Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Assessment of FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) data implementation frameworks: a parametric approach

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Most FAIR data implementation frameworks put technology before people, a parametric review finds.

desk verdict First systematic parametric comparison of FAIR implementation frameworks, but the central what/why/how claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table 11. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.06268 v1 pith:CC5MQJX6 submitted 2024-12-27 cs.DL

Ranjeet Kumar Singh , Akanksha Nagpal , Arun Jadhav , Devika P. Madalli This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DL
keywords FAIRdataprinciplesimplementationframeworksparametricevaluationresearchmanagementgovernancetechnology-firstapproachpeople-firstopenscience
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to give the scientific community a systematic, item-by-item basis for choosing among the openly available FAIR implementation frameworks—the guides that tell researchers how to make their data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. It identifies 13 such frameworks and scores each against 36 parameters in four groups: technical specifications, basic features, FAIR implementation features, and coverage of the four FAIR principles. The headline result is that most frameworks are 'technology-first': they give step-by-step instructions for deploying tools but largely omit the 'what, why, and how' of each FAIR principle and pay little attention to the social and human aspects of adoption. The authors conclude that future frameworks should be built around a people-first, human-centered design that serves researchers from non-technical backgrounds.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the parametric evaluation design: 36 parameters divided into four themes—16 technical specifications, 7 basic features, 9 FAIR implementation features, and 4 FAIR coverage dimensions (what, why, how, tools for each of the four principles). Each framework is coded Y or NA by manual exploration of its web pages and related literature, and relatedness between every pair of frameworks is computed with a match-count procedure the paper calls the XAND operator, which counts Y-Y and NA-NA agreements and expresses them as a percentage. Those pairwise percentages generate the similarity matrices that reveal how clustered the frameworks are around technical features rather than explanatory or social support.

What would settle it

Re-run the coding with two independent assessors applying the same 36 parameters to the same 13 framework pages and check for inter-rater agreement below, say, 80 percent, or re-code the pages six months after the study's November 2024 cutoff and find that a framework marked NA on the 'what/why/how' of a FAIR principle now shows that content; either observation would overturn or weaken the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the current field of openly available FAIR implementation frameworks is dominated by a technology-first mindset. Coding 13 frameworks against 36 parameters, the paper finds that 92 percent of the frameworks help users develop technical implementation strategies, while only 38 percent help identify blockers to FAIR implementation, 38 percent help identify or integrate in-country data policies, and fewer than half provide courses or recipes. The FAIR coverage tables show that only a handful of frameworks, mostly a recipe-based resource and a recently launched process framework, explain the what, why, and how of all four FAIR principles and suggest tools with their pros and cons; several prominent frameworks have NA marks on many of those dimensions. The paper concludes that the frameworks collectively underserve non-technical users and recommends that future framework development adopt a people-first, human-centered design approach that emphasizes the needs and experiences of users over technology deployment.

Load-bearing premise

The whole evaluation rests on the authors' manual Y/NA coding of each framework's web pages and literature; if that coding is inaccurate, inconsistent, or already outdated, the coverage percentages, similarity matrices, and the technology-first conclusion would all shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Framework developers can use the 36-parameter checklist as a gap analysis instrument to see which of the what, why, how, and tools dimensions their resource does not yet cover.
  • Funders and research institutions that want broad FAIR adoption should prefer or commission frameworks that explicitly address the social side—blockers, enablers, in-country data policies, and governance—not only tool deployment.
  • Researchers in non-technical fields can expect a better match from people-first frameworks that explain the purpose of each FAIR principle before prescribing technologies.
  • If the finding holds, the next generation of FAIR implementation frameworks will look less like software manuals and more like educational and organizational guides.
  • The pairwise similarity matrices can serve as a practical tool for selecting alternative or complementary frameworks when one framework lacks a needed feature.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 36-parameter coding could itself be converted into a reusable FAIR implementation framework assessment rubric, but it would need an inter-rater reliability pass because the paper does not report one.
  • The time-stability of the Y/NA coding is an open question: frameworks are updated frequently, and the study's snapshot, taken before November 2024, may already differ from today's pages, so the rankings should be treated as a baseline rather than a permanent verdict.
  • A natural extension would be to weight the parameters by user group (e.g., researchers vs. data stewards) so that the scores reflect the needs of the intended audience rather than treating all features equally.
  • The observed technology-first pattern suggests a testable hypothesis: frameworks that explicitly explain what, why, and how will be adopted at higher rates by non-technical research communities than those that lead with tool deployment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper identifies 13 openly available FAIR implementation frameworks and evaluates them against a parametric scheme grouped into technical specifications, basic features, FAIR implementation features, and FAIR coverage. The assessment is presented as Y/NA tables, and pairwise similarity matrices are computed by counting matching Y/NA values. The authors conclude that most frameworks adopt a technology-first approach, mainly guiding tool deployment, while missing critical explanations of what, why, and how for the four FAIR principles, and they recommend a people-first approach for future frameworks.

