FAIREST: A Framework for Assessing Research Repositories

Author:

d'Aquin Mathieu1,Kirstein Fabian23,Oliveira Daniela4,Schimmler Sonja23,Urbanek Sebastian23

Affiliation:

1. LORIA, Université de Lorraine, CNRS, INRIA 54506, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France

2. Fraunhofer FOKUS, 10589 Berlin, Germany

3. Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society, 10623 Berlin, Germany

4. LaSIGE, Faculdade de Ciêcias, Universidade de Lisboa, 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal

Abstract

ABSTRACT The open science movement has gained significant momentum within the last few years. This comes along with the need to store and share research artefacts, such as publications and research data. For this purpose, research repositories need to be established. A variety of solutions exist for implementing such repositories, covering diverse features, ranging from custom depositing workflows to social media-like functions. In this article, we introduce the FAIREST principles, a framework inspired by the well-known FAIR principles, but designed to provide a set of metrics for assessing and selecting solutions for creating digital repositories for research artefacts. The goal is to support decision makers in choosing such a solution when planning for a repository, especially at an institutional level. The metrics included are therefore based on two pillars: (1) an analysis of established features and functionalities, drawn from existing dedicated, general purpose and commonly used solutions, and (2) a literature review on general requirements for digital repositories for research artefacts and related systems. We further describe an assessment of 11 widespread solutions, with the goal to provide an overview of the current landscape of research data repository solutions, identifying gaps and research challenges to be addressed.

Publisher

MIT Press

Subject

Artificial Intelligence,Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications,Information Systems

Reference35 articles.

1. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship;Wilkinson;Scientific Data,2016

2. Institutional repositories versus ResearchGate: The depositing habits of spanish researchers: Institutional repositories versus ResearchGate;Borrego;Learned Publishing,2017

3. A comparison of research data management platforms: architecture, flexible metadata and interoperability;Amorim;Universal Access in the Information Society,2017

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3