DESCRIPTION

Research data, code, other resources and academic output shared by EPFL members.

The aim of the EPFL Community on Zenodo is to strengthen the visibility and re-usability of the datasets produced by EPFL researchers, and to facilitate the dissemination of information (links between publications and data; potential re-use by other researchers; reporting for scientific grants; etc.). This community was created to showcase datasets and software, but any upload type can be submitted. However, we generally recommend EPFL’s institutional repository Infoscience instead of Zenodo for the following types: Publication, Poster, Presentation and Lesson.

For support with your upload and curation, or for any questions about this community, please contact the RDM team of EPFL Library at researchdata@epfl.ch.

CURATION POLICY

The MUST criteria are required to accept a work into the EPFL community.

References to works accepted in the EPFL Community will be imported on Infoscience for improved visibility. If allowed by the license, openly accessible works related to publications will be archived in the EPFL Academic Output Archive, ACOUA.

MUST

M1. At least one author is affiliated with EPFL at the time of the submission or creation of the submitted work.

M2. Contact information for at least one EPFL author is provided, preferably through an ORCID identifier.

M3. The content of the submitted work must be accessible for review, i.e. Open Access, or Restricted after an access request has been granted to the reviewers. Embargoed works will be reviewed after the embargo expires.

M4. The Description of the submitted work is sufficiently detailed. Mere references to external articles or to other external resources are not sufficient descriptions.

M5. The submitted work includes a clearly identifiable README file, typically in the root directory. This is not required for works consisting in one single document (ex. publications, posters, or presentation slides).

M6. The main DOI has been assigned by Zenodo. Entering an existing DOI as the main identifier is allowed only if the submitted work is an exact copy of a digital object that has already received its DOI on another platform. For example, supplementary data to a journal article should NOT re-use the journal article DOI.

RECOMMENDED

R1. All authors are identified by their ORCID.

R2. The main title is human-readable on the same level as conventional publications: filenames or coded expressions are deprecated.

R3. If existing, references to related publications (e.g., article, source code, other datasets, etc.) are specified in the "Related works" field. If available, references are designated by their respective DOIs.

R4. If related grants require an acknowledgement, they are listed using “Funding/Grants” fields.

R5. Any personal and sensitive data has been anonymized.

NICE TO HAVE

N1. The submitted work has been cleaned up (e.g., there are no temporary files, no unnecessary empty files or folders, no superfluous file versions, etc.).

N2. Permissive licenses are preferred. CC0, CC-BY-4.0, CC-BY-SA-4.0 for data and MIT, BSD, GPL for code are suggested.

N3. The README file contains detailed information about the work creation (authors, time, place, methodologies…), content (file organization and naming, formats, relevant standards…), sharing and access, etc.

N4. If the submission is related to a PhD thesis, the supervisor is specified.

N5. Files are available in open formats. If proprietary formats are present, the work also includes versions of the files converted to open formats, with the least possible loss of information.

N6. Where applicable, sources from which the work is derived are specified in the “References” field.

N7. Keywords are entered as separated fields in the “Keywords and subjects” field.

REVIEW PROCESS

Once the curator receives a notification email of a submission, the submission is reviewed against the quality criteria listed in the Curation policy.

If some criteria are not met, the Curator will contact the authors and suggest appropriate modifications. Depending on the importance of the missing criterion, the curator will proceed as follows:

• MUST: the upload will not be accepted into the EPFL community unless the authors address the issue satisfactorily.
• RECOMMENDED: the upload will be accepted into the EPFL community, but the authors will be asked to address the issues. The curator will actively seek confirmation of the outcome.
• NICE TO HAVE: the upload will be accepted into the EPFL community. The authors will be informed of the recommendation.