Significance. If the evaluation were reliable, the paper would provide a useful comparative resource for researchers, data stewards, and framework developers, and it would fill a genuine gap: most prior work has evaluated FAIR assessment tools rather than FAIR implementation frameworks. The paper's strength is that the coded data are presented in tables, so each claim can be checked against the reported values, and the similarity analysis is explicitly described. However, the central qualitative claim is currently undermined by the paper's own Table 11, which shows that a majority of the surveyed frameworks do cover what, why, how, and tools for all four FAIR principles.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4, Table 11] The abstract's claim that 'many frameworks are missing the critical aspects of explaining what, why, and how' is contradicted by the entries in Table 11. Counting the 16 What/Why/How/Tools cells for each framework, F2, F3, F4, F6, F9, F10, and F13 (7 of 13) have Y in every cell; F7 has Y in all Interoperability cells; F12 has Y only for Tools and NA for What/Why/How; and F1, F5, F8, and F11 are NA throughout. The accompanying prose also misreports the table: it lists 'F2,F3,F4,F6,F6,F10,andF13' (duplicating F6 and omitting F9) and states that F7 covers nothing, although Table 11 shows otherwise. Either the coding or the conclusion must be revised; as written, the central finding is not supported by the reported evidence.
  2. [Sections 3.4 and 5] The paper states in Section 3.4 that 36 parameters were identified, but Section 5 states that 38 parameters were identified. Moreover, Table 4 expands FAIR coverage into 16 sub-parameters (four principles each with What/Why/How/Tools), while the text counts FAIR coverage as only 4 parameters; the reported arithmetic 16+7+9+4=36 is inconsistent with the 16 sub-parameters in Table 4 and with the abstract's '36 parameters'. The counting convention needs to be clarified and the numbers unified.
  3. [Section 3.6] The evaluation rests on manual Y/NA coding of web pages and literature, but no coding protocol, inter-rater reliability check, or raw dataset is provided. Because the paper's parametric comparison and its conclusions depend entirely on these codes, the authors should provide the coding sheet or an appendix with the full coded values and specify how 'NA' was interpreted, distinguishing true absence of a feature from lack of available information. This is particularly important because the similarity calculation in Tables 8 and 10 treats NA-NA as agreement, which can inflate similarity when NA means 'no information' rather than 'feature absent'.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 5] Table 5 is badly garbled: the header row is repeated inside the table, long partner lists are placed before the column headings, and rows for F9 and F10 appear to merge into each other. The table should be restructured so that each framework has one row with its name, project/URL, creator, host, funder, partners, domain, and language.
  2. [Section 4.4] There are several typographical errors that obscure the reading, including 'F2,F3,F4,F6,F6,F10,andF13' (duplicate F6, missing F9), 'Zenedo' for 'Zenodo', 'JupiterBook' for 'JupyterBook', and 'siframeworks' for 'six frameworks'. Please correct these throughout.
  3. [Section 5] The text refers to 'heatmap tables' for Tables 8 and 10, but the printed tables are plain numeric matrices; either add the actual heatmaps or reword the description to say similarity matrices.
  4. [Section 5] The term 'XAND operators' is undefined. If it is intended to mean the simple matching coefficient used in Tables 8 and 10, this should be stated explicitly and defined in the methods section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the FAIR framework evaluation is an external coded assessment, and the only self-citation (adapting the parameter list from the authors' own prior parametric studies) is not load-bearing for the central technology-first finding.

full rationale

This paper is a comparative review of 13 FAIR implementation frameworks, not a predictive derivation; there are no fitted parameters, no equations whose outputs equal their inputs, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz imported from the authors' prior work. The central claim that most frameworks are technology-first and that many miss the what/why/how of the FAIR principles is a summary of the manual Y/NA coding against the parameters defined in Tables 1 through 4. Section 3.4 does cite the authors' own earlier parametric studies (Gajbe et al., 2021; Bharti & Singh, 2022) as a source for parameter identification, which is a minor self-citation; however, the assessment against each framework is external, the rubric is stated openly, and the conclusion is not entailed by the mere choice of parameters. No circularity arises from the inclusion criterion that selected frameworks have step-by-step guidance, because the contested claim that frameworks 'only offer' a step-by-step guide is a measured property, not an analytical consequence of the selection rule. The main reliability concern is internal rather than circular: the prose around Table 11 appears to misstate its own entries, listing 'F2,F3,F4,F6,F6,F10,andF13' while omitting F9, and the table itself shows F7 partially covered rather than entirely uncovered; this is a data-reporting consistency issue, not a circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the cited self-work is not load-bearing, so the circularity score is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters, no fitted quantities, and no new entities. Its claims rest on domain assumptions about parameter completeness, coding accuracy, the validity of the similarity measure, and the representativeness of the 13 selected frameworks.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 36 identified parameters are sufficient and appropriate for characterizing FAIR implementation frameworks.
    Section 3.4 introduces parameters selected from a few prior studies and framework exploration; the choice shapes all findings, and no validation of completeness or relevance is provided.
  • domain assumption The Y/NA values in Tables 6, 7, 9, and 11 accurately reflect the features of each framework.
    Section 3.6 says data was gathered by exploring web pages and literature, but no coding protocol, inter-rater reliability, or raw dataset is provided; incorrect coding would alter the comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper The simple matching similarity measure, counting both Y-Y and NA-NA as agreement, is a valid measure of relatedness between frameworks.
    Section 5 describes using XAND operators and converting matched pairs to percentages; counting double negatives as similarity inflates relatedness for frameworks that share missing features.
  • domain assumption The identified 13 frameworks are representative of openly available FAIR implementation frameworks.
    Section 3.5 identifies frameworks from literature and web exploration with criteria that are not fully operationalized, and the exclusion of materials such as Foster is not systematically justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessment of FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) data implementation frameworks: a parametric approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CC5MQJX6

