Search

Good data curation is integral to cohort studies, but it is not always done to a level necessary to ensure the longevity of the data a study holds. In this opinion paper, we introduce the concept of data curation debt-the data curation equivalent to the software engineering principle of technical debt. Using the context of UK cohort studies, we define data curation debt-describing examples and their potential impact. We highlight that accruing this debt can make it more difficult to use the data in the future. Additionally, the long-running nature of cohort studies means that interest is accrued on this debt and compounded over time-increasing the impact a debt could have on a study and its stakeholders. Primary causes of data curation debt are discussed across three categories: longevity of hardware, software and data formats; funding; and skills shortages. Based on cross-domain best practice, strategies to reduce the debt and preventive measures are proposed-with importance given to the recognition and transparent reporting of data curation debt. Describing the debt in this way, we encapsulate a multi-faceted issue in simple terms understandable by all cohort study stakeholders. Data curation debt is not only confined to the UK, but is an issue the international community must be aware of and address. This paper aims to stimulate a discussion between cohort studies and their stakeholders on how to address the issue of data curation debt. If data curation debt is left unchecked it could become impossible to use highly valued cohort study data, and ultimately represents an existential risk to studies themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines the prevalence of research software as independent records of output within UK academic institutional repositories (IRs). There has been a steep decline in numbers of research software submissions to the UK's Research Excellence Framework from 2008 to 2021, but there has been no investigation into whether and how the official academic IRs have affected the low return rates. In what we believe to be the first such census of its kind, we queried the 182 online repositories of 157 UK universities. Our findings show that the prevalence of software within UK Academic IRs is incredibly low. Fewer than 28% contain software as recognised academic output. Of greater concern, we found that over 63% of repositories do not currently record software as a type of research output and that several Universities appeared to have removed software as a defined type from default settings of their repository. We also explored potential correlations, such as being a member of the Russell group, but found no correlation between these metadata and prevalence of records of software. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings with regards to the lack of recognition of software as a discrete research output in institutions, despite the opposite being mandated by funders, and we make recommendations for changes in policies and operating procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]