Reference
Two Questions To Keep Separate
FAIR: can people and systems find, retrieve, interpret and reuse this output appropriately? Open Research: how can the research process and its outputs be communicated transparently and responsibly? A public download can have weak FAIR features. A restricted output can have strong metadata and a defined retrieval process. See the GO FAIR principles and UNESCO’s Open Science recommendation.
Practical FAIR Checks
| Principle | Questions to ask of the output and its record |
|---|---|
| Findable | Is there a maintained identifier, descriptive metadata and a searchable record? Can the record distinguish this output and version from related work? |
| Accessible | Does the identifier lead to a defined retrieval mechanism? Are authentication, permission and restriction conditions clear? Can safe metadata remain available when the files cannot? |
| Interoperable | Are formats and structures understood by the intended community and tools? Are units, terms, identifiers and relationships defined using appropriate standards? |
| Reusable | Are permissions, provenance, methods, version, context and limitations sufficient for the proposed use? Can a user identify and credit the relevant output? |
These are classroom decision prompts derived from the FAIR principles, not a formal audit instrument. Record evidence and unknowns; a DOI, CSV or licence alone does not establish every principle.
Terms Used in the Lessons
| Term | Meaning and useful check |
|---|---|
| Metadata | Structured descriptions of an output, such as creator, title, scope, dates, version, rights and related outputs. Distinguish record-level descriptions from variable definitions. |
| Persistent identifier (PID) | An enduring reference supported by maintenance and a resolving service. Ask what it identifies and where it resolves. |
| DOI | A type of PID used for research outputs and other resources. Check the output/version and associated metadata rather than treating the identifier as a quality award. |
| ORCID iD | An identifier for a researcher, helping distinguish people with similar names and connect their contributions. It identifies the person rather than replacing an output’s identifier. |
| Standard/schema | A shared way to structure and describe information. Choose a documented community practice appropriate to the material; there is no single format for every discipline. |
| Controlled vocabulary/ontology | Agreed terms or explicit relationships that reduce ambiguity. Record mappings when local categories differ; do not silently merge concepts with different meanings. |
| Provenance | The origins and changes that explain how an output was produced: source material, methods, transformations, responsible people and versions. |
| Licence | Stated permissions and conditions for specified material. Confirm the rightsholder and exclusions; being able to download a file does not itself grant reuse permission. |
DataCite’s metadata schema provides a concrete output-record model; ORCID’s introduction explains researcher identifiers. The Creative Commons FAQ addresses choosing and applying CC licences, including limits concerning third-party rights. Software licensing needs a suitable software licence and rights review; a data licence is not automatically an appropriate software licence.
Publication and Research-Process Decisions
| Practice | What to decide |
|---|---|
| Green Open Access | Deposit an allowed manuscript version in a repository. Check version, licence, timing and applicable requirements. |
| Gold Open Access | Make the article openly available through the publisher. Check charges and eligible funding; a Gold route does not always involve an author charge. |
| Diamond Open Access | Publish through a route that charges neither readers nor authors. Check journal suitability and the actual licence. |
| Accepted manuscript | The author manuscript after peer review and acceptance, before publisher production. Keep it distinct from the submitted draft and publisher’s version of record. |
| Preprint | Share a manuscript before journal acceptance, typically before formal journal peer review. Identify its actual review status and version, communicate limitations and link later versions; check relevant journal and disciplinary requirements. |
Use Nottingham Open Access support, depositing guidance and policy guidance for current local decisions. Publication deposits use the University’s RIS arrangements; follow the current guidance rather than assuming that a dataset repository is the publication deposit route.
| Research planning term | Distinction to retain |
|---|---|
| Exploratory research | Investigate patterns, questions and possibilities. Identify what was already inspected and avoid presenting a later explanation as a prior prediction. |
| Preregistration | Record a specific plan before the relevant outcomes are known, making planned and unplanned work distinguishable. Explain prior access, decisions and later changes. |
| Registered Report | A publication format with design/method review before outcomes and conditional in-principle acceptance. Final publication depends on meeting the outlet’s protocol, quality and reporting conditions rather than obtaining a preferred result. |
| Open methods/reporting | Supply the detail needed to evaluate the work: protocol, decisions, deviations, scope, limitations and relevant computational or AI methods. Explain null and negative findings appropriately. |
Consult the COS preregistration guidance and Registered Reports guidance. Check whether the particular design and outlet support the approach; these practices are not interchangeable or appropriate to every study.
Review and Credit
Open peer review can involve published reports, disclosed identities, wider participation or combinations. Ask what becomes public, to whom and when, and how consent, conflicts and confidentiality are handled. A published review report does not necessarily identify its reviewer. Ross-Hellauer’s systematic review explains why the term has multiple implementations.
CRediT describes contributions using 14 roles, including methods, investigation, software, curation, analysis, supervision and writing. Agree accurate descriptions with contributors and determine authorship separately under the relevant criteria. Use NISO’s CRediT taxonomy and link people through their agreed ORCID records. Cite reused data, software and protocols as identifiable outputs rather than crediting only the associated article.
Access Labels Used in the Activities
These are practical descriptions for the scenarios, not a universal legal taxonomy or a fixed ladder of quality. Real services may use overlapping labels.
| Label | Arrangement to describe explicitly |
|---|---|
| Open | Public retrieval with stated reuse permissions and any conditions. Specify the material and licence. |
| Restricted | Access has a stated limitation, such as an embargo or permission condition. Explain its scope and duration where applicable. |
| Controlled | A defined application and approval process determines access under agreed conditions. Explain eligibility, review, authentication and contact. |
| Closed | No external access route is currently offered. Explain the reason where safe and consider what public metadata or summary can be provided. |
Judge each output separately. Precise locations, interviews, culturally sensitive material, ecological information, commercial/IP interests, security concerns and third-party content can require different decisions. A licence does not override consent, privacy or another party’s rights. Transparency can include a reasoned restriction and useful safe metadata. UNESCO’s recommendation sets openness within broader responsibilities and rights.
Use These Checks in Your Project
Start with the scenario pack and worksheets, then consult Nottingham Open Research. Use Research Data Management support for the routine management foundation and Digital Skills Clinics for help with a specific digital task.