@misc{pith2026250406268,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessment of FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) data implementation frameworks: a parametric approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CC5MQJX6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.06268}
}
read the original abstract

Open science movement has established reproducibility, transparency, and validation of research outputs as essential norms for conducting scientific research. It advocates for open access to research outputs, especially research data, to enable verification of published findings and its optimum reuse. The FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles support the philosophy of open science and have emerged as a foundational framework for making digital assets machine-actionable and enhancing their reusability and value in various domains, particularly in scientific research and data management. In response to the growing demand for making data FAIR, various FAIR implementation frameworks have been developed by various organizations to educate and make the scientific community more aware of FAIR and its principles and to make the adoption and implementation of FAIR easier. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the openly available FAIR implementation frameworks based on a parametric evaluation of these frameworks. The current work identifies 13 frameworks and compares them against their coverage of the four foundational principles of FAIR, including an assessment of these frameworks against 36 parameters related to technical specifications, basic features, and FAIR implementation features and FAIR coverage. The study identifies that most of the frameworks only offer a step-by-step guide to FAIR implementation and seem to be adopting the technology-first approach, mostly guiding the deployment of various tools for FAIR implementation. Many frameworks are missing the critical aspects of explaining what, why, and how for the four foundational principles of FAIR, giving less consideration to the social aspects of FAIR. The study concludes that more such frameworks should be developed, considering the people-first approach rather than the technology-first.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    PLOSBiology, 17(5),e3000246

    Allen,C.,&Mehler,D.M.A.(2019).Opensciencechallenges,benefitsandtipsinearly careerandbeyond. PLOSBiology, 17(5),e3000246. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246 2019

  2. [3]

    PracticeandExperienceinAdvancedResearch Computing,99–105.https://doi.org/10.1145/3311790.3396660

    Ananthakrishnan,R.,Chard,K.,D’Arcy,M.,Foster,I.,Kesselman,C.,McCollam,B., Pruyne,J.,Rocca-Serra,P.,Schuler,R.,&Wagner,R.(2020).AnOpenEcosystemfor PervasiveUseofPersistentIdentifiers. PracticeandExperienceinAdvancedResearch Computing,99–105.https://doi.org/10.1145/3311790.3396660

    arXiv 2020

  3. [4]

    https://doi.org/10.5334/DSJ-2020-041

    Bahim,C.,Casorrán-Amilburu,C.,Dekkers,M.,Herczog,E.,Loozen,N.,Repanas,K., Russell,K.,&Stall,S.(2020).TheFAIRdatamaturitymodel:Anapproachtoharmonise FAIRassessments.InDataScienceJournal(Vol.19,Issue1,pp.1–7).UbiquityPress. https://doi.org/10.5334/DSJ-2020-041

    work page doi:10.5334/dsj-2020-041 2020

  4. [5]

    Resultsof anAnalysisof ExistingFAIR Assessment Tools(RDAReport).https://doi.org/10.15497/rda00035

    Bahim,C.,Dekkers,M.,&Wyns,B.(2019). Resultsof anAnalysisof ExistingFAIR Assessment Tools(RDAReport).https://doi.org/10.15497/rda00035

    work page doi:10.15497/rda00035 2019

  5. [6]

    InDataScienceJournal(Vol.23,Issue1).UbiquityPress

    Bahlo,C.(2024).AdvancingFAIRAgriculturalData:TheAgReFedFAIRAssessmentTool. InDataScienceJournal(Vol.23,Issue1).UbiquityPress. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2024-018

    doi:10.5334/dsj-2024-018 2024

  6. [7]

    International Journal of InformationManagement, 50, 337–340.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.009

    Bellgard,M.I.(2020).ERDMAS:Anexemplar-driveninstitutionalresearchdata managementandanalysisstrategy. International Journal of InformationManagement, 50, 337–340.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.009 2020

  7. [8]

    RatSWDWorkingPaperSeries

    BetancortCabrera,N.,Bongartz,E.C.,Dörrenbächer,N.,Goebel,J.,Kaluza,H.,&Siegers, P.(2020).WhitePaperonimplementingtheFAIRprinciplesfordataintheSocial, Behavioural,andEconomicSciences. RatSWDWorkingPaperSeries. https://doi.org/10.17620/02671.60

    work page doi:10.17620/02671.60 2020

  8. [9]

    ElectronicLibrary, 40(5),552–567

    Bharti,S.,&Singh,R.K.(2022).Evaluationandanalysisofdigitallanguagearchives developmentplatforms:Aparametricapproach. ElectronicLibrary, 40(5),552–567. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-01-2022-0011

    work page doi:10.1108/el-01-2022-0011 2022

Show all 70 references
  1. [10]

    OpenData, Privacy, andFairInformationPrinciples: TowardsaBalancingFramework

    Borgesius,FrederikZuiderveen;Gray,Jonathan;VanEechoud,Mireille.(2016). OpenData, Privacy, andFairInformationPrinciples: TowardsaBalancingFramework. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z389S18

    2016 doi

  2. [11]

    Zeitschrift FürPsychologie, 227(4),237–248

    Crüwell,S.,VanDoorn,J.,Etz,A.,Makel,M.C.,Moshontz,H.,Niebaum,J.C.,Orben,A., Parsons,S.,&Schulte-Mecklenbeck,M.(2019).SevenEasyStepstoOpenScience:An AnnotatedReadingList. Zeitschrift FürPsychologie, 227(4),237–248. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000387

    2019 doi

  3. [12]

    Devaraju,A.,Mokrane,M.,Cepinskas,L.,Huber,R.,Herterich,P.,DEVRIES,J.,Akerman, V.,L’hours,H.,Davidson,J.,&Diepenbroek,M.(2021).Fromconceptualizationto implementation:Fairassessmentofresearchdataobjects.InDataScienceJournal(Vol.20, Issue1,pp.1–14).UbiquityPress.https://doi.org/1...

    2021 doi

  4. [13]

    Doan,A.,Halevy,A.,&Ives,Z.(2012).KeywordSearch.InPrinciplesof DataIntegration (pp.399–411).Elsevier.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-416044-6.00016-8

    2012 doi

  5. [14]

    Bartling&S.Friesike(Eds.), OpeningScience(pp.17–47).SpringerInternationalPublishing

    Fecher,B.,&Friesike,S.(2014).OpenScience:OneTerm,FiveSchoolsofThought.InS. Bartling&S.Friesike(Eds.), OpeningScience(pp.17–47).SpringerInternationalPublishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2

    2014 doi

  6. [15]

    The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(5),893–912.https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1415887

    Fraser,A.(2019).Landgrab/datagrab:Precisionagricultureanditsnewhorizons. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(5),893–912.https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1415887

    2019

  7. [16]

    InformationProcessing&Management, 58(3),102480.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102480

    Gajbe,S.B.,Tiwari,A.,Gopalji,&Singh,R.K.(2021).EvaluationandanalysisofData ManagementPlantools:Aparametricapproach. InformationProcessing&Management, 58(3),102480.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102480

    2021

  8. [17]

    RecommendationsforDiscipline-SpecificFAIRnessEvaluationDerivedfromApplyingan EnsembleofEvaluationTools

    Gehlen,K.P.,Höck,H.,Fast,A.,Heydebreck,D.,Lammert,A.,&Thiemann,H.(2022). RecommendationsforDiscipline-SpecificFAIRnessEvaluationDerivedfromApplyingan EnsembleofEvaluationTools. DataScienceJournal, 21,7. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2022-007

    2022 doi

  9. [18]

    13541LNCS(pp.68–80).SpringerScienceandBusiness MediaDeutschlandGmbH.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16802-4_6

    González,E.,Benítez,A.,&Garijo,D.(2022).FAIROs:TowardsFAIRAssessmentin ResearchObjects.InS.G,C.O,M.P,D.N.G.M,G.K,F.N,&P.A(Eds.), LectureNotesin ComputerScience(includingsubseriesLectureNotesinArtificial IntelligenceandLecture NotesinBioinformatics): Vol. 13541LNCS(pp.68–80).Sp...

    2022 doi

  10. [19]

    International Journal of InformationManagement, 41,23–32

    Harper,L.M.,&Kim,Y.(2018).Attitudinal,normative,andresourcefactorsaffecting psychologists’intentionstoadoptanopendatabadge:Anempiricalanalysis. International Journal of InformationManagement, 41,23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.03.001

    2018 doi

  11. [20]

    Maleshkova,H.Paulheim,J.Z.Pan,&M.Alam(Eds.), TheSemanticWeb: ESWC2018 SatelliteEvents(Vol.11155,pp.469–477).SpringerInternationalPublishing

    Hasnain,A.,&Rebholz-Schuhmann,D.(2018).AssessingFAIRDataPrinciplesAgainstthe 5-StarOpenDataPrinciples.InA.Gangemi,A.L.Gentile,A.G.Nuzzolese,S.Rudolph,M. Maleshkova,H.Paulheim,J.Z.Pan,&M.Alam(Eds.), TheSemanticWeb: ESWC2018 SatelliteEvents(Vol.11155,pp.469–477).SpringerInternat...

