A Comparative Study of Platforms for Research Data Management: Interoperability, Metadata Capabilities and Integration Potential

  • Ricardo Carvalho AmorimEmail author
  • João Aguiar Castro
  • João Rocha da Silva
  • Cristina Ribeiro
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 353)


Research data management is acknowledged as an important concern for institutions and several platforms to support data deposits have emerged. In this paper we start by overviewing the current practices in the data management workflow and identifying the stakeholders in this process. We then compare four recently proposed data repository platforms—DSpace, CKAN, Zenodo and Figshare—considering their architecture, support for metadata, API completeness, as well as their search mechanisms and community acceptance. To evaluate these features, we take into consideration the identified stakeholders’ requirements. In the end, we argue that, depending on local requirements, different data repositories can meet some of the stakeholders requirements. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvements, mainly regarding the compatibility with the description of data from different research domains, to further improve data reuse.


Digital Library Research Data Data Repository Institutional Repository Metadata Schema 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lynch, C.A.: Institutional repositories: essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age. Portal: Libraries and the Academy (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heidorn, P.B.: Shedding light on the dark data in the long tail of science. Library Trends 57(2), 280–299 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burns, C.S., Lana, A., Budd, J.: Institutional repositories: exploration of costs and value. D-Lib Magazine 19 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coles, S.J., Frey, J.G., Bird, C.L.: First steps towards semantic descriptions of electronic laboratory notebook records. Journal of Cheminformatics 2013, 1–10 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Commission, E.: Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020. Technical Report (December 2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fay, E.: Repository software comparison: building digital library infrastructure at LSE. Ariadne (2009), 1–11 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Armbruster, C., Romary, L.: Comparing repository types: challenges and barriers for subject-based repositories, research repositories, national repository systems and institutional repositories in. International Journal of Digital Library Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bankier, J.G.: Institutional Repository Software Comparison. UNESCO Communication and Information 33 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Piwowar, H.A., Day, R.B., Fridsma, D.S.: Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. PLOS ONE 2(3) (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lyon, L.: Dealing with Data: Roles, Rights, Responsibilities and Relationships. Technical report, UKOLN, University of Bath (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Silva, J.R.d., Ribeiro, C., Lopes, J.C.: Ontology-based multi-domain metadata for research data management using triple stores. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Database Engineering & Applications Symposium (to be published 2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pampel, H., Vierkant, P., Scholze, F.: Making research data repositories visible: the re3data. org registry. PLOS ONE 8(11), 1–18 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ribeiro, C., Barbosa, J., Gouveia, M., Lopes, J., Silva, J.R.D.: UPBox and DataNotes: a collaborative data management environment for the long tail of research data. In: iPres 2013 Conference Proceedings (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Borgman, C.L.: The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(6) (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Green, A., Macdonald, S., Rice, R.: Policy-making for Research Data in Repositories: A Guide. DISC-UK, Edinburgh (May 2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Foundation, N.S.: Application Guide A Guide for Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Swan, A., Brown, S.: The skills, role and career structure of data scientists and curators: An assessment of current practice and future needs. Report to the JISC (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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, JCDL 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramalho, J.C., Ferreira, M., Faria, L., Castro, R.: RODA and CRiB a service-oriented digital repository. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Preservation of Digital Objects, iPRES 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Corti, L., Eynden, V.d., Bishop, L., Woollard, M.: Managing and Sharing Research Data: A Guide to Good Practice. SAGE Publications (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Silva, J.R.d., Ribeiro, C., Correia Lopes, J.: Managing multidisciplinary research data: Extending DSpace to enable long-term preservation of tabular datasets. In: iPres 2012 Conference, pp. 105–108 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Willis, C., Greenberg, J., White, H.: Analysis and Synthesis of Metadata Goals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 63(8), 1505–1520 (2012), doi:10.1002/asiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Breu, F.X., Guggenbichler, S., Wollmann, J.C.: Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries. Vasa (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Devarakonda, R., Palanisamy, G.: Data sharing and retrieval using OAI-PMH. Earth Science Informatics 4(1), 1–5 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silva, J.R.: Dendro: collaborative research data management built on linked open data. In: Presutti, V., Blomqvist, E., Troncy, R., Sack, H., Papadakis, I., Tordai, A. (eds.) ESWC 2014, vol. 8798, pp. 3–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Silva, J.R.d., Ribeiro, C., Lopes, J.C.: The Dendro research data management platform: Applying ontologies to long-term preservation in a collaborative environment. In: iPres 2014 Conference Proceedings (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Amorim, R.C., Castro, J.A., da Silva, J.R., Ribeiro, C.: LabTablet: Semantic metadata collection on a multi-domain laboratory notebook. In: Closs, S., Studer, R., Garoufallou, E., Sicilia, M.-A. (eds.) MTSR 2014. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 478, pp. 193–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricardo Carvalho Amorim
    • 1
    Email author
  • João Aguiar Castro
    • 1
  • João Rocha da Silva
    • 1
  • Cristina Ribeiro
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto/INESC TECPortoPortugal
  2. 2.DEIFaculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto/INESC TECPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations