FIDELIS – MS13 Landscape analysis ready

Project Title FIDELIS: Establishing A European Network of Trustworthy Digital Repositories Project Acronym FIDELIS Grant Agreement No. 101188078 Start Date of Project 2025-01-01 Duration of Project 36 months Project Website https://eden-fidelis.eu/ FIDELIS – MS13 Landscape analysis ready Work Package WP5 - Building common understanding of TDRs and a harmonised matrix of repository capabilities and characteristics Lead Author (Org) Philipp Conzett (UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 0000-0002-6754-7911) Contributing Authors (Org) Severine Duvaud (SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, 0000-0001-7892-9678) Thomas Jouneau (INRAE/Université de Lorraine, 0000-0001-5986-8128) Joel Kallio (Tampere University, Finnish Social Science Data Archive, 0009-0003-5076-9985) Terje Klemetsen (UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 0000-0002-2024-1798) Jonas Recker (GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, 0000-0001-9562-3339) Pavel Straňák (Charles University, 0000-0002-6895-8536) Sanni Tujunen (Tampere University, Finnish Social Science Data Archive, 0009-0003-9076-8397) Mari Kleemola (Tampere University, Finnish Social Science Data Archive, 0000-0001-8855-5075) Henna Kaartinen (Tampere University, Finnish Social Science Data Archive, 0009-0001-2148-1822) Due Date 2025-10-31 Date 2025-10-29 Version V1.0 DOI https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17472394 1 | Page Dissemination Level X PU: Public PP: Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission) RE: Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission) CO: Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission) Versioning and contribution history Version Date Author Notes 0.1 2025.10.20 Philipp Conzett (UiT) First complete draft of report 0.2 2025.10.21 Philipp Conzett (UiT) Draft revised based on input from Microsoft Copilot 0.3 2025.10.24 Terje Klemtsen (UiT), Joel Kallio (TAU-FSD), Henna Kaartinen (TAU-FSD) Reviewed draft and provided feedback 0.4 2025.10.27 Philipp Conzett (UiT) Addressed feedback and finalized report 0.5 2025.10.28 Mari Kleemola (TAU-FSD) WPL review 1.0 2025.10.29 Philipp Conzett (UiT) Final version Disclaimer FIDELIS has received funding from the European Commission’s Horizon Europe funding programme for research and innovation programme under the Grant Agreement no. 101188078. The content of this document does not represent the opinion of the European Commission, and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that might be made of such content. 2 | Page Table of Contents Executive Summary............................................................................................................5 1. Introduction................................................................................................................... 6 2. Community Survey......................................................................................................... 7 2.1. Context and Objectives..............................................................................................................7 2.2. Methodology.............................................................................................................................7 2.3. Respondent Profile....................................................................................................................7 2.4. Key Findings...............................................................................................................................8 2.4.1. Repository Practices and Standards.................................................................................8 2.4.2. Organisational Infrastructure...........................................................................................8 2.4.3. Legal Landscape............................................................................................................... 8 2.4.4. Training and Support Needs.............................................................................................9 2.4.5. Expectations of the FIDELIS Network...............................................................................9 2.5. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................9 3. Desk-Based Mapping.................................................................................................... 10 3.1. Context and Objectives............................................................................................................10 3.2. Methodology...........................................................................................................................10 3.3. Key Findings.............................................................................................................................10 3.3.1. Context...........................................................................................................................11 3.3.2. Digital Object Management...........................................................................................11 3.3.3. Organisational Infrastructure.........................................................................................11 3.3.4. Technology.....................................................................................................................11 3.3.5. Security.......................................................................................................................... 12 3.4. Implications for FIDELIS...........................................................................................................12 3.5. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................12 4. Key Takeaways and Implications for FIDELIS..................................................................13 4.1. Key Takeaways......................................................................................................................... 13 4.2. Implications for the FIDELIS project and future Network........................................................13 References....................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix: Possible Actionable Steps for WP6 and WP7.................................................... 16 3 | Page TERMINOLOGY 4 | Page Terminology/Acronym Description CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance: Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics CoreTrustSeal A certification for trustworthy data repositories based on a set of requirements for repository governance, infrastructure, and practices DOI Digital Object Identifier – a type of persistent identifier used to uniquely identify digital objects EOSC European Open Science Cloud – a pan-European initiative to provide researchers with access to FAIR data and services FAIR Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable – guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship FIDELIS A Horizon Europe project aiming to establish a European Network of Trustworthy Digital Repositories aligned with EOSC LoRCaP Levels of Retention, Curation and Preservation – a proposed framework for assessing repository care levels OAI-PMH Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting – a protocol for harvesting metadata from repositories PID Persistent Identifier – a long-lasting reference to a digital object, such as a DOI or Handle re3data A global registry of research data repositories used for outreach and analysis in the FIDELIS survey TDR Trustworthy Digital Repository – a repository that meets recognised standards for long-term preservation, access, and integrity TTRAM Transparent Trustworthy Repository Attributes Matrix – a reference model developed in FIDELIS to better understand repositories and align repository capabilities Zenodo An open-access repository for research outputs, often used for publishing deliverables in EU projects Executive Summary This milestone report presents the results of Task 5.2 “Preparing for Federation” within the FIDELIS project, which aims to establish a European Network of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDRs) aligned with the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). The task addresses the challenge of supporting digital repositories in improving their practices and achieving greater interoperability, trustworthiness, and alignment with EOSC requirements. To meet this objective, Task 5.2 conducted a two-part landscape analysis: a community survey and a desk-based mapping. The survey gathered input from repository stakeholders across Europe on current practices, challenges, and expectations. The mapping reviewed existing capabilities, characteristics, standards, policies, and best practices, both domain-agnostic and across five scientific communities, guided by the Transparent Trustworthy Repository Attributes Matrix (TTRAM). The findings reveal a diverse repository landscape with varying levels of maturity, widespread organisational and legal challenges, and strong demand for training, certification support, and community engagement. These insights highlight the need for scalable, inclusive, and harmonised support mechanisms. The report concludes with strategic recommendations for the FIDELIS Network, including modular support programmes, legal harmonisation tools, training initiatives, and advocacy for sustainable governance. Together, these actions will help build a federated and resilient ecosystem of TDRs across Europe. 5 | Page 1. Introduction This report marks the completion of Milestone 13 (MS13) within the FIDELIS project, which aims to establish a European Network of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDRs) aligned with the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). MS13 is the key output of Task 5.2 “Preparing for Federation,” whose overarching objective is to analyse the current landscape of digital repositories in Europe and identify how FIDELIS can best support their efforts to improve, align, and federate as TDRs. To achieve this, Task 5.2 has undertaken a dual-faceted landscape analysis, combining stakeholder input with desk-based research. These two complementary components are: ● Community Survey: Conducted in collaboration with Task 8.1, the survey gathered insights from repository stakeholders across Europe and associated countries. It explored current practices, challenges, and needs related to technical and organisational standards, federation models, and digital object management. The survey also captured expectations for the planned FIDELIS Network. The results are published on Zenodo (Jouneau et al., 2025). ● Desk Research and Mapping: This component involved a systematic review of existing capabilities, standards, best practices, registries, landscape analyses, and other resources relevant to repository operations. The mapping was guided by the Transparent Trustworthy Repository