A comparison of research data management platforms: architecture, flexible metadata and interoperability

  • Ricardo Carvalho Amorim
  • João Aguiar Castro
  • João Rocha da Silva
  • Cristina Ribeiro
Long paper

Abstract

Research data management is rapidly becoming a regular concern for researchers, and institutions need to provide them with platforms to support data organization and preparation for publication. Some institutions have adopted institutional repositories as the basis for data deposit, whereas others are experimenting with richer environments for data description, in spite of the diversity of existing workflows. This paper is a synthetic overview of current platforms that can be used for data management purposes. Adopting a pragmatic view on data management, the paper focuses on solutions that can be adopted in the long tail of science, where investments in tools and manpower are modest. First, a broad set of data management platforms is presented—some designed for institutional repositories and digital libraries—to select a short list of the more promising ones for data management. These platforms are compared considering their architecture, support for metadata, existing programming interfaces, as well as their search mechanisms and community acceptance. In this process, the stakeholders’ requirements are also taken into account. The results show that there is still plenty of room for improvement, mainly regarding the specificity of data description in different domains, as well as the potential for integration of the data management platforms with existing research management tools. Nevertheless, depending on the context, some platforms can meet all or part of the stakeholders’ requirements.

References

  1. 1.
    Alam, A.W., Müller, S., Schumann, N.: Datorium: sharing platform for social science data. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science (ISI 2015), pp. 244–249 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amorim, R.C., Castro, J.A.: Rocha da Silva, J., Ribeiro, C.: Labtablet: semantic metadata collection on a multi-domain laboratory notebook. In: Springer Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 478, pp. 193–205 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armbruster, C., Romary, L.: Comparing repository types: challenges and barriers for subject-based repositories, research repositories, national repository systems and institutional repositories in serving scholarly communication. Int. J. Digit. Libr. Syst. 1(4), 61–73 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Assante, M., Candela, L., Castelli, D., Manghi, P., Pagano, P.: Science 2.0 repositories: time for a change in scholarly communication. D-Lib Mag. 21(1/2) (2015). doi:10.1045/january2015-assante
  5. 5.
    Ball, A.: Tools for Research Data Management, Technical Report. University of Bath, Bath (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bankier, J.: Institutional repository software comparison. In: UNESCO Communication and Information, vol. 33 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Borgman, C.L.: The conundrum of sharing research data. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(6), 1059–1078 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burns, C.S., Lana, A., Budd, J.: Institutional repositories: exploration of costs and value. D-Lib Mag. 19(1), 1 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Candela, L., Castelli, D., Manghi, P., Tani, A.: Data journals: a survey. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 66, 1747–1762 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coles, S.J., Frey, J.G., Bird, C.L., Whitby, R.J., Day, A.E.: First steps towards semantic descriptions of electronic laboratory notebook records. J. Cheminform. 5, 1–10 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corti, L., Van den Eynden, V., Bishop, L., Woollard, M.: Managing and sharing research data: a guide to good practice. Rec. Manag. J. 24(3), 252–253 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Council of the Consultative Committee for Space Data: Systems: Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS), Technical Report (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Devarakonda, R., Palanisamy, G.: Data sharing and retrieval using OAI-PMH. Earth Sci. Inf. 4(1), 1–5 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Commission: Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020. Technical Report (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fay, E.: Repository software comparison: building digital library infrastructure at LSE. Ariadne 64(2009), 1–11 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Green, A., Macdonald, S., Rice, R.: Policy-making for Research Data in Repositories: A Guide. JISC funded DISC-UK Share Project, London (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heidorn, P.: Shedding light on the dark data in the long tail of science. Libr. Trends 57(2), 280–299 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hodson, S.: ADMIRAL: A Data Management Infrastructure for Research Activities in the Life Sciences, Technical Report. University of Oxford (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoxha, J., Brahaj, A.: Open government data on the web: a semantic approach. In: International Conference on Emerging Intelligent Data and Web Technologies, pp. 107–113 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kučera, J., Chlapek, D., Mynarz, J.: Czech CKAN repository as case study in public sector data cataloging. Syst. Integr. 19(2), 95–107 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lagoze, C., Sompel, H.V.D., Nelson, M., Warner, S.: The open archives initiative protocol for metadata harvesting. In: Proceedings of the first ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lynch, C.A.: Institutional repositories: essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. Portal Libr. Acad. 3(2), 327–336 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lyon, L.: Dealing with Data: Roles, Rights, Responsibilities and Relationships, Technical Report. UKOLN, University of Bath (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McNutt, M.: Improving scientific communication. Science 342(6154), 13 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Science Foundation: Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for Preparation and Submission of National Science Foundation Applications via Grants.gov. Technical Report (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Piwowar, H.A., Vision, T.J.: Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ 1, e175 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Poschen, M., Finch, J., Procter, R., Goff, M., McDerby, M., Collins, S., Besson, J., Beard, L., Grahame, T.: Development of a pilot data management infrastructure for biomedical researchers at University of Manchester-approach, findings, challenges and outlook of the MaDAM project. Int. J. Digit. Curation 7, 110–122 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rafes, K., Germain, C.: A platform for scientific data sharing. In: BDA2015 Bases de Donées Avancées (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramalho, J.C., Ferreira, M., Faria, L., Castro, R., Barbedo, F., Corujo, L.: RODA and CRiB a Service-Oriented Digital Repository. In: iPres Conference Proceedings (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rocha da Silva, J., Barbosa, J., Gouveia, M., Correia Lopes, J., Ribeiro, C.: UPBox and DataNotes: a collaborative data management environment for the long tail of research data. In: iPres Conference Proceedings (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rocha da Silva, J., Castro, J.A., Ribeiro, C., Correia Lopes, J.: Dendro: Collaborative Research Data Management Built on Linked Open Data (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rocha da Silva, J., Ribeiro, C., Correia Lopes, J.: UPData—a data curation experiment at U.Porto using DSpace. In: iPres Conference Proceedings, pp. 224–227 (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rocha da Silva, J., Ribeiro, C., Correia Lopes, J.: Managing multidisciplinary research data: extending DSpace to enable long-term preservation of tabular datasets. In: iPres Conference Proceedings, pp. 105–108 (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rocha da Silva, J., Ribeiro, C., Correia Lopes, J.: Ontology-based multi-domain metadata for research data management using triple stores. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Database Engineering AND Applications Symposium (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rocha da Silva, J., Ribeiro, C., Correia Lopes, J.: The Dendro research data management platform: applying ontologies to long-term preservation in a collaborative environment. In: iPres Conference Proceedings (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van den Eynden, V., Corti, L., Bishop, L., Horton, L.: Managing and Sharing Data, 3rd edn. UK Data Archive University of Essex, SAGE (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Willis, C., Greenberg, J., White, H.: Analysis and synthesis of metadata goals for scientific data. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63(8), 1505–1520 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Winn, J.: Open data and the academy: an evaluation of CKAN for research data management. In: International Association dor Social Science Information Services and Technology (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricardo Carvalho Amorim
    • 1
  • João Aguiar Castro
    • 1
  • João Rocha da Silva
    • 1
  • Cristina Ribeiro
    • 1
  1. 1.INESC TEC—Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations