Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

re3data - Registry of Research Data Repositories

149 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

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

Veröffentlicht in: Wissenschaft
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

re3data - Registry of Research Data Repositories

  1. 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. 2. Background
  3. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9. simple search box filters results icons
  10. 10. Quality •  Definition •  „A research data repository is a subtype of a sustainable information infrastructure which provides long-term storage and access to research data. […]”
  11. 11. 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“
  12. 12. Workflow
  13. 13. Indexed repositories 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Growth of re3data Indexed Research Data Repositories
  14. 14. 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)
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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)
  17. 17. Governance
  18. 18. 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/
  19. 19. Browsing
  20. 20. Faceted search
  21. 21. Profil pages
  22. 22. Badges
  23. 23. Change requests
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. 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).
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. 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)
  34. 34. 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/

×