    2018 doi

  12. [21]

    Humby,C.(2006).DataistheNewOil. Proc. ANASeniorMarketer’sSummit

    2006

  13. [22]

    Jacob,D.,David,R.,Aubin,S.,&Gibon,Y.(2021).Makingexperimentaldatatablesinthe lifesciencesmoreFAIR:Apragmaticapproach.InGigaScience(Vol.9,Issue12).Oxford UniversityPress.https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giaa144

    2021 doi

  14. [23]

    Jacobsen,A.,BoninodaSilvaSantos,L.O.,Mons,B.,Schultes,E.,Kuhn,T.,Wilkinson,M., dumontier, michel,Sansone,S.-A.,Wittenburg,P.,Hettne,K.,Magagna,B.,&Axton,M. (2022). FAIRimplementationchoicesandchallenges. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4V9PM

    2022 doi

  15. [24]

    DataIntelligence, 2(1–2),10–29.https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_r_00024

    Jacobsen,A.,DeMirandaAzevedo,R.,Juty,N.,Batista,D.,Coles,S.,Cornet,R.,Courtot, M.,Crosas,M.,Dumontier,M.,Evelo,C.T.,Goble,C.,Guizzardi,G.,Hansen,K.K., Hasnain,A.,Hettne,K.,Heringa,J.,Hooft,R.W.W.,Imming,M.,Jeffery,K.G.,… Schultes,E.(2020).FAIRPrinciples:InterpretationsandImple...

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    DataIntelligence, 4(4),867–881

    Jati,P.H.P.,Lin,Y.,Nodehi,S.,Cahyono,D.B.,&VanReisen,M.(2022).FAIRVersus OpenData:AComparisonofObjectivesandPrinciples. DataIntelligence, 4(4),867–881. https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00176

    2022 doi

  17. [26]

    ResearchMethodology: MethodsandTechniques(4thed.)

    Kothari,C.R.,&Garg,G.(2019). ResearchMethodology: MethodsandTechniques(4thed.). NewAgeInternational(P)Ltd.,Publishers

    2019

  18. [27]

    (2022).FAIRassessmenttools:Evaluatinguseandperformance.InNanoImpact(Vol.27)

    Krans,N.A.,Ammar,A.,Nymark,P.,Willighagen,E.L.,Bakker,M.I.,&Quik,J.T.K. (2022).FAIRassessmenttools:Evaluatinguseandperformance.InNanoImpact(Vol.27). ElsevierB.V.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2022.100402

    2022

  19. [28]

    (2020).FAIRdatasharing:Therolesofcommondataelementsandharmonization

    Kush,R.D.,Warzel,D.,Kush,M.A.,Sherman,A.,Navarro,E.A.,Fitzmartin,R.,Pétavy,F., Galvez,J.,Becnel,L.B.,Zhou,F.L.,Harmon,N.,Jauregui,B.,Jackson,T.,&Hudson,L. (2020).FAIRdatasharing:Therolesofcommondataelementsandharmonization. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 107,103421.https:/...

    2020

  20. [29]

    Data Intelligence, 2(1–2),47–55.https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00027

    Landi,A.,Thompson,M.,Giannuzzi,V.,Bonifazi,F.,Labastida,I.,DaSilvaSantos,L.O.B., &Roos,M.(2020).The“A”ofFAIR–AsOpenasPossible,asClosedasNecessary. Data Intelligence, 2(1–2),47–55.https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00027

    2020 doi

  21. [30]

    AutomationinConstruction, 58,176–195

    Lee,Y.-C.,Eastman,C.M.,&Lee,J.-K.(2015).Validationsforensuringtheinteroperability ofdataexchangeofabuildinginformationmodel. AutomationinConstruction, 58,176–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.07.010

    2015 doi

  22. [31]

    ImplementingFAIRDataInfrastructures(DagstuhlPerspectivesWorkshop18472).In Dagstuhl Reports(DagRep)(Version1.0,Vol.8,Issue11,pp.91–111)[Application/pdf]

    Manola,N.,Mutschke,P.,Scherp,G.,Tochtermann,K.,&Wittenburg,P.(2019). ImplementingFAIRDataInfrastructures(DagstuhlPerspectivesWorkshop18472).In Dagstuhl Reports(DagRep)(Version1.0,Vol.8,Issue11,pp.91–111)[Application/pdf]. SchlossDagstuhl–Leibniz-ZentrumfürInformatik.https://do...

