Dear all,
In the RDA FAIRsharing WG we have long advocated for journal and journal publisher data policies to ensure that datasets and other digital products associated with articles, are deposited and made accessible via the appropriate repositories, in line with the FAIR principles.
In a collaboration with Datacite and 11 major journal publishers (Cambridge University Press, eLife, Elsevier, F1000, GigaScience, Hindawi, Wiley, PLOS, SpringerNature and Taylor & Francis), we have created a set of proposed criteria that journals and publishers believe to be important for the identification and selection of data repositories, which can be recommended to research when they are preparing to publish the data underlying their findings.
These proposed criteria are intended to:
- guide journals and publishers in providing authors with consistent recommendations and guidance on data deposition, and improve authors’ data sharing practices;
- reduce potential for confusion of researchers and support staff, and reduce duplication of effort by different publishers and data repositories
- inform data repository developers and managers of the features believed to be important by journals and publishers;
- provide a basis for collaboration with certification and other evaluation initiatives, serving as a reference and perspective from journals and publishers;
- drive the curation of the description of the data repository in FAIRsharing, which will enable display, filter and search based on these criteria.
We invite you to read the pre-print article[1] that describes the work and provide any feedback you may have via this form[2].
For more information on this project, please see some of the participating publisher blog posts, listed below.
Best wishes,
Pete
[1] https://osf.io/m2bce/
[2] https://tinyurl.com/RepoCriteriaFeedback
--
Publisher blogs:
eLife - https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/7b9ba7ef/elife-latest-criteria-fo...
Elsevier - https://www.elsevier.com/connect/share-your-thoughts-to-make-data-sharin...
F1000 - https://blog.f1000.com/2019/11/29/data-repository-selection-criteria-tha...
GigaScience - http://gigasciencejournal.com/blog/fairsharing-data-repository-selection/
Hindawi - https://about.hindawi.com/blog/data-repository-selection-criteria-that-m...
Wiley - https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/latest-content/data-repository...
PLOS - https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/11/request-for-comments-on-data-reposit...
Taylor & Francis - https://librarianresources.taylorandfrancis.com/data-repository-selectio...
--
Peter McQuilton, PhD
FAIRsharing.org Project Coordinator
Data Readiness Group
Oxford e-Research Centre
Department of Engineering Sciences
University of Oxford, UK
ORCID: 0000-0003-2687-1982
- Log in to post comments
- 2102 reads
Author: Kathleen Shearer
Date: 11 Mar, 2021
There has been significant concern expressed in the repository community about the requirements contained in the Data Repository Selection: Criteria that Matter, which sets out a number of criteria for the identification and selection of data repositories that will be used by publishers to guide authors in terms of where they should deposit their data, including:
The concerns are outlined in a number of public statements that are linked from the COAR website: https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/input-to-data-repository-...
Author: Matthew Cannon
Date: 12 Mar, 2021
Further to Kathleen's post below I wanted to share an update on behalf of the project group. In response to the concerns raised on the preprint by COAR and other groups, a response has been prepared and shared on Zenodo here.
As planned, the group are currently working to revise the preprint. We outlined some potential changes in the response, and we will definitely be taking feedback received recently into consideration. To be transparent, the aim is to share an updated version of the document in advance of the scheduled discussions on the topic as part of the RDA plenary in April.
Best Wishes
Matt
_________________________________________________________
Matt Cannon - Head of Open Research
Taylor & Francis Group.
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN, UK.
Mob: +44 (0)7990 006524
Web: www.tandfonline.com
e-mail: ***@***.***
Twitter: @mattcannontf
[signature_1902900406]
Taylor & Francis is a trading name of Informa UK Limited, registered in England under no. 1072954
- Show quoted text -From: ***@***.***-groups.org <***@***.***-groups.org>
Sent: 11 March 2021 23:08
To: FAIRsharing Registry WG: connecting (meta)data standards, repositories and policies <***@***.***-groups.org>
Subject: Re: [rda-fairsharing-wg] Data Repository Selection Criteria - open for comments
There has been significant concern expressed in the repository community about the requirements contained in the Data Repository Selection: Criteria that Matter, which sets out a number of criteria for the identification and selection of data repositories that will be used by publishers to guide authors in terms of where they should deposit their data, including:
* Many repositories currently don't comply with the criteria. There are a number of domain repositories, generalist data repositories and institutional repositories that don't comply and do not have the resources to adopt the criteria; (anonymous review, support for versioning of data, etc). The publishers will use these criteria to direct authors as to where they can deposit their data and therefore most repositories will be disqualified.
* The criteria are too narrowly conceived. The current draft criteria are a mix of requirements. While the are not inherently bad, although they are skewed towards the needs of publishers to link and peer review the data, they do not include other important considerations for where an author may want to deposit. For example, an author may prefer to deposit data in their own jurisdiction, even if those local repositories are not compliant with these requirements.
* Publishers shouldn't be determining where authors deposit their data. It should be the researchers (and their funder) that decide the best location for data deposit. This approach gives tremendous control to these publishers to set the bar for repository compliance. Over time, if we cede the control to those publishers, this could (and probably will) lead to only well-resourced repositories being available to authors that publish in those journals.
The concerns are outlined in a number of public statements that are linked from the COAR website: https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/input-to-data-repository-...
--
Full post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fairsharing-registry-connecting-data-p...
Manage my subscriptions: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
Stop emails for this post: https://www.rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/66928
Information Classification: General