Data Management Plan Tools: Overview and Evaluation

Carina Becker, Carolin Hundt, Claudia Engelhardt, Johannes Sperling, Moritz Kurzweil, Ralph Müller-Pfefferkorn
{"title":"Data Management Plan Tools: Overview and Evaluation","authors":"Carina Becker, Carolin Hundt, Claudia Engelhardt, Johannes Sperling, Moritz Kurzweil, Ralph Müller-Pfefferkorn","doi":"10.52825/cordi.v1i.338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Data Management Plans (DMPs) are crucial for a structured research data management and often a mandatory part of research proposals. DMP tools support the development of DMPs. Among the variety of tools available, it can be difficult for researchers, data stewards and institutions to choose the one that is most appropriate for their specific needs and context. We evaluated 18 DMP tools according to 31 requirement parameters covering aspects relating to basic functions, DMP contents, technical aspects and user friendliness. The highest total evaluation scores were reached by Data Stewardship Wizard (703.5), DMPTool (615.5) and RDMO NFDI4Ing (549.5). The tools evaluated satisfied between 10 % and 87 % of the requirement parameters. 11 tools cover at least half of the parameters. In terms of correlation among the tools, which indicates to which degree their scores in the different requirement parameters are alike, we found the highest correlation for ezDMP and GFBio DMPT. Regarding the relatedness between the tools, 85 % of the DMP tools were positively and 16 % negatively correlated. Accounting for the recent developments in the area of DMP tools, this study provides an up-to-date evaluation that can support tool developers in identifying potential improvements, and hosting institutions to select a tool suited to their specific needs.","PeriodicalId":359879,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Conference on Research Data Infrastructure","volume":"297 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Conference on Research Data Infrastructure","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52825/cordi.v1i.338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Data Management Plans (DMPs) are crucial for a structured research data management and often a mandatory part of research proposals. DMP tools support the development of DMPs. Among the variety of tools available, it can be difficult for researchers, data stewards and institutions to choose the one that is most appropriate for their specific needs and context. We evaluated 18 DMP tools according to 31 requirement parameters covering aspects relating to basic functions, DMP contents, technical aspects and user friendliness. The highest total evaluation scores were reached by Data Stewardship Wizard (703.5), DMPTool (615.5) and RDMO NFDI4Ing (549.5). The tools evaluated satisfied between 10 % and 87 % of the requirement parameters. 11 tools cover at least half of the parameters. In terms of correlation among the tools, which indicates to which degree their scores in the different requirement parameters are alike, we found the highest correlation for ezDMP and GFBio DMPT. Regarding the relatedness between the tools, 85 % of the DMP tools were positively and 16 % negatively correlated. Accounting for the recent developments in the area of DMP tools, this study provides an up-to-date evaluation that can support tool developers in identifying potential improvements, and hosting institutions to select a tool suited to their specific needs.
数据管理计划工具:概述和评估
数据管理计划(dmp)是结构化研究数据管理的关键,通常是研究建议的强制性部分。DMP工具支持DMP的开发。在各种可用的工具中,研究人员、数据管理员和机构很难选择最适合其特定需求和背景的工具。我们根据31个需求参数评估了18个DMP工具,涵盖了基本功能、DMP内容、技术方面和用户友好性等方面。数据管理向导(703.5)、DMPTool(615.5)和RDMO NFDI4Ing(549.5)的总评价得分最高。评估的工具满足了10%到87%的需求参数。11个工具至少涵盖了一半的参数。就工具之间的相关性而言,这表明它们在不同需求参数中的得分相似的程度,我们发现ezDMP和GFBio DMPT的相关性最高。关于工具之间的相关性,85%的DMP工具呈正相关,16%为负相关。考虑到DMP工具领域的最新发展,本研究提供了一个最新的评估,可以支持工具开发人员识别潜在的改进,并托管机构选择适合其特定需求的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信