An institutional repository can be used to archive and highlight collections of institutional research products including dissertations, articles, posters, and datasets. The process of ingesting datasets into an institutional repository can be complicated. Because metadata can vary widely depending on how a researcher describes their data, an institutional repository must have mechanisms where data description and metadata can be captured when the data is submitted. Review and appraisal of data submissions will assist in the overall process of ingesting the data into a repository.
Once data is submitted into an institutional repository it has to go through a number of steps in order for it to be preserved and made accessible over time. This process first involves the researcher(s) describing their dataset and signing a submission agreement with specific grant or property rights information that has been agreed upon between the repository and researcher(s). Once this stage is complete the dataset normally must go through a review and approval process where the dataset is analyzed for quality-control in terms of metadata description and file types. The dataset then normally is taken through a transformation process where the metadata descriptors are transferred to XML metadata that is appropriate for that specific repository. Finally, the information package about the dataset (metadata, dataset description, and file type information) is ingested into the repository where it can be archived and made accessible for others to use.
Burns CS, Lana A, & Budd JM. (2013). Institutional Repositories: Exploration of Costs and Value. D-Lib Magazine, 19(1/2), 1–17.
Dearborn CC, Barto AJ, & Harmeyer NA. (2014). The Purdue University Research Repository: HUBzero Customization for Dataset Publication and Digital Preservation. OCLC Systems & Services: International Digital Library Perspectives, 30(1), 15–27.
Downs RR, Chen RS. (2010). Self-Assessment of a Long-Term Archive for Interdisciplinary Scientific Data as a Trustworthy Digital Repository. Journal of Digital Information, 11(1).
Fryer C. (2015). Project to Production: Digital Preservation at the Houses of Parliament, 2010–2020. International Journal of Digital Curation, 10(2). doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v10i2.378
Mayernik MS, Choudhury GS, DiLauro T, Metsger E, Pralle B, Rippin M, et al. (2012) The Data Conservancy Instance: Infrastructure and Organizational Services for Research Data Curation. D-Lib Magazine. 18(9/10).
Mischo W, Schlembach M, & O’Donnell M. (2014). An Analysis of Data Management Plans in University of Illinois National Science Foundation Grant Proposals. Journal of eScience Librarianship, 3(1). doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2014.1060
Newton MP, Miller CC, & Bracke MS. (2011). Librarian Roles in Institutional Repository Data Set Collecting: Outcomes of a Research Library Task Force. Collection Management, 36(1):53–67.
Treolar A, Groenewegen D, & Harboe-Ree C. (2007). The Data Curation Continuum: Managing Data Objects in Institutional Repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 13(10).
Tzoc E. (2013). A Mobile Interface for DSpace. D-Lib Magazine, 19(3/4). doi.org/10.1045/march2013-tzoc
Witt M. (2012). Co-designing, Co-developing, and Co-implementing an Institutional Data Repository Service. Journal of Library Administration, 52(2):172–88.
Yoon A, Tibbo H. (2011). Examination of Data Deposit Practices in Repositories with the OAIS Model. IASSIST Quarterly, 35(4):6–13.
Zilinski L, Scherer D, Bullock D, Horton D, & Matthews C. (2014). Evolution of Data Creation, Management, Publication, and Curation in the Research Process. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2414, 9–19. dx.doi.org/10.3141/2414-02