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    Heliyon, 9(5),e15733.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15733

    Martínez-García,A.,Alvarez-Romero,C.,Román-Villarán,E.,Bernabeu-Wittel,M.,&Luis Parra-Calderón,C.(2023).FAIRprinciplestoimprovetheimpactonhealthresearch managementoutcomes. Heliyon, 9(5),e15733.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15733

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    Thebeautyof datavisualization[Talk].TEDconference

    McCandless,D.(2010). Thebeautyof datavisualization[Talk].TEDconference. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mccandless_the_beauty_of_data_visualization/transcript?su btitle=en

    2010

  25. [34]

    Social Studiesof Science, 48(2),171–203

    Mirowski,P.(2018).Thefuture(s)ofopenscience. Social Studiesof Science, 48(2),171–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718772086

    2018 doi

  26. [35]

    DataIntelligence, 2(1–2),1–9

    Mons,B.,Schultes,E.,Liu,F.,&Jacobsen,A.(2020).TheFAIRPrinciples:FirstGeneration ImplementationChoicesandChallenges. DataIntelligence, 2(1–2),1–9. https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_e_00023

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    NaturePrecedings

    Murray-Rust,P.(2008).OpenDatainScience. NaturePrecedings. https://doi.org/10.1038/npre.2008.1526.1

    2008

  28. [37]

    DataIntelligence, 4(4),991–1012

    Oladipo,F.,Folorunso,S.,Ogundepo,E.,Osigwe,O.,&Akindele,A.(2022).Curriculum DevelopmentforFAIRDataStewardship. DataIntelligence, 4(4),991–1012. https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00183

    2022 doi

  29. [38]

    PharmacoepidemiologyandDrugSafety, 33(8),e5871

    Pajouheshnia,R.,Gini,R.,Gutierrez,L.,Swertz,M.A.,Hyde,E.,Sturkenboom,M.,Arana, A.,Franzoni,C.,Ehrenstein,V.,Roberto,G.,Gil,M.,Maciá,M.A.,Schäfer,W.,Haug,U., Thurin,N.H.,Lassalle,R.,Droz ‐ Perroteau,C.,Zaccagnino,S.,Busto,M.P.,… Perez ‐ Gutthann,S.(2024).MetadataforDatadIscover...

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    ANAMarketingMaestros

    Palmer,M.(2006).DataistheNewOil. ANAMarketingMaestros. https://ana.blogs.com/maestros/2006/11/data_is_the_new.html

    2006

  31. [40]

    ResearchIdeasandOutcomes, 8, e96144.https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e96144

    Parland-vonEssen,J.,&Dillo,I.(2022).FAIR-IMPACT. ResearchIdeasandOutcomes, 8, e96144.https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e96144

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    Postdigital ScienceandEducation.https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-024-00462-8

    Peters,M.A.,Jandrić,P.,&Green,B.J.(2024).TheDIKWModelintheAgeofArtificial Intelligence. Postdigital ScienceandEducation.https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-024-00462-8

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    DataScienceJournal, 19,46.https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-046

    Plomp,E.(2020).GoingDigital:PersistentIdentifiersforResearchSamples,Resourcesand Instruments. DataScienceJournal, 19,46.https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-046

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    D7.2BriefingonFAIRCompetencesand Synergies.https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4009006

    Principe,P.,Vieira,A.,Stoy,L.,Engelhardt,C.,Saenen,B.,Davidson,J.,Whyte,A., Demchenko,Y.,Herterich,P.,&Leenarts,E.(2020). D7.2BriefingonFAIRCompetencesand Synergies.https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4009006

    2020 doi

  35. [44]

    LIBERQuarterly: TheJournal of theAssociationof EuropeanResearchLibraries, 22(3),160–175.https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.8110

    Rettberg,N.,&Schmidt,B.(2012).OpenAIRE-BuildingacollaborativeOpenAccess infrastructureforEuropeanresearchers. LIBERQuarterly: TheJournal of theAssociationof EuropeanResearchLibraries, 22(3),160–175.https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.8110

    2012 doi

  36. [45]

    Improvingthedocumentationandfindabilityofdataservicesandrepositories:Areviewof (meta)datamanagementapproaches

    Řezník,T.,Raes,L.,Stott,A.,DeLathouwer,B.,Perego,A.,Charvát,K.,&Kafka,Š.(2022). Improvingthedocumentationandfindabilityofdataservicesandrepositories:Areviewof (meta)datamanagementapproaches. Computers&Geosciences, 169,105194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2022.105194

    2022

  37. [46]

    ScientificData, 10(1),292

    Rocca-Serra,P.,Gu,W.,Ioannidis,V.,Abbassi-Daloii,T.,Capella-Gutierrez,S., Chandramouliswaran,I.,Splendiani,A.,Burdett,T.,Giessmann,R.T.,Henderson,D., Batista,D.,Emam,I.,Gadiya,Y.,Giovanni,L.,Willighagen,E.,Evelo,C.,Gray,A.J.G., Gribbon,P.,Juty,N.,…Sansone,S.-A.(2023).TheFAIRCo...

