RDA-DE-Trainings-Workshop-2016 | Hamburg, 25.05.2016

1. re3data –
Registry of Research Data Repositories
Heinz Pampel & PaulVierkant | GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
RDA-DE-Trainings-Workshop 2016 | Hamburg, May 25, 2016

2. Background

3. Background
European Commisson. (2014). Horizon 2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreements.Version
1.6.2 .Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/
h2020-amga_en.pdf
• Funders‘ data policies
• Example: European Commission

4. Background
NPG (2013). Availability of data and materials. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/availability.html
PLOS (2014). PLOS Editorial and Publishing Policies. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/static/policies.action
• Journals‘ data policies
• Example: Nature Publishing Group
• “[...] authors are required to make materials, data and
associated protocols promptly available to readers
without undue qualifications.“
• Example: Public Library of Science - PLOS
• “PLOS journals require authors to make all data
underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully
available without restriction, with rare exception.“

5. Background
NPG (2013). Availability of data and materials. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/availability.html
PLOS (2014). PLOS Editorial and Publishing Policies. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/static/policies.action
• Journals‘ data policies
• Example: Nature Publishing Group
• “[...] authors are required to make materials, data and
associated protocols promptly available to readers
without undue qualifications.“
• Example: Public Library of Science - PLOS
• “PLOS journals require authors to make all data
underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully
available without restriction, with rare exception.“

6. Mission
Pampel, H. et al. (2013). Making Research Data
RepositoriesVisible:The re3data.org Registry.
PLOS ONE, 8(11), e78080. http://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0078080
• global registry of research data repositories
• covers all academic disciplines
• helps researchers, funding bodies, publishers,
libraries and scholarly institutions to find research
data repositories
• promotes a culture of sharing, increased access and
better visibility of research data

7. Metadata schema
Rücknagel, J. et al. (2015). Metadata Schema for
the Description of Research Data Repositories.
Version 3.0. Retrieved from http://doi.org/
10.2312/re3.008
41Properties
3.0Version
Based on Analyses,
Feedback and Experience

8. Icons
The research data repository provides
additional information on its service.
The research data repository
provides open/restricted/closed
access to its data.
The terms of use and licenses
of the data are provided by the
research data repository.
The research data repository
provides a policy.
The research data repository uses
a persistent identifier system to make its
provided data persistent, unique and citable.
The research data repository is
either certified or supports a
repository standard. RESEARCH
DATA
REPOSITORY
GENERAL
INFORMATION
POLICY
LEGAL
ASPECTS
TECHNICAL
STANDARDS
QUALITY
STANDARDS

9. simple
search box
filters
results icons

14. Quality
• Definition
• „A research data repository is a subtype of a sustainable
information infrastructure which provides long-term storage and
access to research data. […]”

15. Quality
• Registration Policy
• „To be registered in re3data.org a research data repository must
• be run by a legal entity, such as a sustainable institution (e.g.
library, university)
• clarify access conditions to the data and repository as well as
the terms of use
• have focus on research data“

16. Workflow

17. Indexed repositories
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Growth of re3data
Indexed Research
Data Repositories

18. Cooperation
• Deutsche Initiative für Netzwerkinformation (DINI)
• DataCite (MoU, April 2012)
• OpenAIRE (MoU, October 2013)
• BioSharing (MoU, November 2013)
• Databib (MoU, March 2014)
• DataCite (Formal cooperation, March 2015)

19. Policies
• Funder Example: European Commission
European Commission (2015): Guidelines on Open Accessto Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/
grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf
• Institutional Example: Bielefeld University
• „Verzeichnisse, wie das DFG-geförderte "Registry of Research Data Repositories", bilden die
Grundlage für die Suche nach geeigneten Publikationsorten für die Forschungsdaten.“
Universität Bielefeld (2011): Resolution zum Forschungsdatenmanagement. https://data.uni-bielefeld.de/de/resolution
• Publisher Example: Nature Publishing Group
• „Physics, astrophysics, astronomy and geoscience databases should be registered with
re3data.org.“
Scientific Data (2013): Data policies. http://www.nature.com/sdata/data-policies

20. Governance
• Merger with DataBib under the auspices of DataCite
• re3data.org working group within DataCite
• International Editorial Board
• Cooperations within RDA and the
research data repository community
• Community building and feedback
loops during RFC phases (e.g. re3data.org schema)

21. Governance

22. Openness
• Open interfaces
• RESTful API
• OpenSearch
• Documentation: http://www.re3data.org/api/doc
• Used e.g. by OpenAIRE
• Open metadata
• CC 0 deed for metadata
• Documentation: http://www.re3data.org/schema/

