Cited by 12Research Data Management PracticesData Analysis and ArchivingOptics and Image Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Knowledge Infrastructures Are Growing Up: The Case for Institutional (Data) Repositories 10 Years After the Holdren Memo

Open access

Abstract

Institutional data repositories are uniquely positioned to support researchers in sharing scholarly outputs. As funding agencies develop and institute policies for research data access and sharing, institutional data repositories have emerged as a critical feature in ecosystems for data stewardship and sharing. We show that institutional data repositories can meet and exceed the requirements and recommendations of federal data policy, thereby maximizing the benefits of data sharing. We present results of a mixed-method study which explores the adoption and usage of institutional repositories to share data from 2017 to 2023. Data from two previous studies were combined with data collected in 2023 on the data sharing solutions of Association of Research Libraries member institutions in the United States and Canada. The analysis of the aggregated data indicates that data stewardship has increased in both institutional repositories and institutional data repositories with an increase in complementary infrastructure to support data sharing. We then conduct an “infrastructural inversion” (Bowker & Star, 1999) to ‘surface invisible work’ of making data repositories function well, and demonstrate that institutional data repositories have advantages for providing sustainable stewardship, curation, and sharing of research data. Finally, we show that institutional data repositories may produce additional benefits through established infrastructure, local interoperability, and control.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5334/dsj-2024-046

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. 2022, ‘Why it takes a village to manage and share data’, Harvard Data Science Review, 4
  2. 1999, Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences
  3. 2005, Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, 237
  4. 2024, ‘Measuring data rot: An analysis of the continued availability of shared data from a Single University’, PLoS ONE, 19
  5. CoreTrustSeal Standards And Certification Board, 2022, CoreTrustSeal requirements 2023–2025
  6. 2020, ‘The impact of institutional repositories: a systematic review’, Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 108, 177
  7. Edwards, P.N., Jackson, S.J., Chalmers, M.K., Bowker, G.C., Borgman, C.L., Ribes, D., Burton, M. and Calvert, S. (2013) Knowledge infrastructures: Intellectual frameworks and research challenges. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/97552.
  8. 2023, ‘Why NASA and federal agencies are declaring this the Year of Open Science’, Nature, 613
  9. 2017, ‘“Watch your language!”: Word choice in library website usability’, Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 12
  10. 2008, ‘What’s in a name? Using card sorting to evaluate branding in an academic library’s web site’, College & Research Libraries, 69, 242, 10.5860/crl.69.3.242 · DOI
  11. Herndon, J. and O’Reilly, R. (2016) ‘Data sharing policies in social sciences academic journals: Evolving expectations of data sharing as a form of scholarly communication’, in L. Kellam and K. Thompson (eds.) Databrarianship: The Academic data librarian in theory and practice. Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, pp. 219–243. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10161/12792.
  12. 2017, SPEC Kit 354: Data curation, Association of Research Libraries
  13. Johnston, L.R. and Coburn, L. (2020, January 15). Data sharing readiness in academic institutions. Data Curation Network. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11299/211358.
  14. 2019, ‘Investigation of challenges in academic institutional repositories: A survey of academic librarians’, Library Hi Tech, 37, 525, 10.1108/LHT-12-2017-0266 · DOI
  15. 2017, ‘Persistence Statements: Describing Digital Stickiness’, Data Science Journal, 16, 39
  16. 2020, ‘The TRUST Principles for digital repositories’, Scientific Data, 7
  17. 2003, ‘Institutional repositories: essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age’, Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3, 327, 10.1353/pla.2003.0039 · DOI
  18. 2023, ‘Understanding the value of curation: A survey of researcher perspectives of data curation services from six US institutions’, PLOS ONE, 18
  19. 2019, ‘Ten principles for machine-actionable data management plans’, PLOS Computational Biology, 15
  20. 2023, Data for “Knowledge Infrastructures Are Growing Up: The Case for Institutional (Data) Repositories 10 Years After the Holdren Memo
  21. 2019, ‘Uses and reuses of scientific data: The data creators’ advantage’, Harvard Data Science Review, 1
  22. 2007, ‘Innkeeper at the roach motel’, Library Trends, 57, 98
  23. 1999, ‘Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8, 9
  24. 2014, ‘Who is citing undergraduate theses in institutional digital repositories? implications for scholarship and information literacy’, College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21, 345
  25. 2023, ‘Disappearing repositories: Taking an infrastructure perspective on the long-term availability of research data’, Quantitative Science Studies, 4, 839, 10.1162/qss_a_00277 · DOI
  26. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), 2022, Desirable characteristics of data repositories for federally funded research, 10.5479/10088/113528 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 12

Metadata

Authors
Narlock, M. R., Calvert, S., Taylor, S., Marquez, R. P., & Parkman, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • Association of Research Libraries (US)
  • East Carolina University (US)
  • Tulane University (US)
Corresponding author
Narlock, Mikala R.
Venue
Data Science Journal
Published
2024
Volume
23
ISSN
1683-1470 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4402883940
Cited by
12
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Data Science Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • University of Minnesota
  • University at Buffalo
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Optics and Image Analysis
Keywords
institutional data repository, research data sharing, data stewardship, research data policy, data curation, research libraries, interoperability, data infrastructure, knowledge infrastructure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Knowledge Infrastructures Are Growing Up: The Case for Institutional (Data) Repositories 10 Years After the Holdren Memo. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5334/dsj-2024-046
The paper
Narlock, M. R., Calvert, S., Taylor, S., Marquez, R. P., & Parkman, A. (2024). Knowledge Infrastructures Are Growing Up: The Case for Institutional (Data) Repositories 10 Years After the Holdren Memo. Data Science Journal. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2024-046