    2023 doi

  38. [47]

    Neohelicon, 28(1),109–121.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011901104984

    RodrígezGarcía,J.M.(2001).ScientiaPotestasEst–KnowledgeisPower:FrancisBaconto MichelFoucault. Neohelicon, 28(1),109–121.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011901104984

    2001 doi

  39. [48]

    FAIR Connect, 1(1),13–17.https://doi.org/10.3233/FC-221514

    Schultes,E.(2023).TheFAIRhourglass:AframeworkforFAIRimplementation. FAIR Connect, 1(1),13–17.https://doi.org/10.3233/FC-221514

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    InformationServices& Use, 44(1),15–21.https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-230227

    Schultes,E.(2024).FAIRdigitalobjectsforacademicpublishers. InformationServices& Use, 44(1),15–21.https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-230227

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    ReusableFAIRImplementationProfilesasAcceleratorsofFAIRConvergence.InG

    Schultes,E.,Magagna,B.,Hettne,K.M.,Pergl,R.,Suchánek,M.,&Kuhn,T.(2020). ReusableFAIRImplementationProfilesasAcceleratorsofFAIRConvergence.InG. Grossmann&S.Ram(Eds.), AdvancesinConceptual Modeling(Vol.12584,pp.138–147). SpringerInternationalPublishing.https://doi.org/10.1007/97...

    2020 doi

  42. [51]

    FrontiersinResearchMetricsandAnalytics, 7, 912456.https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.912456

    Shanahan,H.,&Bezuidenhout,L.(2022).RethinkingtheAinFAIRData:IssuesofData AccessandAccessibilityinResearch. FrontiersinResearchMetricsandAnalytics, 7, 912456.https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.912456

    2022

  43. [52]

    Patterns, 2(10),100324

    Shanahan,H.,Hoebelheinrich,N.,&Whyte,A.(2021).Progresstowardacomprehensive teachingapproachtotheFAIRdataprinciples. Patterns, 2(10),100324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100324

    2021

  44. [53]

    DataEthicsandChallenges

    Shukla,S.,George,J.P.,Tiwari,K.,&Kureethara,J.V.(2022). DataEthicsandChallenges. SpringerSingapore.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0752-4

    2022 doi

  45. [54]

    Digital LibraryPerspectives

    Singh,R.K.(2024).DevelopingabigdataanalyticsplatformusingApacheHadoop Ecosystemfordeliveringbigdataservicesinlibraries. Digital LibraryPerspectives. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLP-10-2022-0079

    2024 doi

  46. [55]

    TheJournal of AcademicLibrarianship, 48(6),102586.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102586

    Singh,R.K.,Bharti,S.,&Madalli,D.P.(2022).EvaluationofResearchDataManagement (RDM)servicesinacademiclibrariesofIndia:Atriangulationapproach. TheJournal of AcademicLibrarianship, 48(6),102586.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102586

    2022

  47. [56]

    Journal of LibraryMetadata, 23(3–4),121–160

    Singh,R.K.,&Madalli,D.P.(2023).DMPFrame:AConceptualMetadataFrameworkfor DataManagementPlans. Journal of LibraryMetadata, 23(3–4),121–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386389.2023.2268474

    2023

  48. [57]

    Journal of LibrarianshipandInformationScience, 09610006241245714.https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006241245714

    Singh,R.K.,Raj,R.,&Madalli,D.P.(2024).Investigationofresearchsupportservices (RSS)inacademiclibrariesofIndia. Journal of LibrarianshipandInformationScience, 09610006241245714.https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006241245714

    2024 doi

  49. [58]

    FutureInternet, 15(2),71

    Stach,C.(2023).DataIstheNewOil–Sortof:AViewonWhyThisComparisonIs MisleadingandItsImplicationsforModernDataAdministration. FutureInternet, 15(2),71. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi15020071

    2023 doi

  50. [59]

    Nature, 570(7759), 27–29.https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01720-7

    Stall,S.,Yarmey,L.,Cutcher-Gershenfeld,J.,Hanson,B.,Lehnert,K.,Nosek,B.,Parsons, M.,Robinson,E.,&Wyborn,L.(2019).MakescientificdataFAIR. Nature, 570(7759), 27–29.https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01720-7

    2019 doi

  51. [60]

    Publications, 5(1),2.https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5010002

    Thanos,C.(2017).ResearchDataReusability:ConceptualFoundations,Barriersand EnablingTechnologies. Publications, 5(1),2.https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5010002

    2017 doi

  52. [61]

    Data Intelligence, 2(1–2),276–284.https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00050

    VanVlijmen,H.,Mons,A.,Waalkens,A.,Franke,W.,Baak,A.,Ruiter,G.,Kirkpatrick,C., DaSilvaSantos,L.O.B.,Meerman,B.,Jellema,R.,Arts,D.,Kersloot,M.,Knijnenburg,S., Lusher,S.,Verbeeck,R.,&Neefs,J.-M.(2020).TheNeedofIndustrytoGoFAIR. Data Intelligence, 2(1–2),276–284.https://doi.org/10...

