Generalist Repository Comparison Chart
The Generalist Repository Comparison Chart and FAIRsharing Collection (https://fairsharing.org/collection/GeneralRepositoryComparison) was originally an outcome of the NIH Workshop on the Role of Generalist Repositories to Enhance Data Discoverability and Reuse held 11-12 February 2020 (workshop summary). Since the workshop, these seven generalist repositories have collaborated as part of the NIH Generalist Repository Ecosystem Initiative (GREI) and have continued to iterate on this comparison chart resource to accurately capture repository attributes and guide researchers in selecting an appropriate generalist repository to share data and other research outputs. It is important to state that researchers should first determine if an appropriate domain repository exists for their research data. Tools such as FAIRsharing.org and re3data.org can help with this determination. If using a domain repository is not possible, then a researcher should review both the Generalist Repository Comparison Chart and consider their own institutional repository as a possible location to store their data. Researchers need to comply with the requirements of their community, funder, country, publisher, and possibly others to ensure the best repository is selected.
Institutions
- Leidos (United States) (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- RELX Group (Netherlands) (NL)
- American Geophysical Union (US)
- ViiV Healthcare (Spain) (ES)
- Center for Open Science (US)
- Zen-Noh (Japan) (JP)
- United States National Library of Medicine (US)
- Harvard University Press (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Office of Science (US)
- Northwestern University (PH)
- Mendeley (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Drylands Research (GB)
- Figshare (United Kingdom) (GB)
- Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (US)
- University of San Francisco (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Figshare
- Published
- 2025-10-08
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3946719
- Citations
- 3
- Primary Topic
- Research Data Management Practices
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 9.74