Skip to main content

Notice

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: https://rda-login.wicketcloud.com/users/confirmation. 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: https://www.rd-alliance.org/rda-web-platform-upcoming-features-and-functionalities/

#130216

Andras Holl
Member

My impression is that these recommendations were created and tested with large subject repositories (data centers) in mind. I think for a prevalent OS – FAIR research data archiving lots of small, mainly institutional and publication-related repositories will be needed. For such repositories a light (easy) track for certification will be needed. Not just because of the repositories, but because of the referees involved in the certification process. The present form of the certification might be a hurdle for repositories, and for the certification process too.

My proposal is that if a repository meets certain conditions (described in the background section), like it is an institutional repository or/and publication-related repository, if it is running a common (probably open source) repository software (certified version, proper plugins and patches applied), then they might answer “Not applicable” to certain questions, without explanation.

If needed, I can send more detailed comments.