Repository Deposit and Preservation - Hed-Core Academic Commons

Making commissioned knowledge durable

Repository deposit is the stage at which approved commissioned outputs are transformed from project deliverables into durable, discoverable, and citable knowledge records.

The Repository should not be treated as a storage location to which a final PDF is sent after the project has ended. A properly prepared Repository record preserves the output, its provenance, its context, its access conditions, and the relationships that make the work intelligible to future users.

The purpose of preservation is not only to retain the file. It is to ensure that future researchers, practitioners, policymakers, institutions, communities, and members of the public can determine:

What the work is.
Why it was commissioned.
Who produced it.
Who supported or funded it.
What questions it addressed.
How it was conducted.
What its limitations are.
Which version is authoritative.
How it may be used.
What related work exists.

Repository Deposit

Repository deposit as part of the project

Repository requirements should be considered during commissioning, not after delivery.

The Commissioning Brief should identify:

Which outputs will be deposited.
Who is responsible for preparing the deposit.
What metadata are required.
What licence will apply.
Whether an embargo is needed.
What access restrictions apply.
Whether supporting materials will be preserved.
Whether data or only data descriptions can be shared.
How the final record will be linked to the Commons project workspace.

The provider should know these requirements before preparing the final outputs. This may influence:

File formats.
Metadata.
Documentation.
Version control.
Data-management arrangements.
Licensing.
Consent.
Anonymization.
Publication timing.

What should be deposited?

The appropriate deposit package depends on the nature of the commission, but may include:

Final research report.
Evaluation report.
Evidence synthesis.
Executive summary.
Policy brief.
Practice guide.
Guideline.
Framework.
Toolkit.
Implementation guide.
Methodological appendix.
Research instruments.
Protocols.
Evidence map.
Dataset or data description.
Codebook or data dictionary.
Analysis documentation.
Presentation materials.
Training resources.
Public or community summary.
Readme file.
Licensing statement.
Correction or revision notice.

Not every working file should be deposited. Drafts, internal correspondence, personal data, confidential records, and superseded materials should be assessed before preservation.

The Final Output Package

A final output package should normally contain the authoritative version of each approved deliverable.

The package should be checked for:

Correct title.
Correct authorship and attribution.
Final version number.
Completion or publication date.
Consistency with the accepted deliverables.
Accurate references.
Complete acknowledgments.
Accessibility.
Embedded or accompanying metadata.
Licence information.
Appropriate file formats.
Absence of unnecessary personal or confidential information.

Where several related outputs exist, the Repository should make their relationship clear.

For example:

Full Research Report
Executive Summary
Practice Brief
Implementation Toolkit

Each item should identify the report or project from which it derives.

Metadata and Description

Metadata gives the output its discoverable identity.

A Repository record should include, where applicable:

Title.
Subtitle.
Authors.
Contributors.
Institutional affiliations.
Commissioning body.
Research provider.
Commission reference.
Project or Commons workspace.
Date of completion.
Publication date.
Abstract.
Executive summary.
Keywords.
Subject classification.
Geographic coverage.
Time period.
Population or sector.
Research method.
Funding or support.
Related Commission Request.
Related Concept Note.
Related Commissioning Brief.
Related Collaborative.
Related Journal Publication.
Related dataset.
Version.
Licence.
Access conditions.
Embargo period.
Persistent identifier.
Citation guidance.
Contact for permissions or enquiries.

The record should be written for future users who may not know the original institutional context.

Provenance

Provenance is the record of where an output came from and how it was developed.

A commissioned research output should, where appropriate, be traceable through:

Commissioning need
Commission Request topic
Concept Note
Commissioning Brief
Provider proposal
Project workspace
Final deliverable
Repository record
Follow-on work

Provenance improves trust and supports future interpretation. A reader should be able to distinguish between:

The original request.
The approved assignment.
The provider’s method.
The accepted output.
A later summary or adaptation.
A subsequent interpretation by another user.

Access and publication decisions

Not every output can or should be openly available.

Possible access arrangements include:

Open access.
Access for registered Commons members.
Institutional access.
Restricted access.
Controlled access.
Embargoed access.
Metadata-only record.
Preservation of an anonymized or redacted version.

The access decision should be documented and justified.

Consider:

Participant consent.
Confidentiality.
Personal data.
Sensitive institutional information.
Commercial or contractual restrictions.
Intellectual property.
Community or cultural restrictions.
Security.
Legal requirements.
Future research value.

An output may be openly published while its underlying data remain restricted. In such cases, the Repository should explain the data-access conditions and provide a metadata or data-description record where appropriate.

Licensing

The Repository record should state how the work may be used.

Possible arrangements include:

Open Creative Commons licence.
Institutional licence.
Restricted-use licence.
Permission-based access.
No reuse beyond reading.
Licence to be agreed.
Different licences for different components.

The license should be consistent with:

The contract.
Intellectual-property ownership.
Contributor agreements.
Participant consent.
Data-protection requirements.
Community or institutional restrictions.

Where an output may be adapted, translated, or incorporated into a new resource, the licence should make that possibility clear.

