Promoting Trust and Quality: A Case Study on the Challenges of Achieving CoreTrustSeal Certification by Social Science Data Centres

Achieving certification as a trustworthy digital repository represents a critical milestone in the development and professionalization of research data infrastructures. Such certification serves as a visible signal to users, policy makers, and funding organizations that a repository is capable of ensuring the long-term preservation of digital data and adheres to established professional standards for handling the challenges associated with sustaining access to re-search data over time. In this sense, trustworthy repository certification—such as the CoreTrustSeal (CTS)—is not merely a technical credential, but a strategic asset. It functions as both a quality assurance mechanism and a competitive advantage for attracting datasets from researchers, particularly in fields where data longevity and reusability are central to scientific progress. Beyond the external signaling function, the process of certification supports internal institu-tional development by encouraging infrastructures to formalize and document workflows, improve alignment with the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), and enhance collaboration between data managers and IT departments. However, despite the strategic importance of such certification, small and medium-sized research data centres (RDCs) continue to face substantial barriers to achieving it. These obstacles are often rooted in resource limitations, lack of specialized knowledge, and organizational constraints that disproportionately affect smaller infrastructures. This contribution presents findings from a case study conducted as part of KonsortSWD, a project within the German National Research Data Infrastructure (NFDI) that supports the professionalization of social sciences RDCs. Our work focused on facilitating the implemen-tation of CoreTrustSeal certification for smaller and mid-sized infrastructures. The project developed practical support materials tailored to this group and organized a working group to identify and discuss challenges in the certification process. The findings highlight several recurring difficulties. Chief among them is a lack of technical and conceptual knowledge regarding long-term data preservation strategies, such as ensuring the persistence of both data and metadata. Moreover, many RDCs struggle with the organiza-tional complexity of implementing certification requirements, particularly when IT services are managed by external departments within the hosting institution. The study also found limited contingency planning in case of system failures and insufficiently formalized poli-cies that must be coordinated across multiple organizational units. Another critical insight from the study is the limited engagement of upper management in supporting certification efforts. Institutional leaders often prioritize simpler forms of accredi-tation, such as that offered by the German Data Forum (RatSWD), which—although valua-ble—focuses primarily on data access and secure handling rather than comprehensive preservation and IT security standards. CoreTrustSeal certification, in contrast, addresses essential aspects of long-term data stewardship and aligns more closely with international expectations for robust and FAIR-compliant research data management. In conclusion, while national and discipline-specific certifications remain important, the broader adoption and promotion of CoreTrustSeal certification—especially in interdiscipli-nary and international contexts—are essential for building researcher trust and meeting evolving expectations around data security and sustainability. Supporting smaller infrastruc-tures through targeted guidance, resource allocation, and stronger institutional backing will be key to ensuring that high-quality, long-term data preservation becomes a norm across the research landscape.