A research compendium enhances/supplements/is in itself a scholarly publication. While this community does not require a formal review of the claims and contributions, it tries to make sure only records that are research compendia are accepted. The deposits are not evaluated for their the scholarly merit and neither is an attempt made at reproducing the results. The following criteria apply (based on the resource listed):
- The research compendium is encouraged to be associated with a manuscript or talk slides published with a globally unique identifier (i.e. a DOI). This can be a journal, pre-print platform, file repository, or the manuscript may be included in the compendium directly. This external document must cite the compendium by its DOI, and be referenced under the "Related identifiers" section in the Zenodo deposit metadata: with the relation "is cited by" (obligatory), and one of the relations "is supplemented by this upload" or "is compiled/created by this upload".
- The author(s) of the research compendium should have an ORCID identifier.
- The research compendium must include data and code of a scholarly analysis.
- The research compendium must include documentation on how to reproduce the work or includes a literate programming document (R Markdown file, Jupyter Notebook).
- The research compendium must have one of the "Open" access rights licenses in the Zenodo metadata; it should state licensing information separately for the parts of the compendium (code, data, text) and easy to find (e.g. in a file "LICENSE", in a README, or in the deposit description).
As such the research compendium should be as self-contained as possible, i.e. instructions should not only be a reference to the associated manuscript. It should also contain information about the versions of used software, either within the metadata of compendium or in the associated README. Please check the community page for references to best practices and guidelines for research compendia.