Attributes Matrix (TTRAM) (Kleemola et al., 2025), developed in Task 5.1, and focused on identifying repository capabilities and characteristics across five scientific communities: Agri-food, Biomedical Sciences, Climate Science, Linguistics, and Social Sciences. The findings are documented in a separate report published on Zenodo (Conzett et al., 2025). Together, these efforts provide a comprehensive overview of the digital repository landscape and offer a foundation for future FIDELIS activities. Section 2 summarises the findings from the community survey, while Section 3 briefly presents the results of the desk-based mapping. Section 4 outlines key takeaways and implications for the continued development of the FIDELIS Network. The appendix provides a more detailed outline of how the findings from the landscape analysis can inform the continued work of the TDR harmonisation & interoperability pillar (Pillar 3). 6 | Page 2. Community Survey This section briefly summarises the FIDELIS community survey. 2.1. Context and Objectives As part of Task 5.2 “Preparing for Federation” in the FIDELIS project, a comprehensive community survey was conducted to support the landscape analysis of European digital repositories. The goal of Task 5.2 is to chart the current repository landscape and gather input on how FIDELIS can best support repositories in improving, aligning, and federating with the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) as Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDRs). The survey complements desk research and builds on prior initiatives (e.g., SSHOC, EOSC Nordic, FAIRsFAIR, OpenAIRE/COAR), focusing on technical and organisational standards, federation practices, and repository expectations for the planned FIDELIS Network. The survey aimed to: ● Collect insights into current practices, challenges, and needs of repositories across Europe and beyond. ● Inform the development and refinement of the Transparent Trustworthy Repository Attributes Matrix (TTRAM). ● Shape the training, support, and harmonisation strategies of the FIDELIS Network to ensure relevance and impact. 2.2. Methodology The survey was collaboratively designed by multiple FIDELIS work packages, each contributing questions relevant to their focus areas. These included repository activities and functions, legal challenges, training and support needs, and expectations for the FIDELIS Network. The survey was disseminated widely via consortium networks, advisory boards, and targeted outreach using re3data records. To ensure broad participation and rich data collection, the survey included both mandatory and optional sections. A glossary was provided to clarify terminology, and the survey design was aligned with the TTRAM framework to support structured analysis. 2.3. Respondent Profile The following points summarise the characteristics of the survey respondents: ● The survey received 159 valid responses from 144 unique repositories, representing 27 European countries and several Horizon Europe-associated countries. ● Most respondents represented discipline-specific repositories, with a strong presence in the natural sciences. 7 | Page ● The majority of respondents identified as repository managers or curators, though other roles such as system engineers and board members were also represented. ● Most repositories primarily manage research data, with fewer handling literature, software, or other digital objects. 2.4. Key Findings The following sections outline the main findings of the survey across its thematic areas. 2.4.1. Repository Practices and Standards The survey revealed several important trends and challenges in repository operations: ● Most repositories currently offer deposit compliance as their baseline level of care, while many are working toward implementing active preservation, especially among discipline-specific repositories. ● CoreTrustSeal is the most recognised and pursued certification scheme, while other formal certifications (e.g., ISO 16363, nestor Seal) are less familiar or considered less relevant. ● Metadata schemas such as Dublin Core, DataCite, and DDI are widely used, and persistent identifiers (e.g., DOIs, ORCIDs, RORs) are commonly implemented across repositories. ● Semantic artefacts (e.g., controlled vocabularies, ontologies) are generally used, though integration practices vary. There is potential for improvement through the adoption of external catalogues and APIs. 2.4.2. Organisational Infrastructure Respondents identified several organisational challenges that affect repository sustainability and effectiveness: ● Funding and human resources were the most frequently cited challenges, with many repositories relying on short-term, project-based funding. ● Governance structures are often fragmented, with unclear ownership and limited institutional support complicating strategic planning. ● Few repositories have formal continuity agreements in place, though many rely on public institutions or consortia for long-term preservation and access. 2.4.3. Legal Landscape The survey highlighted a fragmented legal environment across repositories: ● Many repositories lack formal frameworks for GDPR compliance and cross-border data sharing, and responsibility for legal compliance is often delegated to researchers. ● Intellectual property rights and inconsistent licensing practices were frequently mentioned as barriers to interoperability and reuse. 