
doi: 10.29173/iq1119
The FAIR principles as a framework for evaluating and improving open science and research data management have gained much attention over the last years. By defining a set of properties that indicates good practice for making data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR), a quality measurement is created, which can be applied to diverse research outputs, including research data. There are some software tools available to help with the assessment, with the F-UJI tool being the most prominent of them. It uses a set of metrics which defines tests for each of the FAIR components, and it creates an overall assessment score. The article examines differences between manually and automatically assessing FAIR principles, shows that there are significantly different results by using national election studies as examples. An evaluation of progress is done by comparing the automatically assessed FAIRness scores of the datasets from 2018 with those of 2024, showing that there is only a very slight yet not significant difference. Specific measures which have improved the FAIRness scores are described by the example of the Politbarometer 2022 dataset at the GESIS Data Archive. The article highlights the role of archives in securing a high level of data and metadata quality and technically sound implementation of the FAIR principles to help researchers benefit from getting the most of their valuable research data.
H, FAIR principles, Data documentation, Research data management, Research transparency, Social Sciences, F-UJI test
H, FAIR principles, Data documentation, Research data management, Research transparency, Social Sciences, F-UJI test
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
