Skip to main content

Table 4 List of 13 FAIRness maturity indicators evaluated in this study, based on the framework proposed by Wilkinson et al. [6, 12]

From: Systematic review of the status of veterinary epidemiological research in two species regarding the FAIR guiding principles

    Maturity levels
Indicator identifier Indicator name Indicator description  
F1.1 Identifier uniqueness Whether there is a scheme to uniquely identify the digital resource 0: Indicator is not met
2: Indicator is met
F1.2 Identifier persistence Whether there is a policy or scheme which ensures the persistence of the digital resource identifier 0: Indicator is not met
2: Indicator is met
F2 Data are described with metadata Whether metadata corresponding to the digital resource are available 0: Indicator is not met
2: Indicator is met
F3 Resource identifier in metadata Whether the metadata contains the unique identifier for the digital resource 0: Indicator is not met
2: Indicator is met
F4 Indexed in a searchable resource Whether the digital resource can be found by web-based search engines using search terms such as title, author or key words. Google Search was used in this assessment 0: Indicator is not met
2: Indicator is met
A1 Access protocol Whether there is an open and free access protocol to retrieve the digital resource, and if not, whether the specifications to access restricted content are provided 0: Indicator is not met
2: Indicator is met
A2 Metadata longevity Whether there is a policy to guarantee the persistence of metadata even in the case of absence or removal of the digital resource itself 0: Indicator is not met
2: Indicator is met
I1 Use a knowledge representation language Whether a formal language for knowledge representation is used in the digital resource. This indicator was assessed in terms of the format of the data. 0: Indicator is not met
1: Indicator is partially met when the resource is in a structured, non-proprietary, editable format (e.g., CSV, XML)
2: Indicator is met when the language used is cited and documented
I2 Use of FAIR vocabularies Whether the digital resource uses formal and shared vocabularies (ontologies) for knowledge representation, which are themselves terms from open, community-accepted vocabularies published in an appropriate knowledge-exchange format. 0: Indicator is not met
1: Indicator is partially met when the vocabularies used in the resource are documented
2: Indicator is met
I3 Use of qualified references Whether the digital resource or its metadata contain relationships with third-party data, with an explicit and useful semantic meaning 0: Indicator is not met
2: Indicator is met
R1.1 Accessible usage license Whether there is a license document for the digital resource and the ability to retrieve those documents 0: Indicator is not met
1: Indicator is partially met when elements concerning the conditions for re-use, copying or distributing the resource are available but no formal license can be found
2: Indicator is met
R1.2 Detailed provenance Whether the digital resource content is associated with provenance information associated with the data, covering at least: (i) who produced the data and when, and (ii) why and how the data was produced (context and relevance of the data). The availability of such information in the digital resource itself or its metadata was evaluated, not in the content of the associated article 0: Indicator is not met
2: Indicator is met
R1.3 Meet community standards Whether the digital resource is listed by a recognized body as meeting community standards. Repositories were considered as compliant when listed by FAIRsharing, the Registry of Research Data Repositories or Core Trust Seal (www.coretrustseal.org) 0: Indicator is not met
2: Indicator is met
  1. The indicator identifiers are the same as the corresponding guiding principle identifiers for simplicity