References==

Shawndouglas: Created stub. Saving and adding more.

2017-10-17T20:52:45Z

Created stub. Saving and adding more.

New page

{{Infobox journal article
|name =
|image =
|alt = 
|caption =
|title_full = Recommended versus certified repositories: Mind the gap
|journal = ''Data Science Journal''
|authors = Husen, Sean Edward; de Wilde, Zoë G.; de Waard, Anita; Cousijn, Helena
|affiliations = Leiden University, Elsevier
|contact = Email: s dot e dot husen at hum dot leidenuniv dot nl
|editors =
|pub_year = 2017
|vol_iss = '''16'''(1)
|pages = 42
|doi = [http://10.5334/dsj-2017-042 10.5334/dsj-2017-042]
|issn = 1683-1470
|license = [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International]
|website = [https://datascience.codata.org/article/10.5334/dsj-2017-042/ https://datascience.codata.org/article/10.5334/dsj-2017-042/]
|download = [https://datascience.codata.org/articles/10.5334/dsj-2017-042/galley/710/download/ https://datascience.codata.org/articles/10.5334/dsj-2017-042/galley/710/download/] (PDF)
}}
{{ombox
| type = content
| style = width: 500px;
| text = This article should not be considered complete until this message box has been removed. This is a work in progress.
}}
==Abstract==
Researchers are increasingly required to make research data publicly available in data repositories. Although several organizations propose criteria to recommend and evaluate the quality of data repositories, there is no consensus of what constitutes a good data repository. In this paper, we investigate, first, which data repositories are recommended by various stakeholders (publishers, funders, and community organizations) and second, which repositories are certified by a number of organizations. We then compare these two lists of repositories, and the criteria for recommendation and certification. We find that criteria used by organizations recommending and certifying repositories are similar, although the certification criteria are generally more detailed. We distill the lists of criteria into seven main categories: “Mission,” “Community/Recognition,” “Legal and Contractual Compliance,” “Access/Accessibility,” “Technical Structure/Interface,” “Retrievability,” and “Preservation.” Although the criteria are similar, the lists of repositories that are recommended by the various agencies are very different. Out of all of the recommended repositories, less than six percent obtained certification. As certification is becoming more important, steps should be taken to decrease this gap between recommended and certified repositories, and ensure that certification standards become applicable, and applied, to the repositories which researchers are currently using.

'''Keywords''': data repositories, data management, certification, data quality, data fitness

==Introduction==
Data sharing and data management are topics that are becoming increasingly important. More information is appearing about their benefits, such as increased citation rates for research papers with associated shared datasets.<ref name="PiwowarDataReuse13">{{cite journal |title=Data reuse and the open data citation advantage |journal=PeerJ |author=Piwowar, H.A.; Vision, T.J. |volume=1 |pages=e175 |year=2013 |doi=10.7717/peerj.175 |pmid=24109559 |pmc=PMC3792178}}</ref><ref name="PiwowarSharing07">{{cite journal |title=Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate |journal=PLoS One |author=Piwowar, H.A.; Day, R.S.; Fridsma, D.B. |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=e308 |year=2007 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0000308 |pmid=17375194 |pmc=PMC1817752}}</ref> A growing number of funding bodies such as the NIH and the Wellcome Trust<ref name="NIHGrants15">{{cite web |url=https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/nihgps.pdf |format=PDF |title=NIH Grants Policy Statement |publisher=National Institutes of Health |date=2015 |accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref><ref name="WellcomePolicy">{{cite web |url=https://wellcome.ac.uk/funding/managing-grant/policy-data-software-materials-management-and-sharing |title=Policy on data, software and materials management and sharing |publisher=Wellcome Trust |accessdate=27 January 2017}}</ref>, as well as several journals<ref name="BorgmanTheConun12">{{cite journal |title=The conundrum of sharing research data |journal=Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology |author=Borgman, C.L. |volume=63 |issue=6 |pages=1059-1078 |year=2012 |doi=10.1002/asi.22634}}</ref>, have installed policies that require research data to be shared.<ref name="MayernikPeer14">{{cite journal |title=Peer Review of Datasets: When, Why, and How |journal=Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society |author=Mayernik, M.S.; Callaghan, S.; Leigh, R. et al. |volume=96 |issue=2 |pages=191–201 |year=2014 |doi=10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00083.1}}</ref> To be able to share data, both now and in the future, datasets not only need to be preserved but also need to be comprehensible and usable for others. To ensure these qualities, research data needs to be managed<ref name="DobratzTheUse10">{{cite journal |title=The Use of Quality Management Standards in Trustworthy Digital Archives |journal=International Journal of Digital Curation |author=Dobratz, S.; Rödig, P.; Borghoff, U.M. et al. |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=46–63 |year=2010 |doi=10.2218/ijdc.v5i1.143}}</ref>, and data repositories can play a role in maintaining the data in a usable structure.<ref name="AssanteAreSci16">{{cite journal |title=Are Scientific Data Repositories Coping with Research Data Publishing? |journal=Data Science Journal |author=Assante, M.; Candela, L.; Castelli, D. et al. |volume=15 |issue=6 |pages=1–24 |year=2016 |doi=10.5334/dsj-2016-006}}</ref> However, using a data repository does not guarantee that the data is usable, since not every repository uses the same procedures and quality metrics, such as applying proper metadata tags.<ref name="MersonAvoid16">{{cite journal |title=Avoiding Data Dumpsters--Toward Equitable and Useful Data Sharing |journal=New England Journal of Medicine |author=Merson, L.; Gaye, O.; Guerin, P.J. |volume=374 |issue=25 |pages=2414-5 |year=2016 |doi=10.1056/NEJMp1605148 |pmid=27168351}}</ref> As many repositories have not yet adopted generally accepted standards, it can be difficult for researchers to choose the right repository for their dataset.<ref name="DobratzTheUse10" />

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==Notes==
This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version — by design — lists them in order of appearance.


[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles (added in 2017)‎]]
[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles (all)‎]]
[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles on big data‎‎]]
[[Category:LIMSwiki journal articles on informatics‎‎]]