Making Research Data Repositories Visible: The re3data.org Registry
| Title | Making Research Data Repositories Visible: The re3data.org Registry |
| Publication Type | Journal Article |
| Year of Publication | 2013 |
| Authors | Pampel, H., Vierkant P., Scholze F., Bertelmann R., Kindling M., Klump J., Goebelbecker H-J., Gundlach J., Schirmbacher P., & Dierolf U. |
| Journal | PLoS ONE |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue | 11 |
| Pagination | e78080 |
| Date Published | 2013//11/ |
| Abstract | Researchers require infrastructures that ensure a maximum of accessibility, stability and reliability to facilitate working with and sharing of research data. Such infrastructures are being increasingly summarized under the term Research Data Repositories (RDR). The project re3data.org–Registry of Research Data Repositories–has begun to index research data repositories in 2012 and offers researchers, funding organizations, libraries and publishers an overview of the heterogeneous research data repository landscape. In July 2013 re3data.org lists 400 research data repositories and counting. 288 of these are described in detail using the re3data.org vocabulary. Information icons help researchers to easily identify an adequate repository for the storage and reuse of their data. This article describes the heterogeneous RDR landscape and presents a typology of institutional, disciplinary, multidisciplinary and project-specific RDR. Further the article outlines the features of re3data.org, and shows how this registry helps to identify appropriate repositories for storage and search of research data. |
| URL | http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078080 |
Gap Area Study Type:
High-level Gap Areas:
Measurement Gap Areas:
Purpose:
Investigated the global landscape of research data repositories; presented a typology of institutional, disciplinary; outlined the features of re3data.org, and showed how this registry helps to identify appropriate repositories for storage and search of research data
Method:
Analyzed 400 research data repositories and requested comments on a project website and various email lists on an appropriate vocabulary to describe and present information (such as policies, responsibilities, and technical and quality standards for different repositories); analyzed criteria for repository certification and audit and developed a low barrier of entry to inclusion in in the repository registry.
