The Research Information Network (RIN) is calling for the creation of data quality and archiving standards after its survey of 100 researchers found inconsistency and poor practice in many areas of data handling.

RIN representative Stéphane Goldstein said: “There needs to be a concerted effort on the part of all interested parties to start to think whether and how a system might be developed for quality of data.

“To a large extent that hasn’t happened. We need standards not just for publishing but also for re-use, manipulation and annotation. Journal articles are just a snapshot of research, whereas data can be much more dynamic.”

The RIN’s report, entitled Publication and Quality Assurance of Research Data Outputs, is backed by JISC and the Natural Environment Research Council.
The report offers an insight into how researchers across a range of disciplines create, share and disseminate their research data, and the motivation underlying their practices.

At present there is no consistent way of reviewing data; the peer review process doesn’t go far enough.

“Peer review relates to the interpretation of data, which is the tip of the iceberg,” said Goldstein. “Publishers will link to data, but are not interested in publishing data sets or reviewing data.”

He added that the report was important because it represented a wide range of disciplines.

“We consulted extensively in advance of the survey as we had to select a certain number of areas, and one of the fundamental criteria was that we covered the main subject areas of social sciences, arts and humanities, life sciences and physical sciences.

“Data is not something that is related to a particular set of disciplines. It is being produced in increasing quantities across the board.”

Major issues affecting data quality and archiving identified by the report included lack of skills, the desire of researchers to keep their data to the mselves, and the need for a structure to reward good work.

“Not everyone handles their data according to norms of good practice,” said Goldstein. “Research is a competitive field and there is a view that researchers have to be entitled to an embargo. It is quite difficult to overcome that. There needs to be a carrot and stick approach. Some research councils such as the ESRC make it a condition of their grant awards that data must be deposited.

“There is also a lack of reward, and the production of data is not always very well recognised. Funders and institutions need to think seriously about recognition.”
The report also highlights instances of good practice.