{ "schema_version": "1.0", "name": "ResearchBee curated chat knowledge", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "principles": [ "KU first-party policy and service pages take priority for KU-specific questions.", "Use live source lookups for policies, fees, agreements, metrics, and repository terms that can change.", "Never infer permission, eligibility, or trustworthiness from missing data.", "Journal fit and transparent practice come before ranking numbers.", "Sources and review dates must travel with retrieved knowledge.", "The general knowledge-file review date does not update separately dated KU policy snapshots; overdue policy records do not establish current eligibility." ], "entries": [ { "id": "researchbee-services", "category": "researchbee", "title": "What ResearchBee can help with", "summary": "ResearchBee is Khalifa University Library's publishing and research-data assistant. It supports four connected needs: finding and comparing suitable journals; checking article self-archiving and repository rights; identifying appropriate research-data repositories; and answering questions about KU Open Access support, APCs, journal metrics, publishing practice, Khazna, and research data management. The structured tools should be used for journal matching, policy checking, and repository matching; the chat assistant should explain concepts, help users prepare, and interpret results.", "topics": [ "researchbee", "services", "help", "what can you do", "chat", "tools" ], "sources": [ { "name": "KU Journal Finder guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/journalfinder" }, { "name": "KU Research Data guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/researchdata" }, { "name": "KU AI Tools guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/aitools" } ], "authority": "KU Library", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 90 }, { "id": "ku-first-party-guides", "category": "ku", "title": "KU Library guides are the first source for local services", "summary": "For KU-specific questions, prioritize the current KU Library guide or policy over general external guidance. Use the AI Tools guide for tools available to KU users, the Journal Finder guide for journal-discovery and verification resources, the Research Data guide for local RDM guidance, and the Open Access guide for KU funding, publisher agreements, and deposit support. If a guide and an older chatbot record differ, the current KU page or policy is authoritative.", "topics": [ "ku", "khalifa university", "library guide", "ai tools", "journal finder guide", "research data guide" ], "sources": [ { "name": "KU AI Tools guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/aitools" }, { "name": "KU Journal Finder guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/journalfinder" }, { "name": "KU Research Data guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/researchdata" }, { "name": "KU Open Access guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/oa" } ], "authority": "KU Library", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 30 }, { "id": "journal-selection-workflow", "category": "journals", "title": "A reliable workflow for choosing a journal", "summary": "Choose a journal in stages rather than by one ranking number. First define the paper's topic, contribution, article type, methods, audience, and practical constraints. Next identify journals that publish closely related work and read their aims, scope, recent articles, and author instructions. Then verify indexing and title status in the source database, compare category-specific metrics, check peer-review and publication-ethics information, review access model, APCs, licences, waivers, and self-archiving rights, and confirm length, data, reporting, and submission requirements. Make a primary, secondary, and safer backup choice.", "topics": [ "best journal", "choose journal", "where to publish", "journal selection", "shortlist", "suitable journal" ], "sources": [ { "name": "KU Journal Finder guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/journalfinder" }, { "name": "Think. Check. Submit. journal checklist", "url": "https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/" } ], "authority": "KU Library and cross-sector publishing guidance", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 180 }, { "id": "journal-fit-scope-audience", "category": "journals", "title": "Journal fit: scope, audience, contribution, and article type", "summary": "Topical fit is necessary but not sufficient. Check whether the journal's stated scope covers the manuscript's main question, methods, population or application area, and article type. Compare the manuscript with several recent papers, especially papers using similar methods or addressing a similar audience. A strong match should be easy to explain in one or two sentences: what the paper contributes, why the journal's readers need it, and how it extends work the journal already publishes. A high-ranked journal with weak scope fit is usually a poorer submission choice than a well-matched journal with appropriate reach.", "topics": [ "journal scope", "audience", "article type", "fit", "aims and scope", "recent articles", "manuscript match" ], "sources": [ { "name": "KU Journal Finder guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/journalfinder" }, { "name": "Think. Check. Submit. journal checklist", "url": "https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/" } ], "authority": "KU Library and cross-sector publishing guidance", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 180 }, { "id": "journal-indexing-verification", "category": "journals", "title": "Verify journal indexing and current title status", "summary": "Never rely only on a journal website's claim that it is indexed. Verify the exact title and ISSN in the relevant source list, and check the years of coverage, active or discontinued status, title changes, and predecessor or successor relationships. Scopus and Web of Science are separate databases with different selection systems and coverage. A journal may be indexed in one, both, or neither. Indexing is evidence of database coverage, not a guarantee that every article is high quality or that the journal is the right fit for a manuscript.", "topics": [ "indexed", "indexing", "scopus indexed", "web of science", "master journal list", "discontinued", "issn", "title status" ], "sources": [ { "name": "Scopus content coverage guide", "url": "https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/content" }, { "name": "Web of Science Master Journal List", "url": "https://mjl.clarivate.com/home" }, { "name": "KU Journal Finder guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/journalfinder" } ], "authority": "Database providers and KU Library", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 90 }, { "id": "citescore-percentile-quartile", "category": "metrics", "title": "CiteScore, percentile, rank, and quartile", "summary": "CiteScore is a Scopus journal-level citation-impact metric based on citations and peer-reviewed documents in a four-year window. The raw CiteScore should not be used to compare different subject fields because citation practices differ. CiteScore Percentile shows a title's relative position within a specific