Research Data Services at ETH-Bibliothek

Sesartić, Ana; Töwe, Matthias

doi:10.1177/0340035216674971

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Koltay, 2015a, b, 2016a, b). Adequate management of data resulting from research work is becoming key precondition for effective data exchange within certain scientific community as well as publication beyond the project group (Sesartic and Töwe, 2016). Consequently, this improves the visibility of scientific work, citations, etc.…”

Section: Introduction and Literature Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Research data management and research data literacy in Slovenian science

Vilar

Zabukovec

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the differences between scientific disciplines (SDs) in Slovenia in research data literacy (RDL) and research data management (RDM) to form recommendations regarding how to move things forward on the institutional and national level. Design/methodology/approach Purposive sample of active researchers was used from widest possible range of SD. Data were collected from April 21 to August 7, 2017, using 24-question online survey (5 demographic, 19 content questions (single/multiple choice and Likert scale type). Bivariate (ANOVA) and multivariate methods (clustering) were used. Findings The authors identified three perception-related and four behavior-related connections; this gave three clusters per area. First, perceptions – skeptical group, mainly social (SocS) and natural sciences (NatS): no clear RDM and ethical issues standpoints, do not agree that every university needs a data management plan (DMP). Careful group, again including mainly SocS and NatS: RDM is problematic and linked to ethical dilemmas, positive toward institutional DMPs. Convinced group, mainly from humanities (HUM), NatS, engineering (ENG) and medicine and health sciences (MedHeS): no problems regarding RDM, agrees this is an ethical question, is positive toward institutional DMP’s. Second, behaviors – sparse group, mainly from MedHeS, NatS and HUM, some agricultural scientists (AgS), and some SocS and ENG: do not tag data sets with metadata, do not use file-naming conventions/standards. Frequent group – many ENG, SocS, moderate numbers of NatS, very few AgS and only a few MedHeS and HUM: often use file-naming conventions/standards, version-control systems, have experience with public-domain data, are reluctant to use metadata with their RD. Slender group, mainly from AgS and NatS, moderate numbers of ENG, SocS and HUM, but no MedHeS: often use public-domain data, other three activities are rare. Research limitations/implications Research could be expanded to a wider population, include other stakeholders and use qualitative methods. Practical implications Results are useful for international comparisons but also give foundations and recommendations on institutional and national RDM and RDL policies, implementations, and how to bring academic libraries into the picture. Identified differences suggest that different educational, awareness-raising and participatory approaches are needed for each group. Originality/value The findings offer valuable insight into RDM and RDL of Slovenian scientists, which have not yet been investigated in Slovenia.

show abstract

Section: Introduction and Literature Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Research data management and research data literacy in Slovenian science

Vilar

Zabukovec

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides the libraries the IT-departments were named as main contributors (e.g. Buys and Shaw, 2015; Faniel and Connaway, 2018; Jackson, 2018; Piracha and Ameen, 2019; Sesartic and Töwe, 2016; Steel et al, 2019; Zondergeld et al, 2020). But a potential competitive component between libraries, IT-departments, and others (Cox and Pinfield, 2014) as well as the requirement that the collaborators speak the same language will challenge the promotion of these collaborations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research data management systems and the organization of universities and research institutes: A systematic literature review

Donner

2022

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New technological developments, the availability of big data, and the creation of research platforms open a variety of opportunities to generate, store, and analyze research data. To ensure the sustainable handling of research data, the European Commission as well as scientific commissions have recently highlighted the importance of implementing a research data management system (RDMS) in higher education institutes (HEI) which combines technical as well as organizational solutions. A deep understanding of the requirements of research data management (RDM), as well as an overview of the different stakeholders, is a key prerequisite for the implementation of an RDMS. Based on a scientific literature review, the aim of this study is to answer the following research questions: “What organizational factors need to be considered when implementing an RDMS? How do these organizational factors interact with each other and how do they constrain or facilitate the implementation of an RDMS?” The structure of the analysis is built on the four components of Leavitt’s classical model of organizational change: task, structure, technology, and people. The findings reveal that the implementation of RDMS is strongly impacted by the organizational structure, infrastructure, labor culture as well as strategic considerations. Overall, this literature review summarizes different approaches for the implementation of an RDMS. It also identifies areas for future research.

show abstract

“…Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (https://www.bsb-muenchen.de/en/) worked out projects for its digital archive (Schoger, 2011). The digital archive of ETH Foundation Zurich 5 (ETH) (http://www.library.ethz.ch/en/) (Sesartic & Töwe, 2016) has been productive since 2012 and the Digital Preservation System of the New Zealand National Library (Rosin & Smith, 2014) (https://natlib.govt.nz/) went live in 2008. The technical environment is changing rapidly.…”

Section: Cooperation In Research and Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ten Years of Strategic Collaboration of Libraries in Digital Preservation

Zarnitz

Bähr

Arning

2019

LIBER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The German National Specialist Libraries cooperate closely in the field of digital preservation. One of the partners hosts the preservation system, while each library creates its own workflows and is free to ingest its digital material into this system. This paper delineates the factors for success of this collaboration. It describes the different aspects of collaboration in digital preservation and describes the benefits and costs of cooperation in this field as a case study.Digital preservation is resource intensive and the required technology is complex. Therefore the libraries benefit from synergy effects: Reduced cost by sharing the preservation system, usage of similar workflows and formats of digital objects, work sharing in networking activities and staff training.

show abstract

Research Data Services at ETH-Bibliothek

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

Research data management and research data literacy in Slovenian science

Research data management and research data literacy in Slovenian science

Research data management systems and the organization of universities and research institutes: A systematic literature review

Ten Years of Strategic Collaboration of Libraries in Digital Preservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About