Add Field of Research Codes to metadata

[sarahklippincott]

Problem description, and links to relevant helpdesk tickets: Discipline areas in Dryad are very broad and don't sufficiently aid in discovery.

Describe the solution you'd like: Australia and New Zealand have adopted the Field of Research classification system for categorizing research domain. Though not yet widely used outside of those geographies, it could still represent an improvement to discoverability by domain. It would also help institutions in AUS and NZ meet their federal reporting requirements and integrate with their CRIS (Current research information system).

Additional context:

[ryscher]

It is always difficult to choose between competing vocabularies/classifications. Even though Dryad grew out of the biology community, we still do not enforce a vocabulary for species names, because there is no single vocabulary that is accepted by the majority of our scientific community.

For describing broad areas of research, Dryad currently uses the Fields of Science defined by OECD. I'm not aware of how broadly these classifications are used when compared to the Field of Research system, but a quick web search indicates that the Fields of Research are largely constrained to that area of the world.

One possible approach to the federal reporting requirements: Create a crosswalk between the two classification systems, and allow members to choose which system they want to use when exporting content.

[mariapraetzellis]

As Ryan mentioned, Dryad is using Fields of Science, which is the most widely used generic classification scheme, and what DataCite recommends that repositories use. The scheme has 6 top-level categories and 42 subcategories. You can see it described here and here.

[ahamelers]

Probably useful: https://zenodo.org/records/8313183