Following on from Robin’s post on data deposit checklists…

 

We also have a data deposit checklist on our web site:  https://webcmspreview.kcl.ac.uk/library/researchsupport/research-data-management/DepositPublishPromote/Deposit-your-data-with-Kings.aspx

 

And we also provide quite a lot of information/guidance on the metadata capture form we ask researchers to fill in when they submit data for deposit. We are also planning to upload a decision tree/process chart based on the checklist as well.

 

It is early days for us but we anticipate that there will always be a certain amount of back and forth between us and the researchers before we have enough metadata of sufficient quality. So for we haven’t had to chase researchers for more info – they usually get back to us for clarification if there is something they are unclear about, but this could be because our service is new and we are working with researchers who have taken an active interest in, and are supportive of, what we are trying to achieve with the RDM service.

 

Wayne Peters

Research Support Officer (Data)

Research Data Management Team
Library Services
King's College London
Maughan Library
Chancery Lane
London WC2A 1LR

Tel: 020 7848 1030 / 1303
Email: [log in to unmask]

**Deposit and Publish your data**

 

 

 

Hi all,

 

Regarding the iteration with depositors, I suppose it will always be necessary if we want quality submissions, and the point of deposit is the only time we can hold sway over them to do something differently or better, but it may help if you’re not already doing it to have guidance for depositors such as a checklist for deposit.

 

We have found that for first time depositors/sharers especially, this helps them think through things they would not have thought about naturally – be it open licence, file format, adequate documentation, and even dataset granularity… and that may trip them up to complete their deposit successfully if they don’t think about it in advance.

 

As one example, ours is here: http://www.ed.ac.uk/information-services/research-support/data-library/data-repository/checklist

 

(But of course, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.)

 

P.S. Thanks for all the Pure information, though it appears it is a way for Elsevier to make even more money from us.

 

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Robin Rice

Data Librarian

EDINA and Data Library

University of Edinburgh

 

[log in to unmask]

@sparrowbarley (twitter)

Home: www.ed.ac.uk/is/data-library

#RDMSmooc: www.coursera.org/learn/data-management

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in

Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

 

 

 

 

We are in the same boat as Queen’s. It usually takes a couple of emails to get the metadata at least “acceptable” (i.e. a meaningful description, a licence (which is not set by default in Pure), links to other outputs.).

 

Pure itself does a reasonable job with regards to our datasets.

http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/datasets/search.html

Hardy

 

 

We are doing the same at Queen’s - http://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/en/datasets/search.html.

 

Emily – How have you found researcher engagement with Pure? We allow researchers to create the metadata record themselves and I then review it, discuss amendments with them, assign a DOI, and validate. Often I have found that the initial data input by researchers is rather sparse and often we need to go back and forth a few times before we have a solid description, relevant links to other records, full list of contributors etc.

 

Best,

 

Chris