Crosswalks among stewardship maturity assessment approaches promoting trustworthy FAIR data and repositories
Abstract Various maturity assessment approaches have been developed to help research data repositories effectively manage their holdings at both the organizational and dataset levels. Repositories can use these approaches as self-assessment tools—potentially leading to formal certification—to benchm...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Data |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01683-x |
| _version_ | 1811208838366363648 |
|---|---|
| author | Ge Peng Wendy S. Gross Rorie Edmunds |
| author_facet | Ge Peng Wendy S. Gross Rorie Edmunds |
| author_sort | Ge Peng |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Various maturity assessment approaches have been developed to help research data repositories effectively manage their holdings at both the organizational and dataset levels. Repositories can use these approaches as self-assessment tools—potentially leading to formal certification—to benchmark the maturity of their data holdings, highlight gaps in their practices, and improve their sustainability. Understanding the differences among these assessment approaches can provide beneficial information on stewardship best practices for supporting FAIR data managed by Trustworthy Data Repositories. However, it is a daunting task due to diversity in the perspectives of the approaches and the potential for subjective interpretation of individual criteria. In this article, we outline the commonalities and distinctions of three established assessment approaches: i) CoreTrustSeal Trustworthy Data Repositories Requirements, ii) Data Stewardship Maturity Matrix, and iii) FAIR Guiding Principles. Strong correlations are found in data discovery, accessibility, interoperability, and usability due to overlapping requirements in digital object management. The study also reveals that the complexity of the approaches can lead to a large variety of inferred crosswalks among them. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T04:28:27Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-fa1467d8e71f4b37a41361080389d3ee |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2052-4463 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T04:28:27Z |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientific Data |
| spelling | doaj.art-fa1467d8e71f4b37a41361080389d3ee2022-12-22T03:48:00ZengNature PortfolioScientific Data2052-44632022-09-019111110.1038/s41597-022-01683-xCrosswalks among stewardship maturity assessment approaches promoting trustworthy FAIR data and repositoriesGe Peng0Wendy S. Gross1Rorie Edmunds2Earth System Science Center/Interagency Implementation and Advanced Concepts Team (IMPACT) Project of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), The University of Alabama in HuntsvilleNOAA’S National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)DataCiteAbstract Various maturity assessment approaches have been developed to help research data repositories effectively manage their holdings at both the organizational and dataset levels. Repositories can use these approaches as self-assessment tools—potentially leading to formal certification—to benchmark the maturity of their data holdings, highlight gaps in their practices, and improve their sustainability. Understanding the differences among these assessment approaches can provide beneficial information on stewardship best practices for supporting FAIR data managed by Trustworthy Data Repositories. However, it is a daunting task due to diversity in the perspectives of the approaches and the potential for subjective interpretation of individual criteria. In this article, we outline the commonalities and distinctions of three established assessment approaches: i) CoreTrustSeal Trustworthy Data Repositories Requirements, ii) Data Stewardship Maturity Matrix, and iii) FAIR Guiding Principles. Strong correlations are found in data discovery, accessibility, interoperability, and usability due to overlapping requirements in digital object management. The study also reveals that the complexity of the approaches can lead to a large variety of inferred crosswalks among them.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01683-x |
| spellingShingle | Ge Peng Wendy S. Gross Rorie Edmunds Crosswalks among stewardship maturity assessment approaches promoting trustworthy FAIR data and repositories Scientific Data |
| title | Crosswalks among stewardship maturity assessment approaches promoting trustworthy FAIR data and repositories |
| title_full | Crosswalks among stewardship maturity assessment approaches promoting trustworthy FAIR data and repositories |
| title_fullStr | Crosswalks among stewardship maturity assessment approaches promoting trustworthy FAIR data and repositories |
| title_full_unstemmed | Crosswalks among stewardship maturity assessment approaches promoting trustworthy FAIR data and repositories |
| title_short | Crosswalks among stewardship maturity assessment approaches promoting trustworthy FAIR data and repositories |
| title_sort | crosswalks among stewardship maturity assessment approaches promoting trustworthy fair data and repositories |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01683-x |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gepeng crosswalksamongstewardshipmaturityassessmentapproachespromotingtrustworthyfairdataandrepositories AT wendysgross crosswalksamongstewardshipmaturityassessmentapproachespromotingtrustworthyfairdataandrepositories AT rorieedmunds crosswalksamongstewardshipmaturityassessmentapproachespromotingtrustworthyfairdataandrepositories |