[CODATA-international] re3data COREF project: Quality management in research data repositories - workshop documentation & survey results published

[Nina Weisweiler]

*Apologies for cross-posting*

Dear colleagues,

Data quality assurance is a fundamental issue for repositories that seek 
to ensure trust in their services. On October 5, 2022, this topic was 
addressed in a workshop, hosted by the project re3data COREF [1]. The 
objective of the workshop was to approach the pervasive, yet elusive 
topic of data quality management from several viewpoints.

The recordings and presentation slides are now published and linked via 
the re3data COREF blog: 
https://coref.project.re3data.org/blog/workshop_materials

In the first part of the workshop, results from a comprehensive survey 
on data quality assurance at research data repositories that was 
conducted in re3data COREF were presented, followed by reflections on 
quality management from the perspective of the certification 
organization CoreTrustSeal. In the second part, repositories from earth 
and environmental sciences (PANGAEA [2]), humanities (ARCHE [3]) and 
social sciences (UK Data Archive [4]) shared their approaches on data 
quality assurance.

The findings of the survey on the status quo of data quality assurance 
practices at research data repositories have been published in the Data 
Science Journal:

    Kindling, M., & Strecker, D. (2022). Data Quality Assurance at
    Research Data Repositories. Data Science Journal, 21(1), 18.
    https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2022-018

The main findings reported in the paper are:

  * Quality assurance at research data repositories is multifaceted and
    nonlinear. Although there are some common patterns, individual
    approaches to ensuring data quality are diverse.
  * In the context of research data, data quality and metadata quality
    are enmeshed and can not be clearly separated.
  * Research data repositories significantly contribute to data quality.
    However, data quality assurance sets high expectations for
    repositories and requires a lot of resources. This is in part due to
    a path dependence of data review on review processes for text
    publications.
  * Information on results of the formal assessment and review of
    individual datasets are not yet widely available.
  * The association between the certification status of a repository and
    its data quality assurance practices is weak.

With best regards from the re3data COREF team

Nina Weisweiler

[1] https://coref.project.re3data.org/project
[2] https://pangaea.de/
[3] https://arche.acdh.oeaw.ac.at/browser/
[4] https://www.data-archive.ac.uk/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.codata.org/pipermail/codata-international_lists.codata.org/attachments/20221201/228ad2eb/attachment.html>