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    Journal of BusinessResearch, 88,428–436

    Vicente-Saez,R.,&Martinez-Fuentes,C.(2018).OpenSciencenow:Asystematicliterature reviewforanintegrateddefinition. Journal of BusinessResearch, 88,428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043

    2018 doi

  54. [63]

    International Journal of InformationManagement, 59,102333

    Wagner,A.,Wessels,N.,Brakemeier,H.,&Buxmann,P.(2021).Whyfreedoesnotmean fair:Investigatingusers’distributiveequityperceptionsofdata-drivenservices. International Journal of InformationManagement, 59,102333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102333

    2021

  55. [64]

    Thompson,E.Hill,E.Carlisle-Johnston,D.Dennie,&É.Fortin(Eds.), ResearchData Management intheCanadianContext: AGuideforPractitionersandLearners(English)

    Wang,M.,&Savard,D.(2023).TheFAIRPrinciplesandResearchDataManagement.InK. Thompson,E.Hill,E.Carlisle-Johnston,D.Dennie,&É.Fortin(Eds.), ResearchData Management intheCanadianContext: AGuideforPractitionersandLearners(English). WesternUniversity,WesternLibraries.https://doi.org/1...

    2023 doi

  56. [65]

    J.,Clark,T.,Crosas,M.,Dillo,I.,Dumon,O.,Edmunds,S.,Evelo,C.T.,Finkers,R.,… Mons,B.(2016).TheFAIRGuidingPrinciplesforscientificdatamanagementand stewardship

    Wilkinson,M.D.,Dumontier,M.,Aalbersberg,Ij.J.,Appleton,G.,Axton,M.,Baak,A., Blomberg,N.,Boiten,J.-W.,daSilvaSantos,L.B.,Bourne,P.E.,Bouwman,J.,Brookes,A. J.,Clark,T.,Crosas,M.,Dillo,I.,Dumon,O.,Edmunds,S.,Evelo,C.T.,Finkers,R.,… Mons,B.(2016).TheFAIRGuidingPrinciplesforscienti...

    2016 doi

  57. [66]

    International Journal of InformationManagement, 54,102174.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102174

    Wilms,K.L.,Stieglitz,S.,Ross,B.,&Meske,C.(2020).Avalue-basedperspectiveon supportingandhinderingfactorsforresearchdatamanagement. International Journal of InformationManagement, 54,102174.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102174

    2020

  58. [67]

    DrugDiscoveryToday, 24(4),933–938.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2019.01.008

    Wise,J.,DeBarron,A.G.,Splendiani,A.,Balali-Mood,B.,Vasant,D.,Little,E.,Mellino, G.,Harrow,I.,Smith,I.,Taubert,J.,VanBochove,K.,Romacker,M.,Walgemoed,P., Jimenez,R.C.,Winnenburg,R.,Plasterer,T.,Gupta,V.,&Hedley,V.(2019).Implementation andrelevanceofFAIRdataprinciplesinbiopharma...

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    34,Issue7,pp.65–75).AgriculturalInformationInstitute,ChineseAcademyofAgricultural Sciences.https://doi.org/10.13998/j.cnki.issn1002-1248.21-0652

    Xing,W.,&Liu,W.(2022).AnInvestigationonUniversityLibraries’ServiceinPromoting theImplementationofFAIRDataManagementPrinciples;[ 高校图书馆推进FAIR数据管 理原则实施的服务调研 ].InJournal of LibraryandInformationScienceinAgriculture(Vol. 34,Issue7,pp.65–75).AgriculturalInformationInstitute,ChineseA...

    2022 doi

  60. [69]

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-023-00286-8

    Xu,F.,Juty,N.,Goble,C.,Jupp,S.,Parkinson,H.,&Courtot,M.(2023).FeaturesofaFAIR vocabulary.InJournal of Biomedical Semantics(Vol.14,Issue1).BioMedCentralLtd. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-023-00286-8

    2023 doi

  61. [70]

    InteroperabilityandDataStorageinInternetofMultimediaThings:InvestigatingCurrent Trends,ResearchChallengesandFutureDirections

    Yang,G.,Jan,M.A.,Rehman,A.U.,Babar,M.,Aimal,M.M.,&Verma,S.(2020). InteroperabilityandDataStorageinInternetofMultimediaThings:InvestigatingCurrent Trends,ResearchChallengesandFutureDirections. IEEEAccess, 8,124382–124401. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3006036

    2020

  62. [71]

    International Journal of InformationManagement, 49,228–241

    Zuiderwijk,A.,&Spiers,H.(2019).Sharingandre-usingopendata:Acasestudyof motivationsinastrophysics. International Journal of InformationManagement, 49,228–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.024

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.