Global Data Repository Status and Analysis: Based on Korea, China and Japan Data in

  • Kim, Suntae (Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information)
  • Received : 2018.01.30
  • Accepted : 2018.03.07
  • Published : 2018.03.31


We collected and analyzed data from, which is a global registry of data repository services. We analyzed data profile for three leading Asian economies-Korea, China, and Japan-against the reference data for other participating countries. In particular, we examined how individual countries contribute to the repository, organizational type, versioning and product quality management, and subject tagging. We come to the conclusion that all three Asian countries still fall short in terms of involvement. As for participating institutions, there are 7 from Korea, 64 from China, and 120 from Japan. Among Chinese organizations, 3 are profit, 61 non-profit, and 37 organizations (which yields 1.8%) are involved in repository building. In Japan, there is 1 is commercial and 119 non-profit organizations, of which 57 (3.0%) are involved in repository building. All 7 organizations from Korea are non-profit, and 6 of them (0.3%) are involved in repository building. As regards versioning and product quality management, Korea, China, and Japan are up to par with other countries. Subject analysis reveals that Korea contributes more to geosciences, Japan to physics and geosciences, while China, unlike Korea and Japan, is more active in life sciences. It is hoped that this study will help planning domestic infrastructure for research data repositories with proper consideration for specific research domains and national characteristics.



  1. Elger, K., Pampel, H., Vierkant, P., & Witt, M. (2016, February). New Features of the re3data Registry of Research Data Repositories. In AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, IN41D-04.
  2. Hayslett, M. (2015). Data World Does Not Lack Standards. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 3(2), eP1245.
  3. Kim, S., & Choi, M. S. (2017). Registry Metadata Quality Assessment by the Example of re3data. org Schema. International Journal of Knowledge Content Development & Technology, 7(2), 41-51.
  4. Klump, J., & Huber, R. (2017). 20 Years of Persistent Identifiers-Which Systems are Here to Stay?. Data Science Journal, 16.
  5. ZHANG, S., HUANG, G., & GENG, Q. (2017). Research on UK Scientific Data Publishing Platforms Based on Re3data. In Digital Library Forum (Vol. 6, p. 005).
  6. Pampel, H., Vierkant, P., Elger, K., Bertelmann, R., Witt, M., Schirmbacher, P., ... & Ulrich, R. (2016, April). re3data. org-a global registry of research data repositories. In EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts (Vol. 18, p. 16765).
  7. Pampel, H., Vierkant, P., Scholze, F., Bertelmann, R., Kindling, M., Klump, J., ... & Dierolf, U. (2013). Making research data repositories visible: the re3data. org registry. PloS one, 8(11), e78080.
  8. Vierkant, P., Spier, S., Rucknagel, J., Pampel, H., Fritze, F., Gundlach, J., Fichtmuller, D., Kirchhoff, M. A., Goebelbecker, H., Klump, J., Kloska, G., Reuter, E., Semrau, A., Schnepf, E., Skarupianski, M., Bertelmann, R., Schirmbacher, P., Scholze, F., Kramer, C., Witt, M., Fuchs, C., & Ulrich, R. (2014). Schema for the Description of Research Data Repositories.