Write a deposit profile before searching
Describe the material in a short profile: discipline, object types, formats and scale, sensitivity, intended users, required release date and likely future changes. State whether raw data, processed data, code and documentation need to remain together. This profile turns vague preferences into requirements and makes comparisons repeatable.
Review the project constraints at the same time. Funding conditions, participant consent, collaboration agreements, journal policies and institutional research-data rules may narrow the options. A repository can provide deposit infrastructure; it cannot retroactively grant rights to publish confidential or third-party material.
Build a candidate list through re3data
re3data catalogues research data repositories across disciplines. Search by the narrowest useful subject, then inspect content types, country, responsible institution, access modes, persistent identifiers and certifications. Treat every registry entry as a route to current evidence rather than the final answer.
- Run a subject search and retain every plausible specialist repository.
- Read each re3data record for scope, operator, status and policy links.
- Open the repository's current deposit, policy, preservation and fee pages.
- Compare accepted formats and access controls with the deposit profile.
- Ask the named support service about any material ambiguity.
- Save the search date, filters, candidate links and reasons for exclusion.
A social-science search may return several credible services, but controlled access can decide the case for sensitive interview data. Image collections may need format-aware display and rights metadata. Software-heavy deposits may require archive structures and links among releases. Disciplinary fit becomes testable only when it is expressed as a feature your dataset needs.
Distinguish discovery from file access
Open access permits direct retrieval. An embargo delays it until a date. Controlled access requires an applicant to satisfy a review process. These are not interchangeable. A temporary embargo does not permanently protect personal data, while registration alone may not amount to a substantive access check.
Public metadata can coexist with restricted files. A title, creator list, methods summary, access statement and identifier may make the dataset discoverable and citeable without exposing the underlying records. Ask who will decide future access requests, what criteria they use and how that responsibility is maintained after the original project ends.
Run a safe deposit trial
If the service offers a draft area, test it with a synthetic package. Never place sensitive real data into an account whose controls are still under review. Check mandatory metadata, file-size constraints, previews, contributor roles, licences, embargo settings and links among related objects.
Inspect the proposed citation. Can a reader see the creators, title, date, repository, version and persistent identifier? Find out whether an update creates a new version-specific identifier or simply replaces files. This affects evidence. The guide to citing research data explains how the cited release relates to the analytical record.
Ask support one focused question based on your actual material, such as how a controlled-access decision is maintained or whether a specialist format is preserved. Save the answer and date. A concrete, accountable response is more useful than a broad feature claim, and it can reveal conditions hidden from the short deposit page.
Record the choice and plan an exit
Prepare a one-page decision record containing the deposit profile, at least the strongest candidates, evidence checked, exclusions and final rationale. For example: “Repository A was selected because it accepts the data type, supports controlled access and identifies preserved versions. Institutional service B was excluded because its stated scope does not cover the primary format.”
Store the submitted package, metadata export, agreement and identifier in the project archive. Document how corrections, withdrawal requests or service closure would be handled. A repository is part of preservation, but it should not be the only location from which your evidence can be recovered.
Connect the choice to your data management plan and the minimum metadata record. The research data hub links deposit decisions to citation and version control. The knowledge guide provides the single foundation route for the wider research-writing context.
Selection failures to avoid
- Choosing a service solely because colleagues recognise its name.
- Treating a DOI as a guarantee of preservation.
- Confusing a dated embargo with controlled access.
- Selecting a licence before checking rights and consent.
- Reading marketing copy but not deposit and preservation policies.
- Allowing a new upload to obscure the release cited in the paper.
- Using the public repository copy as the only project backup.