Explorer and Pathfinder Tracks for CoreTrustSeal: Assessing the essential characteristics of a Trustworthy Digital Repository

Explorer and Pathfinder Tracks for CoreTrustSeal: Assessing the essential characteristics of a Trustworthy Digital Repository Implementation Story 1 Implementation Story - #2 Authors FIDELIS authors ٩Milica Ševkušić, University of Belgrade Participants co-authors ٩Ash Bassili, myLaminin ٩Júlia Egyed-Gergely, Research Documentation Centre, ELTE Centre for Social Sciences ٩Anna Horváth, Research Documentation Centre, ELTE Centre for Social Sciences ٩Enikő Meiszterics, Research Documentation Centre, ELTE Centre for Social Sciences ٩Diego Jahn, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Center for Interdisciplinary Digital Sciences ٩Thomas Jouneau, Recherche Data Gouv, Université de Lorraine ٩Maélys Liseron-Monfils, Recherche Data Gouv, Université Marie et Louis Pasteur ٩Vaidas Morkevičius, Lithuanian Data Archive for Social Sciences and Humanities (LiDA) ٩Kristaps Oškalns, The Higher Education and Science Information Technology Shared Service Centre Lead Experts of the Support Offer: ٩Tuomas J. Alaterä, Finnish Social Science Data Archive ٩Jonas Recker, GESIS ٩Maaike Verburg, Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) Related TTRAM element(s) Criteria, Assessment, Improvement Support offer Support for the Adoption of Solutions | CoreTrustSeal support: Explorer track & Pathfinder track Abstract This Implementation Story describes a structured support offer—Explorer Track and Pathfinder Track for CoreTrustSeal Support—offered as part of the FIDELIS project (FIDELIS Pilot Support Offers), which helped six organisations explore and apply the CoreTrustSeal requirements. Through the two tailored tracks (Explorer for organisations assessing their scope and readiness, and Pathfinder for those already drafting their self-assessments), participants received expert guidance, hands-on feedback, and practical tools for evaluating their repositories against the CoreTrustSeal requirements. The support offer combined workshops, individual consultations, peer exchange, and iterative review, enabling participants to clarify challenges, strengthen documentation, and deepen their understanding of what CoreTrustSeal reviewers expect. The support enhanced participants’ confidence, improved the quality of their self-assessments, and provided a clearer path toward future CoreTrustSeal certification. 2 Implementation Story - #2  Introduction The CoreTrustSeal support offer enabled participants to explore the CoreTrustSeal requirements and assess their relevance and benefit for their own organisations, relying on expert guidance. CoreTrustSeal offers a core-level certification based on the Core Trustworthy Digital Repositories (TDR) Requirements, which outline the essential characteristics of a TDR. The support offer took place from September 30 to November 27, 2025. Two support tracks were offered. The Explorer track targeted organisations considering a future CoreTrustSeal application or planning a preliminary self-evaluation but who were still unsure whether their repository falls within the CoreTrustSeal scope. The goal was to help participants determine whether they were in scope and to strengthen their confidence in proceeding with further self-assessment or identifying alternatives if their repository was not in scope for CoreTrustSeal. The Pathfinder track was designed for organisations already engaged in CoreTrustSeal self-assessment or ready to begin. Participants were expected to prepare drafts addressing at least a subset of CoreTrustSeal requirements in advance and work with experts to refine those drafts and deepen their understanding of what CoreTrustSeal reviewers look for. users Participants A total of six participants joined this support offer with teams of various sizes, culminating in a total of twelve individual people supported. Initially, there were seven registrants, but one had to withdraw before the beginning of the support. The participants are outlined below, along with their initial expectations for the support offer. Explorer track ٩myLaminin | Canada| Discipline-agnostic | myLaminin expected to gain a clearer understanding of the CoreTrustSeal requirements in order to be able to conduct a more structured self-evaluation and better position themselves to support researchers from the European Union. ٩MorpheusML Model Repository | Germany | Natural sciences; Medical and health sciences | MorpheusML had just started working towards CoreTrustSeal certification and needed guidance. ٩Research Documentation Centre | Hungary | Social sciences | Research Documentation Centre aimed to deepen their understanding of the CoreTrustSeal framework and its underlying principles so they can begin strengthening the trustworthiness of the generalist HUN-REN ARP Data Repository (ARP Data Repository) even before applying for certification. Their ultimate goal is to obtain the CoreTrustSeal certificate. Pathfinder track ٩The Lithuanian Data Archive for Social Sciences and Humanities (LiDA) | Lithuania | Social sciences | LiDA expected this support action to help them in the application preparation. They planned to submit their certification application to CoreTrustSeal in 2026. ٩The Higher Education and Science Information Technology Shared Service Centre | Latvia | Discipline-agnostic | The DataverseLV CoreTrustSeal Application is already submitted and received its first feedback. This support offer could help gain a better understanding of reviewer expectations, and improve internal procedures for the future certification and development of the repository. ٩Recherche Data Gouv | France | Discipline-agnostic | The French national federated platform for research data Participants, had already been working on their CoreTrustSeal certification self-assessment and expected support in finalising it. 3 Implementation Story - #2  Approach taken CoreTrustSeal helps repositories demonstrate trustworthiness by providing an internationally recognised, communitydriven, certification framework based on best practices for digital curation and active preservation. It ensures transparency, sustainability, and data integrity, giving stakeholders confidence that the repository can reliably preserve and provide access to digital research data over the long term. Different approaches were used in the two support tracks. No prior knowledge was required to join the Explorer track. After a general