Certification information on trustworthy digital repository websites: A content analysis

Abstract

In 1996, an international group of representatives from national archives and libraries, universities, industry, publishing offices, and other government and private sector organizations first articulated the need for certified Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDRs). Henceforth, multiple standards for TDRs have developed worldwide and their reviewers provide third party audit of digital repositories. Even though hundreds of repositories are currently certified, we do not know if audit and certification of TDRs actually matters. For example, we do not know if digital repositories are actually better at preserving digital information after certification than they were before. Additionally, we do not know if TDRs preserve digital information better than their counterparts, although TDR standards definitely promulgate this assumption. One way of assessing whether audit and certification of TDRs matters is to study its impact on TDRs’ stakeholders (e.g., funders, data producers, data consumers). As an initial critical step forward, this study examines what certification-related information repositories actually include on their websites since repository websites provide a means of disseminating information. Using findings from a content analysis of 91 TDR-certified repository websites, this research examines: 1) written statements about TDR status, 2) the presence of TDR seals and their location, 3) whether the seals hyperlink to additional certification information, 4) the extent to which the certification process is explained, and 5) whether audit reports are shared. Nearly three-fourths of the repository websites provide TDR status statements and put seals in one or more places; nearly 60% post audit reports and link seals to additional certification information; and over one-third explain the certification process. Directions for future research and practical application of the results are discussed.

Designated Community: uncertainty and risk

“…As early as 2006, scholars such as Parsons and Duerr criticized the concept of the DC as too narrow (Parsons and Duerr, 2006). Since that time, others have noted that the concept is difficult to implement (e.g., Donaldson, 2020), and that it forces institutions that serve broad publics to instead narrow their focus to a specific set of potential consumers (e.g., Bettivia, 2016). Scholars have also argued that by focusing on a narrowly-defined DC, repositories risk failing to provide meaningful access to digital information for more broadly conceptualized user communities (Boutard, 2020;Moles, 2022).…”

“…Additionally, we do not know if TDRs preserve digital information better than their counterparts, although TDR standards definitely promulgate this assumption. (Donaldson, 2020, p. 12)…”

The status of the digital preservation policies and plans of the institutional repositories of selected public universities in Kenya

“…Such a situation is undesirable and calls for remedial action. Maemura et al 44 put forth the need to assess an organization's ability to achieve its digital preservation goals, with Donaldson 45 proposing a systematic and independent audit to determine the details of the process and identify potential weak points in order to make improvements.…”

Improving Opportunities for New Value of Open Data: Assessing and Certifying Research Data Repositories

“…In addition to repository staff members recognizing the value of attaining certification to be designated as trustworthy (Donaldson et al, 2017), several incentives and benefits, both extrinsic and intrinsic, for obtaining digital repository certification have been reported in the literature (Lindlar & Schwab, 2018). In addition, most repositories that have attained certification as trustworthy have publicly declared their achievement by posting information about the certification on their website (Donaldson, 2020).…”