EPFL - École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

EPFL - École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

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.

You can contact the RDM support team of EPFL Library at researchdata@epfl.ch for assistance or for any questions about this community.

DESCRIPTION

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 in order to accept a submission to the EPFL community.

      MUST

  1. At least one author is affiliated with EPFL at the time of the submission or creation of the submitted work.
  2. The content of the upload must be accessible for review, i.e. Open Access, or Restricted after an access request has been completed. Embargoed datasets will be reviewed after the embargo has expired.
  3. The Description of the submitted upload is sufficiently detailed. Mere references to external articles or other resources are not a sufficient description.
  4. If no ORCID is listed, the name and surname and EPFL email address of at least one author is specified in the Description.

      RECOMMENDED

  1. Authors are identified by their ORCID.
  2. The title is human-readable on the same level as conventional publications: filenames or coded expressions are deprecated.
  3. If existing, references to related publications (e.g., article, source code, other datasets, etc.) are specified in the "Related/alternate identifiers" field, using a DOI if available.
  4. In general, a README file is present in the root directory, and in case the submission consists of a compressed file then it is external. The README file is not needed for records consisting in one single document which already contains enough information (such as publications, posters and presentation slides).
  5. Any sensitive, personal data has been anonymized.

      NICE TO HAVE

  1. If applicable, related grants are acknowledged using “Funding/Grants” fields.
  2. The upload has been cleaned up (e.g., there are no temporary or unnecessary empty files or folders, no superfluous file versions, etc.).
  3. Permissive licenses are preferred (order of preference: CC0, CC-BY-4.0, CC-BY-SA-4.0 for data; MIT, BSD, GPL for code).
  4. When a README file is advised, it contains information such as the convention for files and folders naming, possible ontologies or controlled vocabularies, etc.
  5. If the submission is related to a PhD thesis, the supervisor is specified.
  6. Files are available in open formats.
  7. Where applicable, sources from which the work is derived are specified.
  8. Keywords are entered as separated fields.

References to the EPFL Community uploads will be imported on Infoscience for improved visibility and, if allowed by the license and related to publications, the uploads will be archived in the EPFL Academic Output Archive, ACOUA.
 

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.