Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Data Quality Assurance at Research Data Repositories Cover

Data Quality Assurance at Research Data Repositories

Data Science Journal
Volume 21 (2022): Issue 1
By: Maxi Kindling and  Dorothea Strecker  
Open Access
|Nov 2022

References

  1. 1Assante, M, et al. 2016. Are scientific data repositories coping with research data publishing? Data Science Journal, 15(6). DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2016-006
    Back to article
  2. 2Austin, C, et al. 2016. Research data repositories: Review of current features, gap analysis, and recommendations for minimum requirements. IASSIST Quarterly, 39(4): 24. DOI: 10.29173/iq904
    Back to article
  3. 3Austin, C, et al. 2017. Key components of data publishing: Using current best practices to develop a reference model for data publishing. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 18(2): 77–92. DOI: 10.1007/s00799-016-0178-2
    Back to article
  4. 4Batini, C and Scannapieco, M. 2016. Data quality dimensions. In: Batini, C and Scannapieco, M (eds.), Data and information quality: Dimensions, principles and techniques. Berlin: Springer. pp. 21–51. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-24106-7_2
    Back to article
  5. 5Cai, L and Zhu, Y. 2015. The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in the big data era. Data Science Journal, 14(2). DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2015-002
    Back to article
  6. 6Canali, S. 2020. Towards a contextual approach to data quality. Data, 5(4): 90. DOI: 10.3390/data5040090
    Back to article
  7. 7CASRAI (Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information). 2022a. Curation. Available at https://casrai.org/term/curation/ [Last accessed 30 August 2022].
    Back to article
  8. 8CASRAI (Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information). 2022b. Data quality. Available at https://casrai.org/term/data-quality/ [Last accessed 30 August 2022].
    Back to article
  9. 9CTS (CoreTrustSeal Standards and Certification Board). 2019. CoreTrustSeal trustworthy data repositories requirements 2020–2022. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3638211
    Back to article
  10. 10Downs, R, et al. 2021. Perspectives on citizen science data quality. Frontiers in Climate, 3. DOI: 10.3389/fclim.2021.615032
    Back to article
  11. 11ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2015. Quality management systems—Fundamentals and vocabulary (ISO 9000:2015). Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/45481.html [Last accessed 30 August 2022].
    Back to article
  12. 12Johnston, L, et al. 2018. How important are data curation activities to researchers? Gaps and opportunities for academic libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 6(1). DOI: 10.7710/2162-3309.2198
    Back to article
  13. 13Juran, JM. 1951. Quality-control handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
    Back to article
  14. 14Kindling, M and Strecker, D. 2021. How to ensure ‘good’ data? A presentation at Open Repositories 2021. Available at https://coref.project.re3data.org/blog/how-to-ensure-good-data-a-presentation-at-open-repositories-2021 [Last accessed 30 August 2022].
    Back to article
  15. 15Kindling, M, Strecker, D and Wang, Y. 2022. Data quality assurance at research data repositories: Survey data (1.0) [data set]. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.6457849
    Back to article
  16. 16Kindling, M, et al. 2017. The landscape of research data repositories in 2015: A re3data analysis. D-Lib Magazine, 23(3/4). DOI: 10.1045/march2017-kindling
    Back to article
  17. 17Kindling, M, et al. 2022. Data quality assurance at research data repositories—Results from a survey. In: International Digital Curation Conference on 13–16 June 2022. DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.6638409
    Back to article
  18. 18Koltay, T. 2020. Quality of open research data: Values, convergences and governance. Information, 11(4): 175. DOI: 10.3390/info11040175
    Back to article
  19. 19Koshoffer, A, et al. 2018. Giving datasets context: A comparison study of institutional repositories that apply varying degrees of curation. International Journal of Digital Curation, 13(1): 15–34. DOI: 10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.632
    Back to article
  20. 20Lafia, S, et al. 2021. Leveraging machine learning to detect data curation activities. In: IEEE 17th International Conference on eScience, Innsbruck, Austria, 20–23 September 2021. DOI: 10.1109/eScience51609.2021.00025
    Back to article
  21. 21Lawrence, B, et al. 2011. Citation and peer review of data: Moving towards formal data publication. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(2). DOI: 10.2218/ijdc.v6i2.205
    Back to article
  22. 22Lee, DJ and Stvilia, B. 2017. Practices of research data curation in institutional repositories: A qualitative view from repository staff. PLoS ONE: e0173987. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173987
    Back to article
  23. 23Lee, Y, et al. 2002. AIMQ: A methodology for information quality assessment. Information & Management, 40(2): 133–146. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00043-5
    Back to article
  24. 24Madnick, S, et al. 2009. Overview and framework for data and information quality research. Journal of Data and Information Quality, 1(1): 1–22. DOI: 10.1145/1515693.1516680
    Back to article
  25. 25Mangione, D, Candela, L and Castelli, D. 2022. A taxonomy of tools and approaches for FAIRification. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Padova, Italy, 24–25 February 2022. Available at http://ircdl2022.dei.unipd.it/downloads/papers/IRCDL_2022_paper_18.pdf [Last accessed 30 August 2022].
    Back to article
  26. 26Mayernik, M, et al. 2015. Peer review of datasets: When, why, and how. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 96(2): 191–201. DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00083.1
    Back to article
  27. 27Merriam-Webster. 2022. Quality. Available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quality [Last accessed 30 August 2022].
    Back to article
  28. 28OKF (Open Knowledge Foundation). n.d. Open Definition: Version 2.1. Available at http://opendefinition.org/.
    Back to article
  29. 29Palmer, C, Weber, N and Cragin, M. 2011. The analytic potential of scientific data: Understanding re-use value. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48(1): 1–10. DOI: 10.1002/meet.2011.14504801174
    Back to article
  30. 30Parr, C, et al. 2019. A discussion of value metrics for data repositories in earth and environmental sciences. Data Science Journal, 18: 58. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2019-058
    Back to article
  31. 31Parsons, M and Fox, P. 2013. Is data publication the right metaphor? Data Science Journal, 12: WDS32–WDS46. DOI: 10.2481/dsj.WDS-042
    Back to article
  32. 32Peer, L, Stephenson, E and Green, A. 2014. Committing to data quality review. International Journal of Digital Curation, 9(1): 263–291. DOI: 10.2218/ijdc.v9i1.317
    Back to article
  33. 33Peng, G, et al. 2015. A unified framework for measuring stewardship practices applied to digital environmental datasets. Data Science Journal, 13: 231–253. DOI: 10.2481/dsj.14-049
    Back to article
  34. 34Peng, G, et al. 2022. Global community guidelines for documenting, sharing, and reusing quality information of individual digital datasets. Data Science Journal, 21: 8. DOI: 10.5334/dsj-2022-008
    Back to article
  35. 35Plantin, J -C. 2019. Data cleaners for pristine datasets: Visibility and invisibility of data processors in social science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(1): 52–73. DOI: 10.1177/0162243918781268
    Back to article
  36. 36RfII (German Council for Scientific Information Infrastructures). 2020. The data quality challenge: Recommendations for sustainable research in the digital turn. Göttingen. Available at https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:101:1-2020041412321918717265
    Back to article
  37. 37Strecker, D, et al. 2021. Metadata schema for the description of research data repositories: Version 3.1. DOI: 10.48440/re3.010
    Back to article
  38. 38Trisovic, A, et al. 2021. Repository approaches to improving the quality of shared data and code. Data, 6(2): 15. DOI: 10.3390/data6020015
    Back to article
  39. 39Wang, R and Strong, D. 1996. Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4): 5–33. DOI: 10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099
    Back to article
  40. 40Wilkinson, M, et al. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1): 160018. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2022-018 | Journal eISSN: 1683-1470
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: May 10, 2022
Accepted on: Oct 28, 2022
Published on: Nov 22, 2022
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
research data,
research data quality,
data quality assurance,
research data repositories,
survey

© 2022 Maxi Kindling, Dorothea Strecker, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 21 (2022): Issue 1Next article