introductory workshop on CoreTrustSeal concepts and the certification process, participants received a template of the ‘Triage’ questions (a set of questions checked by the CoreTrustSeal reviewers to determine whether an applicant is in scope for CoreTrustSeal), along with detailed guidance, and relevant resources to complete an initial selfevaluation against the selected requirements as homework. A follow-up Q&A session addressed questions about the CoreTrustSeal scope and next steps, helping participants determine whether they were in scope and feel more confident about continuing the assessment or identifying alternatives if their repository was deemed out of scope. To join the Pathfinder track, participants had to demonstrate that their repository was within the CoreTrustSeal scope and provide a solid initial draft for Requirements R0 (Background Information), R8 (Deposit, Appraisal, and Accessibility), R9 (Preservation Plan), and R13 (Reuse) (the so called ‘Triage’ questions) before the training. After the joint introductory workshop with Explorers, participating organisations submitted drafts for expert review and received targeted feedback and guidance in two sets of one-on-one online support sessions. A second review round helped refine their drafts and clarify what CoreTrustSeal reviewers expect when evaluating applications, leaving participants with improved selfassessment materials and a clearer path toward completing their application. All participants had fairly advanced selfassessments ready. Finally, both groups were brought together and every participating organisation presented a short summary of the challenges identified and strengths discovered during the training. They were also asked to assess the role of the future FIDELS Network in providing support. Each presentation was followed up with an open discussion. alarm-exclamation Challenges and lessons learned Peer exchange was encouraged and facilitated not only during workshops and Q&A sessions but also by creating a dedicated space in a shared document and inviting the participants to answer a set of questions, share their thoughts and experiences and read the answers provided by others to learn more from and about each other. All meetings aimed to include ample time for discussion, but at times there was a shortage of time. Participants highlighted several challenges. For many, meeting the requirements and preparing the necessary documentation was labour-intensive. They also wanted to know what reviewers expected, how to present requirements that were only partly met, and to what extent they were supposed to adjust their existing evidence to align it with the CoreTrustSeal requirements. Repositories were also at very different stages of their CoreTrustSeal journey. When discussing challenges, curation and especially active preservation emerged as a recurring concern. Repositories that relied on commercial providers, operated with limited resources, or worked within decentralised institutional structures often struggled to define just exactly how the responsibilities were shared and defined. Some also faced unstable funding or institutional restructuring. Finally, participants expressed a need for clearer guidance, practical examples from different types of repositories and/ or repository platforms, and advice on what to do if a service is partly or fully out of scope for CoreTrustSeal. The ability to ask questions throughout the training was generally appreciated by all participants. Participants also highlighted several strengths they discovered during training. Many noted that they already had extensive documentation covering many aspects of their processes, and the CoreTrustSeal requirements will help to restructure it effectively and fill remaining gaps. Evidence gathering is underway. Most had a clear understanding of their designated community, and the training provided insight into the maturity of their digital curation and preservation processes, offering a solid foundation for progress. The direction for further work became clearer. Lessons learned by the repositories: ٮmyLaminin: We are well positioned to obtain the CoreTrustSeal certification on almost all attributes with the exception of ‘Active Preservation’ aspects of the requirements which were a bit vague to us. Additionally, many of the CoreTrustSeal requirements were covered by other regulatory frameworks and requirements. 4 Implementation Story - #2 ٮMorpheusML Model Repository: Obtaining the CoreTrustSeal is definitely a challenge and requires targeted development and documentation of a repository towards successful certification. However, one thing becomes clear very early in the process: the certification process, which is based on a self-assessment by the repository operators, is an excellent guide for strengthening the sustainability and trustworthiness of a repository. We realised early on that the work involved in preparing for successful CoreTrustSeal certification is an opportunity to advance the repository along this journey. For us, the CoreTrustSeal is increasingly seen not only as a seal of quality and a reference to a large community of sustainable and trustworthy repositories, but also as a process that ultimately results in a better, more future-proof repository. ٮResearch Documentation Centre: An important lesson we learned during the FIDELIS programme is that having practices and policies in place and being able to describe them accurately (e.g. for certification purposes) can, in some cases, be two separate things. The repository infrastructure and connecting services we have been running for one and half years is generally a well-designed and thought-out system, with many small to grand practices and policies that were put in place when needed, with great consideration in pretty much all of the instances. Still, when it comes to documenting and describing these practices and policies, applying for a certification such as CoreTrustSeal may be the first situation where we are required to think them through and make conscious and intentional by documentation what was a working - but not transparent or easily transmissible - knowledge and practice. Therefore, the CoreTrustSeal self-assessment is a great opportunity to lay out our practices and policies in such a way that they are discrete, purposeful, and transparent to not only those currently involved in maintaining/operating or using the repository services, but for generations to come