Intellectual Property and Attribution

The project should document:

Who owns the final outputs.
Who owns underlying data.
What rights the provider retains.
What rights the commissioning body holds.
How contributors are credited.
How communities or participants are acknowledged.
How derivative outputs should cite the original work.
Whether the provider may publish related scholarly work.

Attribution should reflect actual contributions. The commissioning body should not be assumed to be the sole author merely because it funded or requested the work.

The provider, research team, advisers, participants, communities, data contributors, and other contributors may have different forms of recognition.

Versioning

The Repository should distinguish clearly among:

Draft.
Submitted.
Reviewed.
Approved.
Published.
Corrected.
Revised.
Superseded.
Withdrawn.

Every authoritative output should have a version identifier.

A revised version should record:

Date of revision.
Person or organization responsible.
Reason for revision.
Nature of the changes.
Whether findings or conclusions changed.
Relationship to the previous version.

A correction should not silently replace the original record where doing so would impair the provenance of the work.

Data and supporting materials

The project should distinguish between:

Final outputs.
Research data.
Supporting documentation.
Instruments.
Analysis files.
Administrative records.
Personal or confidential material.

Where data can be shared, provide appropriate documentation such as:

Data dictionary.
Codebook.
Collection protocol.
Sampling information.
Variable definitions.
Data-quality statement.
Use conditions.
Citation requirements.

Where data cannot be shared openly, consider preserving:

A metadata record.
A data description.
An anonymized subset.
A controlled-access arrangement.
A statement explaining the restriction.
A route for qualified access requests.

Data should not be deposited merely because it exists. Deposit must be consistent with consent, law, ethics, contractual conditions, and the expectations of participating communities.

Accessibility and usability

Repository items should be prepared for users with different levels of technical expertise and different access needs.

Consider:

Searchable text.
Descriptive titles.
Structured headings.
Accessible document formats.
Alternative text for images.
Clear tables.
Plain-language summaries.
Appropriate file sizes.
Translation.
Readable metadata.
Contact information for assistance.

An academic report may require technical depth, but that does not justify poor structure or inaccessible presentation.

Linking to the Commons

The Repository record should connect the output to relevant Commons activity.

Link, where appropriate, to:

Commissioned Research overview.
Commission Request topic.
Commissioning Brief.
Request-specific CBOX workspace.
General Commissioned Research group.
Related Collaboratives.
Journal Publications.
Datasets.
Follow-up projects.
Related institutional records.

The link should work in both directions where possible. The project workspace should point to the final Repository record, and the Repository record should point back to the project context.

Deposit workflow

A typical deposit process includes:

Confirm the final deliverables.
Confirm acceptance by the commissioning body.
Review files for accuracy and completeness.
Remove unnecessary confidential or personal information.
Confirm licensing and access conditions.
Prepare metadata.
Prepare supporting documentation.
Upload the approved package.
Assign or confirm a persistent identifier.
Review the public or restricted record.
Link the record to the CBOX project workspace.
Record the deposit date and responsible person.

The deposit should be reviewed before publication or release.

Repository responsibilities

Commissioning body

The commissioning body should:

Confirm which outputs may be deposited.
Approve publication status.
Confirm licensing and attribution.
Identify restrictions.
Provide required institutional information.
Support the preparation of metadata.
Confirm the authoritative final version.

Provider

The provider should:

Supply complete final files.
Provide methodological and supporting documentation.
Identify contributors.
Supply abstracts and keywords.
Confirm data and confidentiality issues.
Provide citations and references.
Identify any material that cannot be deposited.

Commons coordination team

The Commons team should:

Coordinate the deposit process.
Check metadata.
Confirm relationships among records.
Apply access and licensing information.
Link the Repository record to the CBOX workspace.
Preserve the project’s provenance.
Support discovery and future reuse.

Commons and Repository Preservation

Commons provides the community project environment.

The Repository provides the durable knowledge record.

The Commons workspace may preserve:

Discussions.
Working documents.
Decisions.
Milestone updates.
Stakeholder exchanges.
Review history.
Links to outputs.

The Repository should preserve:

Approved and citable outputs.
Metadata.
Provenance.
Access conditions.
Licensing.
Version history.
Supporting documentation where appropriate.

The two systems should be connected but should not be treated as interchangeable. A discussion thread is not necessarily an authoritative publication, and a Repository record should not expose working materials that were intended to remain restricted.

Preservation of Restricted Materials

Some outputs or supporting materials may require restricted preservation.

In such cases:

Preserve the existence and description of the item where possible.
Record the reason for restriction.
Identify the responsible organization.
State whether access may be requested.
Record the review or expiry date of an embargo.
Preserve a redacted or anonymized version where appropriate.
Maintain secure access controls.

A restricted record can still contribute to the Commons if it makes the existence, context, and access conditions of the work visible without exposing protected material.

Repository Deposit and Preservation are complete when:

Approved outputs have been identified.
Files have been checked.
Metadata are complete.
Licensing is recorded.
Access conditions are applied.
Supporting documentation is prepared.
The record is published or securely preserved.
The project and Repository records are linked.
The deposit has been recorded in the project closeout documentation.

Project Closeout and Learning

See Also

Commissioned Research Group.

Commissioned Research.

How Commissioned Research Works.

The Commissioning Brief.

Delivery, Review, and Quality Assurance.

Outputs, Dissemination, and Use.