School of Information Sciences -- Faculty Publications and Other Works
Source Publication (e.g., journal title)
IDCC24: International Digital Curation Conference 2024
Author ORCID Identifier
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2064-5140
Document Type
Poster
Publication Date
2024
Abstract
CoreTrustSeal (CTS) is a community-based certification system for trustworthy data repositories (TDRs) in which repositories submit documentation which is reviewed by a panel of representatives from current members (e.g., CoreTrustSeal, 2023b; Corrado, 2019; Dillo & De Leeuw, 2018). In comparison with other TDR certification systems (e.g., nestor, ISO 16363), CTS currently has the largest and most active membership, with 94 certified repositories as of October 2023 (CoreTrustSeal, 2023a).
The community focus of CTS, coupled with the fact that reviewers are drawn from CTS certified repositories, brings urgency to the need to understand how staff members of CTS certified repositories view and understand the requirements for certification.
This poster, which is part of a larger research project, reports on results from a 2020 survey of CTS certified repositories (163 at the time of data collection). Here, I ask the following research questions:
- How do staff members from certified repositories regard the three sections of the CoreTrustSeal requirements?
o Which do they view as most important for long-term preservation?
- Do staff members from certified repositories agree with the CTS requirements?
o Do they believe that meeting those requirements demonstrates trustworthiness for long term preservation?
o Do attitudes about the CTS requirements differ between repository staff members who have been CTS reviewers and those who have not?
Survey respondents were asked to rank the sections of the CTS checklist in order of importance. Based on their ranking, they were asked further questions about the section that they selected as most important. Findings indicate that across all survey respondents Organizational Infrastructure was ranked as the most important section of the CTS checklist, and Technology the least (see Table 1 below).
Table 1. Most important CTS requirement section by review experience. (N = 88)
Review Experience
Yes
No
Other
TOTAL
Organizational Infrastructure
17
26
2
45
Digital Object Management
9
20
2
31
Technology
1
11
0
12
TOTAL
27
57
4
88
Depending on the section of the CTS requirements a respondent ranked as most important, they were then presented with a series of questions about specific requirements. Respondents were asked (1) whether the particular requirement was necessary for the long-term digital preservation, (2) whether the evidence described in the requirement guidance would provide a sufficient evidential basis to demonstrate that a repository had met the requirement, and (3) whether meting the requirement would demonstrate a repository’s trustworthiness for long-term preservation. Responses to these questions are summarized in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Attitudes about individual CTS requirements. (N = 88)
Yes
No
Other
N
%
N
%
N
%
Organizational Infrastructure (R3: Continuity Plan) (N = 45)
Necessary for Preservation
40
88.8%
0
0%
5
11.1%
Evidence
43
95.6%
2
4.4%
0
0%
Trustworthiness
32
71.1%
1
2.2%
12
26.7%
Digital Object Management (R10: Preservation Plan)
(N = 31)
Necessary for Preservation
29
93.5%
1
3.2%
1
3.2%
Evidence
27
87.1%
1
3.2%
3
9.7%
Trustworthiness
24
77.4%
0
0%
7
22.6%
Technology (R15: Technical Infrastructure)
(N = 12)
Necessary for Preservation
12
100%
0
0%
0
0%
Evidence
10
83.3%
2
16.7%
0
0%
Trustworthiness
8
66.7%
2
16.7%
2
16.7%
Findings indicate that staff members of CTS certified repositories tended to agree that the requirements were necessary for long-term preservation, and agreed with the evidence requested to demonstrate compliance with those requirements. There was less agreement that meeting any of the three requirements would demonstrate trustworthiness for long-term preservation.
Differences in responses to the questions summarized above were minimal for respondents with different professional roles and review experience. One exception was the attitudes of digital preservation specialists, who were skeptical when asked whether meeting R10 (digital object management, preservation plan) would demonstrate trustworthiness for long-term preservation. Additionally, respondents with a PhD tended to be more skeptical than those with other levels of educational attainment about the effectiveness of the requirements. This poster will present the results described above in greater detail.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the CoreTrustSeal Board for assistance distributing the survey. This research was funded in part by the Einstein Center Digital Future, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and the University of Tennessee. Research Assistants who made valuable contributions to this research include: Jessica Wylie, Ammar Mustufa, & Timothy Poteet (University of Tennessee), Laura Rothfritz & Maricia Mende (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin).
References
[standard] Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems. (2012). Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories (Standard ISO 16363:2012 (CCSDS 652-R-1); Space Data and Information Transfer Systems). Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=56510
[website] CoreTrustSeal. (2023a). Certified Repositories. CoreTrustSeal. https://amt.coretrustseal.org/certificates
[website] CoreTrustSeal. (2023b). CoreTrustSeal History. CoreTrustSeal. https://www.coretrustseal.org/about/history/
[report] CoreTrustSeal Standards and Certification Board. (2019). CoreTrustSeal Trustworthy Data Repositories Requirements 2020–2022 (v02.00-2020-2022). https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3638211
[journal article] Corrado, E. M. (2019). Repositories, Trust, and the CoreTrustSeal. Technical Services Quarterly, 36(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2018.1532055
[journal article] Dillo, I., & De Leeuw, L. (2018). CoreTrustSeal. Mitteilungen Der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen Und Bibliothekare, 71(1), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.31263/voebm.v71i1.1981
[journal article] Frank, R. D. (2022). Risk in Trustworthy Digital Repository Audit and Certification. Archival Science, 22(1), 43–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-021-09366-z
[presentation] Keitel, C. (2014, October 17). Nestor Seal (DIN 31644) [Slide Deck]. DASISH - Workshop on Trust and Certification. http://dasish.eu/dasishevents/wstrustcertification/2014_10_17_DASISH_trust-ws_DIN_31644_nestorSeal_Keitel.pdf
Recommended Citation
Frank, Rebecca D., "Repository Staff Attitudes about CoreTrustSeal Requirements" (2024). School of Information Sciences -- Faculty Publications and Other Works.
https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_infosciepubs/478
Submission Type
Post-print