%0 Conference Paper %1 amorim2015comparative %A Amorim, Ricardo Carvalho %A Castro, João Aguiar %A da Silva, João Rocha %A Ribeiro, Cristina %B New Contributions in Information Systems and Technologies %D 2015 %E Rocha, Alvaro %E Correia, Ana Maria %E Costanzo, Sandra %E Reis, Luis Paulo %I Springer International Publishing %K Data Digital Institutional Library, Metadata Repository, Research Schema, %P 101--111 %R 10.1007/978-3-319-16486-1_10 %T A Comparative Study of Platforms for Research Data Management: Interoperability, Metadata Capabilities and Integration Potential %X Research data management is acknowledged as an important concern for institutions and several platforms to support data deposits have emerged. In this paper we start by overviewing the current practices in the data management workflow and identifying the stakeholders in this process. We then compare four recently proposed data repository platforms—DSpace, CKAN, Zenodo and Figshare—considering their architecture, support for metadata, API completeness, as well as their search mechanisms and community acceptance. To evaluate these features, we take into consideration the identified stakeholders’ requirements. In the end, we argue that, depending on local requirements, different data repositories can meet some of the stakeholders requirements. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvements, mainly regarding the compatibility with the description of data from different research domains, to further improve data reuse. %@ 978-3-319-16486-1

@inproceedings{amorim2015comparative, abstract = {Research data management is acknowledged as an important concern for institutions and several platforms to support data deposits have emerged. In this paper we start by overviewing the current practices in the data management workflow and identifying the stakeholders in this process. We then compare four recently proposed data repository platforms—DSpace, CKAN, Zenodo and Figshare—considering their architecture, support for metadata, API completeness, as well as their search mechanisms and community acceptance. To evaluate these features, we take into consideration the identified stakeholders’ requirements. In the end, we argue that, depending on local requirements, different data repositories can meet some of the stakeholders requirements. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvements, mainly regarding the compatibility with the description of data from different research domains, to further improve data reuse.}, added-at = {2018-12-31T11:11:57.000+0100}, author = {Amorim, Ricardo Carvalho and Castro, João Aguiar and da Silva, João Rocha and Ribeiro, Cristina}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/224093976ed01e56c06f0cd22d9a57ab2/joschirr}, booktitle = {New {Contributions} in {Information} {Systems} and {Technologies}}, doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-16486-1_10}, editor = {Rocha, Alvaro and Correia, Ana Maria and Costanzo, Sandra and Reis, Luis Paulo}, interhash = {4023c4c098502aa01ccf799b49102375}, intrahash = {24093976ed01e56c06f0cd22d9a57ab2}, isbn = {978-3-319-16486-1}, keywords = {Data Digital Institutional Library, Metadata Repository, Research Schema,}, language = {en}, pages = {101--111}, publisher = {Springer International Publishing}, series = {Advances in {Intelligent} {Systems} and {Computing}}, shorttitle = {A {Comparative} {Study} of {Platforms} for {Research} {Data} {Management}}, timestamp = {2018-12-31T11:13:30.000+0100}, title = {A {Comparative} {Study} of {Platforms} for {Research} {Data} {Management}: {Interoperability}, {Metadata} {Capabilities} and {Integration} {Potential}}, year = 2015 }