Proceedings of the National Institute of Ecology of the Republic of Korea

National Institute of Ecology (국립생태원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of the Current Status of Data Repositories in the Field of Ecological Research

  • Kim, Suntae (Department of Library and Information Science, Jeonbuk National University)
  • Received : 2021.03.16
  • Accepted : 2021.04.01
  • Published : 2021.05.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, data repository information registered in re3data (re3data.org), a research data registry, was collected. Based on collected data, the current status was analyzed for 354 repositories (approximately 14% of total repositories) in the field using keywords in the ecological field suggested by two experts. Major metadata formats used to describe data in ecological research data repositories include Federal Geographic Data Committee Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (FGDC/CSDGM), Dublin Core, ISO 19115, Ecological Metadata Language (EML), Directory Interchange Format (DIF), Darwin Core, Data Documentation Initiative (DDI), and DataCite Metadata Schema. The number of ecological repositories according to country is 102 in the US, 34 in Germany, 31 in Canada, and one in Korea. A total of 771 non-profit organizations and 12 for-profit organizations are involved in the construction of the ecological field research data repository. Data version control ratio of the ecological field research data repositories registered in re3data was analyzed to be somewhat higher (86.6%) than the total ratio (83.9%). Results of this study can be used to establish policies to build and operate a research data repository in the ecological field.

Keywords

References

  1. Jung, Y., Kwon, O., Kim, K., Kim, S., Seo, T., and Kim, S. (2020). A study on the strategies for publishing data journals in the field of ecology: Focused on K institution. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 51, 83-100. doi:10.16981/kliss.51.4.202012.83
  2. Kim, S., and Choi, M. (2017). Registry metadata quality assessment by the example of re3data.org schema. International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology, 7, 41-51. doi:10.5865/IJKCT.2017.7.2.041
  3. Kindling, M., Pampel, H., van de Sandt, S., Rucknagel, J., Vierkant, P., Kloska, G., et al. (2017). The landscape of research data repositories in 2015: A re3data analysis. D-Lib Magazine, 23. doi:10.1045/march2017-kindling.
  4. Klump, J., and Huber, R. (2017). 20 years of persistent identifiers - Which systems are here to stay? Data Science Journal, 16, 9. doi:10.5334/dsj-2017-009
  5. Pampel, H., Vierkant, P., Scholze, F., Bertelmann, R., Kindling, M., Klump J., et al. (2013). Making research data repositories visible: The re3data.org Registry. PLoS ONE, 8, e78080. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078080
  6. Scientific Data. (2021). Recommended Data Repositories. Retrieved December 13, 2020 from https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories