Three years ago, a group of editors developed, facilitated by the FAIRsharing initiative, the so-called “Selection criteria for data repositories that matter”, a set of aspects that they consider should be taken into account for the identification and selection of data repositories. Given this, COAR, CoreTrustSeal, European University Association, Science Europe, and World Data System, have pointed out that these criteria, as they are currently conceived, will act as an impediment to achieving the objectives that really matter. LA Reference together with other organizations have signed in support of this initiative.

The joint position, among other aspects, has pointed out the following concerns about the criteria developed:

  • They would cause editors to exert undue influence on researchers’ decisions about the discussion and preservation of their study data.
  • They threaten the exclusion of many repositories, limiting the options for researchers. *Does not build on existing best practice frameworks for data repositories.
  • It could conflict with who finances, institutional or national policies/legislation. This is particularly when researchers are mandated to deposit data in specific repositories by their institutions, sponsors or legislation.

This position especially points out that the selection of a repository should be guided by the needs and purposes of the researchers and not by the desires of a special interest group.

The document, among others, makes the following requests to the group that developed the criteria:

  • Take into account the concerns expressed by the community and reconsider your current approach to focus your contribution where it can be of greatest value to the research community.
  • Do not restrict existing options to researchers or exclude repositories unless based on the relevant needs of the research community and scientific criteria.
  • Commit to defining best practices for repositories.
  • Include representatives from the main communities (funders, researchers, institutions and repositories) in the development and governance of each publisher’s specific role.

Read the full joint position here.