Evaluation criteria

Researchers at the Faculty of Arts MU produce a number of digital tools and platforms in their research. However, the lifespan of these endeavours is often limited by the duration of the grant or the short-term sustainability of the research outputs. The LINDAT/CLARIAH-CZ Digital Research Infrastructure for Language Technologies, Arts and Humanities (LM2023062) grant funds transfer the outputs of completed projects with unsecured sustainability to the faculty infrastructure Digitalia MUNI ARTS, where we provide curatorial care for them and take care not only of their long-term storage, but also of the functionality and sharing of research data so that they can be further used productively in the work of other researchers. The number of projects created at FF MU in recent years is large, so before transferring each platform, we consider a number of criteria that help us identify those projects whose transfer is meaningful and urgent.

We use the following evaluation criteria to select platforms from completed projects:

• 1. Compatibility:
  • a. the risk of losses when the platform is transferred to the infrastructure
  • b. the possibility of implementing the functionality of the original platform into the infrastructure interface
  • c. the possibility of implementing additional required/needed functionality into the infrastructure interface
• 2. Organizational feasibility:
  • a. constraints imposed by the commitments of the project/grant in which the platform was developed
  • b. the willingness of the platform administrator to cooperate on data conversion and standardisation
  • c. agreement of stakeholders (e.g. consortium of administrators)
  • d. clarification of content ownership, contracts with owners
• 3. Technical feasibility:
  • a. migration complexity (file formats, structure)
  • b. technician availability, completeness of documentation
  • c. availability of data to be transferred
  • d. data readiness (data are cleaned and consistent)
• 4. Openness:
  • a. data is open or closure is well justified (e.g. sensitive data, copyright protection, etc.)
  • b. availability of closed data to authorised researchers
  • c. embargoed data have a fixed release date
• 5. Relevance:
  • a. assessment of the uniqueness, rarity and vulnerability of the data
  • b. user interest – assessment of number of accesses
  • c. clustering – attractiveness of the platform for data storage by other scientists
  • d. research relevance – alignment with the strategic goals of the faculty
• 6. Sustainability:
  • a. continued addition or enrichment of data
  • b. continued use of the platform for research and publishing
  • c. use of the platform internationally
  • d. use of the platform in teaching