Rec. 10: Trusted Digital Repositories

[sjDCC]

Repositories need to be encouraged and supported to achieve CoreTrustSeal certification. The development of rival repository accreditation schemes, based solely on the FAIR principles, should be discouraged.

• A programme of activity is required to incentivise and assist existing domain repositories, institutional services and other valued community resources to achieve CoreTrustSeal certification. Stakeholders: Funders; Data services; Standards bodies.

• A transition period is needed to allow existing repositories without certifications to go through the steps needed to achieve trustworthy digital repository status. Concerted support is necessary to assist existing repositories in achieving certification. Stakeholders: Data services; Institutions; Data stewards.

• At an appropriate point, the language of the CoreTrustSeal requirements should be reviewed and adapted to reference the FAIR data principles more explicitly (e.g. in sections on levels of curation, discoverability, accessibility, standards and reuse). Stakeholders: Global coordination fora; Data services; Institutions.

• Repositories may need to adapt their services to enable and facilitate machine processing and to expose their holdings via standardised protocols. Stakeholders: Data services; Institutions.

• CoreTrustSeal should also be supported to achieve scalability to meet the needs of repository certification in the FAIR context. Stakeholders: Funders, Standards bodies.

• Mechanisms need to be developed to ensure that the repository ecosystem as a whole is fit for purpose, not just assessed on a per repository basis. Stakeholders: Global coordination fora; Research communities.

[hollydawnmurray]

F1000 position: Agreed that a transition period is necessary – what is the timeframe proposed? Also worth noting that CoreTrustSeal does allow for repositories undergoing an implementation phase (see: https://www.coretrustseal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Core_Trustworthy_Data_Repositories_Requirements_01_00.pdf).

[holubp]

BBMRI-ERIC Position: While CoreTrustSeal is excellent example, the whole ecosystem should open to other certification schemes in the future to avoid market monopolization and on the other hand prevent unnecessary fragmentation.

[ghost]

4TU.Centre for Research Data position: We agree with the CoreTrustSeal as the basic certification of data repositories.

[AlasdairGray]

I believe that the recommendations should state the intended goal independent of a solution to achieve that goal. You can then argue that CoreTrustSeal meets your criteria, but it may be that other solutions are developed in due course that are a better solution to the intended goal.

[AlasdairGray]

As SAS Sansone has stated in the google document version, it should be demonstrated how CTS fulfils the FAIR data principles.

[katerbow]

DFG position: Certification of data-repositories has been discussed quite some time already and some schemes have been developed and implemented. However, a common scheme that allows serving as a standard certification seal has not reached a broad acceptance yet. Due to the huge variety and large differences between the existing repositories establishment of a quality seal able to serve the purpose and to enhance trustability and reliability will be challenging.

However, similar to the comments regarding metrics, it seems promising to include the scientific communities in this discussion and to develop probably a seal of quality providing different levels adjusted to potentially rising requirements. Such an approach might also open the access to smaller and / or less developed repositories.

[Falco-KUB]

CoreTrustSeal should also be supported to achieve scalability to meet the needs of repository certification in the FAIR context. I think that the support from funders is most crucial for the acceptance of repositories.

[Eefkesmit]

Contribution on behalf of the International Association of STM Publishers (STM):

Certification of trusted data repsotiories is very important. As publishers we wish to promote and enable the use of trusted data repositories for datasets supporting publications, in conjunction with submission of manuscripts where appropriate – via recommended repository lists, services to help deposit data alongside the submission of manuscripts, and technological integrations between scholarly infrastructure, eg by means of API-standards.

[ScienceEurope]

Some scientific communities use their discipline specific repositories or have already chosen a certified repository to work with, depending on their discipline-specific needs. Science Europe therefore does not recommend to refer to certain repositories nor a specific certification body as CTS, but instead provide a comprehensive list of criteria that trustworthy repositories should fulfill. This list of minimum criteria to identify trustworthy repositories has been established after comparison of existing requirements. Science Europe is also in contact with some well-known certification bodies to exchange on the draft criteria.

[ferag]

Totally agree in the need of repositories to evolute "to adapt their services to enable and facilitate machine processing", but I think we are a bit far from that. This requires not only the implementation of new features in the repositories as well as the adoption of new technologies (like semantics), but also it will need the data providers to ingest their data with proper and completed metadata, good descriptions, etc.

[RCN2018]

The RCN strongly supports this. It is very important with certification, also as a mechanism for funders to decide on what to fund. Certification can help funders to distinguish better between those that actually are high quality repositories and those that are not.

Further it will be easier for funders to make requirements regarding where researchers are to store their data safely. Today there are too many repositories, and difficult to keep track of within different disciplines.

[pkdoorn]

Thumbs up. However, the CTS should consider extending/updating its requirements to be more explicitly in line with the FAIR principles. There are two areas where this is needed most: in terms of interoperability requirements and in terms of machine accessibility. A separate FAIR certification system would be counterproductive. Of course, there are already more extensive certification systems: the nestor seal (based on DIN 31644) and ISO 16363:2012. These are essentially more detailed than the CTS.

[mromanie]

ESO position This recommendation not only expresses a principle (external certification), but singles out a specific solution (CoreTrustedSeal), excluding all possible others. How was this specific one identified and why? From some of the comments above, it seems that it is currently lacking some required functionalities.

The process of certification bears non-negligible costs, both in cash and in-kind. It is unlikely for individual providers to be willing, or even able, to bear them. Providing support is crucial.

[jkh1]

As mentioned in Rec #18, I believe there's no need for a certification mechanism. I see it as costs with no or little benefits. Communities are well placed to know what works or not for them.

[bertocco]

INAF (astronomy) position: We can accept the political sense of having trusted digital repos, however, again is more on validation than certification that we would like the focus upon.

[npch]

SSI position:

The goal of certification needs to be established and articulated. If CoreTrustSeal is to become the recommended mechanism then it should ensure that it encourages and supports the implementation of FAIR principles to research outputs.

The SSI has previously commented on how the CoreTrustSeal might be adapted to provide support for software deposit: https://figshare.com/articles/Where_might_software_fit_with_CoreTrustSeal_/5426935

[perrin1024]

ILL fully supports the comments from ESO.

On top of it, we also would like to mention that CTS seems to address the needs for "final data" repositories, similar needs exist for live data repositories. Typically, archives of experimental raw data (especially for large instruments/experiments) need to be complemented and enriched by services that make them understandable and Reusable. The problem here is not only to preserve bits of data but also to manage and operate specific services.

[aidaturrini]

Personally, I agree with ScienceEurope position

[aidanbudd]

ELIXIR-UK position:

The Certification process must be arrived at through open and transparent discussion and processes. This is unacceptable to ELIXIR-UK

• CoreTrustSeal is not the only way to evaluate/certify databases, repositories and their content for all communities, therefore other FAIR-based assessment cannot be excluded a-priori
• CoreTrustSeal Certification is a self appointed group, many of which are organisations that are authors of the action plan
• CoreTrustSeal is awarded by a single body whereas a standard accredited by an open market would be more transparent approach- more like ISO
• Misses a diversity of schemas
• Different communities have different needs
• No other recommendation is so specific

[gtoneill]

One sole recognised certification for trusted digital repositories such as CoreTrustSeal is not desirable. It would be better, as already mentioned, if there were agreed criteria which trusted digital repositories should fulfill. This should specifically include criteria related to the FAIR Data principles. We could envision a FAIR Data label indicating that a repository is fully in line with the FAIR Data principles.

[ghost]

The position of FAIRDOM is reflected by the position of ELIXIR-UK.