Core Trust Seal: Improving Quality and Trust in Data Repositories through Certification

CoreTrustSeal: Improving Quality and Trust in Data Repositories through Certification Nicolas Larrousse, on behalf of Olivier Rouchon - CoreTrustSeal Chair WORKSHOP Trustworthiness •Trust, credibility, reliability are at the core of Open Science •Infrastructures and repositories are a key source of data •They must earn the trust of •Their users •The people who produce and deposit the data •The users of the data •Their authorities and funders Rationale for a formal certification •Mission to provide reliable, long-term access to controlled digital resources for its designated community, now and over time •Ongoing supervision, planning, and maintenance •Awareness of threats and risks within the systems •Regular audit and/or certification cycle ? Rationale for a formal certification •Criteria established by competent experts and applicable regardless of the disciplinary context •Preliminary self-assessment based on the criteria, allowing verification of the organization and processes, and identification of possible improvements •External evaluation by competent experts •Depositing in a certified data center is an important element of Data Management Plans (DMPs) CoreTrustSeal certification 16 requirements, 3 sections: •Organisational infrastructure •Digital Object Management •Information technology & securityurité Since 2017 not-for-profit foundation Three year certification Public evidences required Basis of a wider certification framework Credits: Mustapha Mokrane Formal certification ISO 16363:2012 (2 repositories, 100+ requirements) https://www.iso.org/standard/56510.html/ Extended certification DIN 31644 (5 repositories, 34 requirements) www.langzeitarchivierung.de CoreTrustSeal certification (250+ repositories, 16 requirements) www.CoreTrustSeal.org CoreTrustSeal 2023-2025 Benefits of certification •Documentation of (data) management processes •A few weeks of teamwork in most cases (all included) •Sometimes a bit longer for others, but still worth it! •Evaluation, reflection on the criteria – continuous improvement •Self-assessment •External evaluation •Growing importance for funders of infrastructures and projects (DMPs) •Political priority in Europe, with strong interest from key players (EOSC, etc.) Feedback: Nakala repository at Huma-Num Weaknesses: Need to prove that NAKALA respond to needs of the designated community Better define the “contract” with users (rights, guarantees etc.) Show “added-value” beyond simply hosting data General lack of documentation at all levels Accomplishment after 2 years: Significant development of documentation … and in Training sessions New definition of Terms & Conditions … with a focus on the long term General improvement of quality in the repository (moderation, automated controls etc.) Good framework to “onboard” different teams during the process