Publication Year: 08. 04. 2017 Date of last inspection: 08. 04. 2017
Long-term data storage demands extra efforts and costs of data preparation in a form that would enable their further use. Such efforts and costs may be justified by the savings made with ongoing data usage.
Criteria that are followed when evaluating a study for deposit, are the following:
In the ingest phase, the crucial criteria are:
The ADP checks all of the deposited materials of the study and assigns a category of importance. Studies that are given grades 7., 8. or 9. are automatically included in the Catalogue of ADP. Studies that receive lower grades, may be included in the Catalogue if they are extremely interesting due to their uniqueness or are filling voids in our existing collection.
Studies that are given grades 7, 8 or 9 are given the status of a scientific publication, according to the criteria of the Slovenian Research Agency that is as type H. Final scientific data collection or corpus (2.20) from the list of the agency (BIBLIO-D), 30 points.
1.) Continuity of research
Studies that are part of series are generally better evaluated as independent ad-hoc studies. These are in most cases studies that are part of a research tradition, for example, Slovene Public Opinion Survey or Politbarometer.
2.) Comparability of research
Studies, which allow for interim or geographical comparisons, are generally better evaluated. These include studies that are part of international studies, such as, for example, ISSP, European Social Survey, Eurostat or studies containing data from other countries.
3.) Quality sampling and appropriate population
Studies, which use sampling that allows greater generalization are generally better evaluated. Studies, covering the entire population (total universe) or using multi-stage random stratified sampling with the Central Population Register as a sampling frame, are usually evaluated better than studies, using random sampling, based on a telephone directory as a sampling frame, or non-random sampling, such as quota or occasional samples (for example online data collection). Studies that are limited to a less general population are generally evaluated with lower grades.
4.) Database size
More extensive studies involving more than one unit (1000 or more) and variables (200 or more) are generally better evaluated than those for which the size of the database is smaller.
5.) Geographic coverage
Studies covering smaller areas of a particular country (place, city or statistical region) are generally evaluated with lower grades than studies that geographically cover a larger area (the whole country or even more countries).
6.) Content of the study
A study that completes the research gap with its content may be evaluated higher, even in cases when it does not fully meet all other criteria. However, generally, studies, whose content covers a wider research field that may be reused in a number of practical problems, receive higher grades.
7.) Other methodological criteria
In addition to the above, there are other methodological criteria, such as a methodologically relevant questionnaire, quality data collection or a sufficiently high response rate, according to the method of data collection. In the event that certain methodological criteria are not fully met, the evaluation may be lower.
8.) Relevance and quality of study materials
The elaboration of the documentation of the study is the basic criterion for the acceptance of the study into the Catalogue. In the event that the basic criteria are satisfied, but there are still some minor weaknesses or lack of relevant materials, the study may receive lower grades. The complete documentation contains materials that fully complement the database and thus enable quality reuse of data.
How to cite this page?
Social Science Data Archives. YEAR. Criteria for Deposit. Accessed: http://adp.fdv.uni-lj.si/eng/deli/merila/ (DD. month year).
83% of H2020 programme scientific publications are openly accessibl
Pioneers of Social Research – new book published
ADP ALSO DISTRIBUTES
Politbarometer PB12/03, Slovenia, December 2003, UVI