8 | Page ● There is strong interest in developing shared legal templates, guidelines, and collaborative frameworks through the FIDELIS Network. 2.4.4. Training and Support Needs The survey provided valuable insights into the community’s training and support preferences: ● Respondents expressed strong interest in training on long-term preservation, repository certification, sensitive data management, and stakeholder engagement. ● Seminars, webinars, and interactive workshops were the most preferred formats, with peer support and expert guidance also highly valued. ● Time constraints and uncertainty about the value of training activities were identified as barriers to participation. Respondents emphasised the need for practical, outcome-oriented training. 2.4.5. Expectations of the FIDELIS Network Respondents shared their initial thoughts on the emerging FIDELIS Network and its potential benefits: ● The Network is expected to foster collaboration, harmonisation, and advocacy for repositories, offering shared frameworks, tools, and training opportunities. ● Respondents expressed enthusiasm for practical, topic-focused collaboration mechanisms such as working groups, online events, and forums. ● Financial constraints were the most commonly cited barrier to participation. The provisional membership model introduced by FIDELIS was seen as a helpful way to lower entry barriers and encourage engagement. 2.5. Conclusion The FIDELIS community survey has provided a rich and nuanced understanding of the current repository landscape. It has identified common practices, challenges, and needs across technical, organisational, legal, and training domains. These insights will guide the development of the FIDELIS Network, inform the refinement of the TTRAM model, and shape targeted support and harmonisation activities. The community’s constructive feedback and enthusiasm underscore the importance of a federated, collaborative approach to building a sustainable ecosystem of Trustworthy Digital Repositories in Europe. 9 | Page Appendix: Possible Actionable Steps for WP6 and WP7 The key conclusions from the T5.2 landscape analysis offer strategic guidance for advancing the work of the TDR harmonisation & interoperability pillar (Pillar 3) of the FIDELIS project. The following actionable steps are proposed for Work Packages 6 (in 2026) and 7 (in 2027). WP6 – Harmonisation of Repository Capabilities and Federation Models Task 6.1: Consolidated Requirements and Levels of Maturity and Capability Insights from Landscape Analysis The analysis revealed significant variation in repository maturity, particularly in areas such as curation, preservation, and metadata quality. There is a need for clear benchmarks and scalable support mechanisms. Proposed Actions ● Develop a tiered maturity framework outlining minimum service levels for curation, preservation, and infrastructure, tailored to different repository types and capacities. ● Translate survey findings into benchmark indicators for repository improvement, especially regarding metadata completeness and preservation strategies. ● Facilitate alignment with consolidated requirements through community-driven guidance, including webinars, peer exchanges, and Pillar 4 cascading grant schemes. Task 6.2: Facilitating Technical Federation of Repositories Insights from Landscape Analysis Interoperability remains a key challenge, with issues around metadata synchronization, semantic alignment, and technical integration. Proposed Actions ● Recommend interoperability standards, APIs, and practices to support metadata harmonisation, ontology alignment, and vocabulary reuse. ● Promote the use of machine-readable metadata schemas and shared semantic artefacts to address integration challenges. ● Enhance repository discoverability by supporting uniform capability descriptions, informed by insights on PID usage and metadata enrichment. Task 6.3: Policies and Practices for Repository Federation and Interoperability Insights from Landscape Analysis Repositories face governance fragmentation, legal uncertainty, and funding instability. There is demand for harmonised policies and shared infrastructure. 16 | Page Proposed Actions ● Develop policy templates for disaster recovery, access rights, and preservation workflows, addressing gaps identified in the survey. ● Define baseline technical expectations for TDRs, including infrastructure robustness, sensitive data handling, and long-term preservation. ● Advocate for shared services and infrastructure models to reduce operational risks and costs, informed by findings on third-party dependencies and resource constraints. WP7 – Semantic Artefacts and Metadata Interoperability Task 7.2: Metadata Standards and Vocabularies Promotion Insights from Landscape Analysis While semantic artefact adoption is growing, integration challenges persist. Survey responses suggest a need for deeper understanding and more flexible implementation approaches. Proposed Actions ● Conduct a targeted follow-up analysis to clarify technical choices and repository practices behind survey responses. ● Identify and engage with repositories not yet adopting semantic artefacts, offering tailored support for roadmap development in collaboration with Pillar 4. ● Promote decoupled implementation models using external semantic artefact catalogues to enhance flexibility and sustainability. ● Encourage adoption of standard APIs to improve metadata interoperability and facilitate reuse across domains. 17 | Page