23. Browsing

24. Faceted search

25. Profil pages

26. Badges

27. Change requests

28. Analyse
• Sample: n = 1381 Repositorien (basierend auf
MetadatenschemaVersion 2.2 oder jünger)
• Datenbankabzug (SQL) vom 3. Dezember 2015
• Vorläufige Ergebnisse (deskriptiv) auf den nachfolgenden Folien
(Ausschnitt!)
• Artikel zur Datenanalyse in Arbeit
• Kindling, M., et al.: The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis.
2016. In Preparation. van de Sandt, S. et al.: Research Data Documenation:The Landscape of
Research Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.
49709
Vierkant, P., et al. (2014). Schema for the
Description of Research Data Repositories.
Version 2.2. doi:10.2312/re3.006

29. Repository types*
Kindling, M., et al.: The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. In Preparation. van de Sandt, S. et al.: Research Data Documenation:The Landscape of Research
Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.49709
*Ein FDR kann mehr als eine Angabe haben (n = 1766).
67,38%
23,05%
9,57%
disciplinary
ins;tu;onal
other

30. Content types*
Kindling, M., et al.: The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. In Preparation. van de Sandt, S. et al.: Research Data Documenation:The Landscape of Research
Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.49709
* Ein FDR kann mehr als eine Angabe haben (n = 6340; Durchschnittswert: 4,6).
27 49 104
204 253 258
339
446 490 541 586
686 690
786
881
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
count

31. Database access
Kindling, M., et al.: The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. In Preparation. van de Sandt, S. et al.: Research Data Documenation:The Landscape of Research
Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.49709
0,14%
95,51%
4,34%
closed
open
restricted

32. Data access*
Kindling, M., et al.: The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. In Preparation. van de Sandt, S. et al.: Research Data Documenation:The Landscape of Research
Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.49709
* Ein FDR kann mehr als eine Angabe haben (n = 2021).
5,10%
4,65%
58,93%
31,32%
closed
embargoed
open
restricted

33. Data licenses*
Kindling, M., et al.: The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. In Preparation. van de Sandt, S. et al.: Research Data Documenation:The Landscape of Research
Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.49709
*Ein FDR kann mehr als eine Angabe haben (n = 1895).
1 1 2 6 12 26 27
196
301
533
790
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
count

34. Certificates*
Kindling, M., et al.: The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. In Preparation. van de Sandt, S. et al.: Research Data Documenation:The Landscape of Research
Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.49709
1 1 1 2 3 6
14
52
72
109
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
DIN 31644 ISO 16363 Trusted
Digital
Repository
DINI
Cer;ficate
TRAC RatSWD CLARIN
cer;ficate B
Data Seal of
Approval
World Data
System
Other
count
*Ein FDR kann mehr als eine Angabe haben (n = 262).

35. APIs*
Kindling, M., et al.: The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. In Preparation. van de Sandt, S. et al.: Research Data Documenation:The Landscape of Research
Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.49709
*Application Programming Interfaces. Ein FDR kann mehr als eine Angabe haben (n = 830).
10 16 20 21
52
85
164
178
284
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
SPARQL OPeNDAP NetCDF SWORD SOAP OAI-PMH REST Other FTP
count

36. Persistent Identifier Systems*
Kindling, M., et al.: The Landscape of Research Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. In Preparation. van de Sandt, S. et al.: Research Data Documenation:The Landscape of Research
Data Repositories in 2015.A re3data Analysis. 2016. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.49709
*Ein FDR kann mehr als eine Angabe haben (n = 1421).
11 16 16
77 102
275
924
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
ARK PURL URN Other Handle DOI None
count
Persistent Iden;fier Systems

37. Thanks to the team!
• Roland Bertelmann, Nele Neuberger, Heinz Pampel, PaulVierkant
• GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, Library and Information Services (LIS)
• Florian Fritze, Maxi Kindling, Jessika Rücknagel, Peter Schirmbacher, Stephanie van de Sandt
• Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin School of Library and Information Science (BSLIS)
• Hans-Jürgen Goebelbecker, Gabriele Kloska, Evelyn Reuter, Frank Scholze, Edeltraud Schnepf,
Angelika Semrau, Michael Skarupianski, Robert Ulrich
• Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), KIT Library
• Michael Witt
• Purdue University, Distributed Data Curation Center (D2C2)

38. info@re3data.org
http://re3data.org
With the exception of all photos and graphics, this slides are licensed under the
“Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)“ Licence: http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/