Skip to main content


We are in the process of rolling out a soft launch of the RDA website, which includes a new member platform. Existing RDA members PLEASE REACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT using this link: Visitors may encounter functionality issues with group pages, navigation, missing content, broken links, etc. As you explore the new site, please provide your feedback using the UserSnap tool on the bottom right corner of each page. Thank you for your understanding and support as we work through all issues as quickly as possible. Stay updated about upcoming features and functionalities:


Further to Kathleen’s post below I wanted to share an update on behalf of the project group. In response to the concerns raised on the preprint by COAR and other groups, a response has been prepared and shared on Zenodo here.
As planned, the group are currently working to revise the preprint. We outlined some potential changes in the response, and we will definitely be taking feedback received recently into consideration. To be transparent, the aim is to share an updated version of the document in advance of the scheduled discussions on the topic as part of the RDA plenary in April.
Best Wishes
Matt Cannon – Head of Open Research
Taylor & Francis Group.
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN, UK.
Mob: +44 (0)7990 006524
e-mail: ***@***.***
Twitter: @mattcannontf
Taylor & Francis is a trading name of Informa UK Limited, registered in England under no. 1072954
– Show quoted text -From: ***@***.***
Sent: 11 March 2021 23:08
To: FAIRsharing Registry WG: connecting (meta)data standards, repositories and policies
Subject: Re: [rda-fairsharing-wg] Data Repository Selection Criteria – open for comments
There has been significant concern expressed in the repository community about the requirements contained in the Data Repository Selection: Criteria that Matter, which sets out a number of criteria for the identification and selection of data repositories that will be used by publishers to guide authors in terms of where they should deposit their data, including:
* Many repositories currently don’t comply with the criteria. There are a number of domain repositories, generalist data repositories and institutional repositories that don’t comply and do not have the resources to adopt the criteria; (anonymous review, support for versioning of data, etc). The publishers will use these criteria to direct authors as to where they can deposit their data and therefore most repositories will be disqualified.
* The criteria are too narrowly conceived. The current draft criteria are a mix of requirements. While the are not inherently bad, although they are skewed towards the needs of publishers to link and peer review the data, they do not include other important considerations for where an author may want to deposit. For example, an author may prefer to deposit data in their own jurisdiction, even if those local repositories are not compliant with these requirements.
* Publishers shouldn’t be determining where authors deposit their data. It should be the researchers (and their funder) that decide the best location for data deposit. This approach gives tremendous control to these publishers to set the bar for repository compliance. Over time, if we cede the control to those publishers, this could (and probably will) lead to only well-resourced repositories being available to authors that publish in those journals.
The concerns are outlined in a number of public statements that are linked from the COAR website:

Full post:
Manage my subscriptions:
Stop emails for this post:
Information Classification: General