A social science data archive may
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2025 3:34 am
A simple outcome for CoreTrustSeal would be to provide information that would support a search in a repository registry like Re3data for a certified trustworthy repository which was also a domain repository—supported by a list of disciplines. It is vital that a repository ‘with’ domain data is not the same thing as a repository ‘for’ domain data. contain pakistan rcs data health data of interest to social scientists, but this does not imply (without evidence) that it has become a cross-domain repository for both health and the social sciences.
We understand that it is the mission of CoreTrustSeal to remain ‘Core’ and that specific criteria for different domains are beyond the scope. But applicants should demonstrate appropriate knowledge and curation and preservation actions that align with their stated designated community. One area of possible CoreTrustSeal improvement which might support this differentiation would be to require a clear level of depositor/user support and to ask questions about the domain expertise provided.
The issue of technical repository service providers is an interesting one. The community benefits from an increasing range of tools and services which support repository data services, but these tools and services providers do not take responsibility for the data curation or long term preservation, so they should be partners in an application (through the current ‘insource/outsource’ questions) and not applicants themselves. Of course, there is great value to a tool or service in providing supporting evidence (service levels, technical details, change management etc) which could be used by multiple clients in their CoreTrustSeal applications, but the final responsibility (trustworthiness) must remain with the applicant.
We understand that it is the mission of CoreTrustSeal to remain ‘Core’ and that specific criteria for different domains are beyond the scope. But applicants should demonstrate appropriate knowledge and curation and preservation actions that align with their stated designated community. One area of possible CoreTrustSeal improvement which might support this differentiation would be to require a clear level of depositor/user support and to ask questions about the domain expertise provided.
The issue of technical repository service providers is an interesting one. The community benefits from an increasing range of tools and services which support repository data services, but these tools and services providers do not take responsibility for the data curation or long term preservation, so they should be partners in an application (through the current ‘insource/outsource’ questions) and not applicants themselves. Of course, there is great value to a tool or service in providing supporting evidence (service levels, technical details, change management etc) which could be used by multiple clients in their CoreTrustSeal applications, but the final responsibility (trustworthiness) must remain with the applicant.