In our quest to define "Reasonable Costs" for public access to US Federally Funded Research and Scientific Data, the spotlight turns to the charged question of whether deposit fees for research data repositories are a necessity or an exception. Delving into the landscape of costs incurred by service providers and researchers, this investigation aims to shed light on the intricate web of pricing structures and their implications.
Navigating the Research Data Publication Landscape
As pathways to publishing research data multiply, encompassing diverse avenues such as disciplinary or institutional repositories, supplementing research papers, or crafting bespoke solutions, understanding the costs associated becomes paramount. The 2022 OSTP memo underscores the directive for researchers to use existing online repositories, prompting a closer examination of the fees researchers face when depositing data.
Insights from Generalist Repository Comparison Chart
The Generalist Repository Comparison Chart (2020) provides a noteworthy glimpse into the landscape, detailing the costs to researchers for seven general-purpose repositories. However, to broaden our perspective, we explore additional resources like the OECD's "Business models for sustainable research data repositories" (2017), which dissects revenue generation and sustainability, acknowledging the spectrum of approaches, some of which include deposit fees.
Leveraging re3data for a Comprehensive View
To gain a panoramic view of deposit fees charged to researchers, we turn to re3data, a global registry of research data repositories. Analyzing the repository types, including institutional, disciplinary, and others, we unearth insights into upload restrictions and deposit fees.
Key Findings: Deposit Fees Rarity
The analysis, conducted on November 6, 2023, reveals that deposit fees are rare across all repository types. Out of 2900 data provider repository entries, merely 23 indicate a fee for deposit. Examples include the Archaeology Data Service, Bitbucket, and protocols.io. Notably, some services offer a free deposit for smaller datasets, introducing tiered service models that complicate straightforward representation.
Membership Conditions: A More Common Restriction
In contrast to deposit fees, membership requirements emerge as a relatively more common restriction, especially for institutional and disciplinary repositories. Affiliation with an organization, either through faculty, staff, or student status, is often a prerequisite for deposit privileges, potentially accompanied by fees. The complexity of membership models, both in terms of organizational affiliation and repository-specific paid memberships, adds layers to the landscape.
Challenges and Conclusions
The exercise underscores potential incompleteness in repository entries and the intricate challenge of accurately representing diverse fee structures within the current metadata schema. While precision may be elusive, the consensus suggests that deposit fees, in comparison to non-fee repositories, remain relatively low in number. The journey to ascertain exact figures is ongoing, acknowledging the complexity inherent in the evolving landscape of research data repositories and the associated costs.
