42 Survey Results: Survey Questions and Responses
Selection: The result of a successful appraisal. The data are determined appropriate for acceptance
and ingest into the repository according to local collection policy and practice.
29. Please indicate your institution’s level of support for these data curation appraisal activities on
a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=currently providing 2=will provide in the near future 3=would like to
provide, but unable to at this time 4=no interest/desire to provide 5=unsure. N=49
Activity 1 2 3 4 5
Rights Management 28 2 15 2 2
Selection 26 2 14 5 2
Risk Management 19 2 21 5 2
#of respondents 34 4 23 9 4
Comments N=13
Currently, “risk management” responsibility is placed on the submitter. Moderated submissions are
evaluated by the curator, but self-submitted datasets are not.
For selection, all data submissions undergo a review before acceptance.
Initial plan is to make researchers responsible for certifying no sensitive information is in the dataset
and that there are no copyright issues.
RE Risk Management: we provide guidance and conduct preliminary checks but depositors are
ultimately responsible. RE Selection: policies are currently under review.
Saying we currently provide these services is a bit of a misnomer. Our data is self-deposited.
Researchers do a click through acknowledgment that they have the rights to make the data available
and there is no risky/sensitive data included. Appraisal is simple. Our policy is that if a researcher wants
to deposit, they can—as long as they click through the rights and licensing terms.
We advise depositors/users on these issues as requested however, we do not review incoming datasets
unless flagged by curation staff or asked by the depositor/user.
We confirm (verbally or in writing) the right of the depositor to deposit content into the archive (either
for dark archival storage or open access). If ownership/copyright monitoring is not integrated into the
archival platform, it is not manually tracked.
We do not have intensive appraisal practices. If it is research data from the university community
with adequate documentation, we will accept it. We ask about copyright and licensing, but we do not
assess datasets.
We do not review each data set for risk on deposit. Our Dataverse is self-deposit. We rely on the
researcher to comply with stated deposit agreement.
We have ongoing working groups around rights management and a review program in place for risk
management. As it is a self-deposit model, we have no interest in pre-appraisal, though we do work with
researchers to make their data suitable for deposit.
We have to do this as our repository cannot accept at this time data sets that have PII.
We may be moving away from providing selection appraisal, to a more open self-deposit model. We
will be selective about the audience to which we provide a high level of curation service (e.g., more for
faculty, less for students).
Selection: The result of a successful appraisal. The data are determined appropriate for acceptance
and ingest into the repository according to local collection policy and practice.
29. Please indicate your institution’s level of support for these data curation appraisal activities on
a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=currently providing 2=will provide in the near future 3=would like to
provide, but unable to at this time 4=no interest/desire to provide 5=unsure. N=49
Activity 1 2 3 4 5
Rights Management 28 2 15 2 2
Selection 26 2 14 5 2
Risk Management 19 2 21 5 2
#of respondents 34 4 23 9 4
Comments N=13
Currently, “risk management” responsibility is placed on the submitter. Moderated submissions are
evaluated by the curator, but self-submitted datasets are not.
For selection, all data submissions undergo a review before acceptance.
Initial plan is to make researchers responsible for certifying no sensitive information is in the dataset
and that there are no copyright issues.
RE Risk Management: we provide guidance and conduct preliminary checks but depositors are
ultimately responsible. RE Selection: policies are currently under review.
Saying we currently provide these services is a bit of a misnomer. Our data is self-deposited.
Researchers do a click through acknowledgment that they have the rights to make the data available
and there is no risky/sensitive data included. Appraisal is simple. Our policy is that if a researcher wants
to deposit, they can—as long as they click through the rights and licensing terms.
We advise depositors/users on these issues as requested however, we do not review incoming datasets
unless flagged by curation staff or asked by the depositor/user.
We confirm (verbally or in writing) the right of the depositor to deposit content into the archive (either
for dark archival storage or open access). If ownership/copyright monitoring is not integrated into the
archival platform, it is not manually tracked.
We do not have intensive appraisal practices. If it is research data from the university community
with adequate documentation, we will accept it. We ask about copyright and licensing, but we do not
assess datasets.
We do not review each data set for risk on deposit. Our Dataverse is self-deposit. We rely on the
researcher to comply with stated deposit agreement.
We have ongoing working groups around rights management and a review program in place for risk
management. As it is a self-deposit model, we have no interest in pre-appraisal, though we do work with
researchers to make their data suitable for deposit.
We have to do this as our repository cannot accept at this time data sets that have PII.
We may be moving away from providing selection appraisal, to a more open self-deposit model. We
will be selective about the audience to which we provide a high level of curation service (e.g., more for
faculty, less for students).