as well. ٮLiDA: Many lessons were learned, but a couple stand out. First, if there is a standard for a workflow (for example, recommended file formats) that perfectly fits our organisation’s needs at the moment, we still have to incorporate it into our own policy documents. As we may never control how and when this standard will change and whether it will remain acceptable for our organisation in the future. Second, do not forget that data and metadata are studied or read not only by humans, but also by machines. Our institutional policies, workflows, and standards have to reflect this ‘transformation’. For example, metadata harvesting requires ‘liberal’ open licences (CC0 or CC-BY) if we want the (meta)data to be ‘visible’ on OpenAIRE Explore. ٮThe Higher Education and Science Information Technology Shared Service Centre: We quickly realised that a selfassessment alone was not enough for CoreTrustSeal certification; we also had to provide concrete documented evidence. Our first submission was too vague because it described our daily activities rather than supplying the specific documentation reviewers needed. We initially tried to adapt materials from other repositories, but the sheer volume and differing approaches made this unmanageable. Instead, we shifted to creating a smaller, focused set of documents with only the essential information that accurately reflects our workflows and our partnership with our infrastructure provider. ٮRecherche Data Gouv: Although we knew about the role of Active Preservation, the workshop made an impact by allowing us to focus on the topic and find a way to tackle this subject, which is currently not addressed by our repository. We now have a strategy that we can describe in our application and will follow in the coming months. shield-check Impact By the end of the support offer, participants had strengthened their understanding of CoreTrustSeal requirements and learnt to relate the current state and maturity of their repository to the requirements of the core criteria. They asked relevant questions about their own situations, which helped clarify challenges such as governance, documentation gaps, preservation planning, and application scope. Participants developed key parts of their self-assessments and identified where further evidence or clearer policies were needed. They also expanded their understanding of the benefits of certification. Several participants were able to define practical next steps, such as finalising applications, addressing reviewer comments, and preparing or harmonising policies. Overall, the support action helped them gain confidence, clearer direction, and a more structured approach to preparing for certification. 5 Implementation Story - #2 ✅ Key messages and advice For any Trustworthy Digital Repository, it is essential to demonstrate to users, funders, and the wider community that it can reliably preserve and provide access to digital research data over the long term. CoreTrustSeal certification offers a practical and attainable way to achieve this. A successful self-assessment, and ultimately certification, starts with considering the scope of the repository’s activities and functions, evaluating its performance against the fundamental requirements, and planning how to work through the self-assessment process. Below are some key takeaways as identified by participants in this CoreTrustSeal training. ŴmyLaminin: Start with a quick self-assessment against the requirements by looking at past successful applications. ŴMorpheusML Model Repository: CoreTrustSeal covers a whole range of levels in terms of requirement compliance, curation and preservation. Not all aspects have to be fulfilled at the highest level. Instead, it is worth getting involved early on in the process, improving the repository in line with the requirements (these are not only good for attaining the CoreTrustSeal, but also for the repository itself) and, where necessary at the current stage, to enter the certification process even if the requirements are not yet fully met. Rather, use the process to formulate a roadmap for reaching future goals and make these carefully planned commitments an integral part of the certificate. ŴResearch Documentation Centre: When considering applying for a certification such as CoreTrustSeal, there is plenty of valuable information online that can clarify a lot of initial questions one might have about both form and content. Former successful applications are available to all and are a great resource to go to when it comes to gauging whether you are in scope or thinking about how to exactly fill out the self-assessment questionnaire. They can guide the approach and one can also get inspiration from other (potentially similar) repositories’ answers. ŴLiDA: It is in your interest to be—or become—a Trustworthy Digital Repository, and the CoreTrustSeal certification process allows to achieve this status. Filling out the application and getting feedback from experts helps you to improve all important aspects of your organisation, including policies, workflows, and the standards employed. ŴThe Higher Education and Science Information Technology Shared Service Centre: Do not wait until your documentation is perfect to start the self-assessment process. Use the assessment itself as a guide to figure out what you are missing and what needs to be prioritised. We also recommend getting your key policies translated into English right from the start because that process always takes longer than you expect and it is also easier to fill in the self-assessment when your own documentation is in English. Most importantly, try to get an expert to look at your work early on. Having someone with experience review our drafts saved us a lot of time and helped us understand exactly what the reviewers were looking for before we got too far down the wrong path. Look for similar repositories that could help with self-assessment beforehand. ŴRecherche Data Gouv: Conceive and describe the Active Preservation workflows taking place in your repository as soon as possible. Integrate them as one of your core activities. Use the CoreTrustSeal requirements to assess yourselves and identify what is missing. Additionally, the FIDELIS TTRAM can help you monitor your progress. Explore other FIDELIS training and support opportunities! link eden-fidelis.eu bluesky fidelis-project.bsky.social linkedin company/fidelis-project-eu youtube @FIDELIS-PROJECT communities/fidelis-project