Search

This paper reports on the development of a metadata application profile (AP), MetaFAIR, designed to support research data management (RDM) to make research data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. The development of MetaFAIR followed a three‐step process that included learning about the characteristics of datasets from researchers to establish their context and requirements, as well as iterative design and testing with researchers' feedback. Guided by the FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability), MetaFAIR focuses on accommodating description needs particular to computational social science datasets while seeking to provide general enough elements to describe data collections across many different domains. In this paper, MetaFAIR is placed in the context of historical and recent developments in the areas of RDM and application profile creation; following this contextualization, the paper describes the central considerations and challenges of the MetaFAIR development process and discusses its significance for future work in RDM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although open access (OA) to research outputs has been proven to improve research readership, citation, and impact, the uptake of OA in some disciplines has remained low. In this paper, we investigated and compared OA publishing practices of early career and mid‐career researchers in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (HASS) disciplines in Canada. The descriptive survey design with the use of online questionnaire was employed. Participants were drawn from a group of 15 public research universities via their openly available emails on university websites. Survey data was analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings show that in the last three years, 74.1% of mid‐career researchers have published in OA journals, compared to 63.1% of early career researchers. However, OA publishing of monographs (21.3%) and conference proceedings (29.9%), as well as the frequency and extent OA publishing remains low among all participants. ANOVA results (F [2, 218] = 3.683, p =.027, 휂2 =.033) showed that 3.3% of the variance in researchers' OA publishing frequency can be attributed to their disciplines. Overall, OA publishing among researchers in the HASS disciplines is still low. Hence, there is a need to identify factors that facilitate or hinder HASS researchers' OA publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]