Scopus subject category; for example, the 90th percentile means the title performs above about 90 percent of titles in that category. Quartiles group category rankings into Q1 through Q4. Always state the metric year, database, and subject category, because one journal can have different percentiles or quartiles in different categories.", "topics": [ "citescore", "percentile", "quartile", "q1", "q2", "q3", "q4", "scopus rank", "top 10 percent", "top 15 percent" ], "sources": [ { "name": "Scopus Support: What is CiteScore?", "url": "https://www.elsevier.support/scopus/answer/what-is-citescore" }, { "name": "KU Open Access ratings guidance", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/oa/ratings" } ], "authority": "Scopus and KU Library", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "sjr-snip", "category": "metrics", "title": "SJR and SNIP provide complementary views", "summary": "SCImago Journal Rank, or SJR, weights citations according to the influence of the citing sources and is useful as one view of journal prestige within a network. Source Normalized Impact per Paper, or SNIP, adjusts citation impact for differences in a field's citation potential. They answer different questions and should be interpreted with CiteScore percentile, journal scope, coverage, and qualitative evidence. Report the year and source of every value, and avoid treating small differences as meaningful without considering the journal's field, size, age, and publication mix.", "topics": [ "sjr", "scimago journal rank", "snip", "source normalized impact", "prestige", "field normalized" ], "sources": [ { "name": "Scopus journal metrics guidance", "url": "https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/metrics" }, { "name": "SCImago Journal and Country Rank", "url": "https://www.scimagojr.com" } ], "authority": "Metric providers", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "jif-jci-jcr", "category": "metrics", "title": "Journal Impact Factor, Journal Citation Indicator, and JCR", "summary": "Journal Citation Reports provides several journal-level indicators. The Journal Impact Factor summarizes citations to recent journal content, while the Journal Citation Indicator provides a field-normalized view. These indicators can help compare journals within suitable contexts, but they are not measures of the quality of an individual article, author, or institution. Use category benchmarks and multiple complementary indicators, and pair the numbers with scope, editorial practice, audience, publication model, and evidence from recent articles.", "topics": [ "impact factor", "jif", "journal citation indicator", "jci", "journal citation reports", "jcr", "clarivate" ], "sources": [ { "name": "Clarivate Journal Citation Reports", "url": "https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-funding-analytics/journal-citation-reports/" }, { "name": "DORA responsible indicators guidance", "url": "https://sfdora.org/resource/guidance-on-the-responsible-use-of-quantitative-indicators-in-research-assessment/" } ], "authority": "Clarivate and DORA", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "responsible-use-of-metrics", "category": "metrics", "title": "Use journal metrics responsibly", "summary": "No single number captures journal quality, research quality, or manuscript fit. Be clear about the decision the metric supports, transparent about its source and year, specific about what it measures, contextual about disciplinary differences, and fair about limitations. Do not infer the quality of an individual paper or researcher from the average citation performance of the journal. For journal selection, fit and trustworthiness come first; metrics are supporting evidence, not the decision by themselves.", "topics": [ "responsible metrics", "dora", "metric limitations", "journal quality", "research quality", "ranking mechanism" ], "sources": [ { "name": "DORA responsible indicators guidance", "url": "https://sfdora.org/resource/guidance-on-the-responsible-use-of-quantitative-indicators-in-research-assessment/" }, { "name": "Clarivate Journal Citation Reports", "url": "https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-funding-analytics/journal-citation-reports/" } ], "authority": "Responsible research assessment guidance", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "journal-trust-checklist", "category": "integrity", "title": "Check whether a journal is trustworthy", "summary": "Check the journal's identity, publisher, contact details, editorial board, peer-review description, ownership, fees, waivers, licences, copyright, archiving, complaints and appeals, conflicts of interest, corrections and retractions, and preservation. Verify indexing and memberships independently rather than accepting logos on the website. For an open-access journal, check its DOAJ record where applicable. Warning signs include guaranteed or implausibly rapid acceptance, hidden charges, copied or confusing journal names, unverifiable editors, aggressive invitations unrelated to the author's field, and false metric claims. No single list or signal should be the sole decision.", "topics": [ "predatory journal", "trusted journal", "trustworthy", "scam journal", "journal legitimacy", "think check submit", "doaj", "cope" ], "sources": [ { "name": "Think. Check. Submit. journal checklist", "url": "https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/" }, { "name": "DOAJ Principles of Transparency and Best Practice", "url": "https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/" }, { "name": "COPE Core Principles", "url": "https://publicationethics.org/core-principles" } ], "authority": "Cross-sector publishing integrity guidance", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 180 }, { "id": "peer-review-and-editorial-transparency", "category": "integrity", "title": "Peer review and editorial transparency", "summary": "A journal should explain the type of peer review it uses, who makes editorial decisions, how conflicts of interest are handled, and how complaints, appeals, corrections, retractions, and misconduct concerns are managed. Editorial-board names and affiliations should be credible and relevant to the field. Peer-review speed varies by discipline and manuscript complexity, so advertised timelines are estimates rather than guarantees. A promise of acceptance or publication without meaningful review is a serious warning sign.", "topics": [ "peer review", "editorial board", "review time", "acceptance guarantee", "complaints", "appeals", "retraction" ], "sources": [ { "name": "COPE Core Principles", "url": "https://publicationethics.org/core-principles" }, { "name": "DOAJ Principles of Transparency and Best Practice", "url": "https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/" }, { "name": "Think. Check. Submit. journal checklist", "url": "https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/" } ], "authority": "Publication ethics organizations", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 180 }, { "id": "open-access-costs-and-licences", "category": "open-access", "title": "Compare access model, APCs, waivers, copyright, and licences", "summary": "Open access does not automatically mean that an author pays an APC. A journal may be fully open access, hybrid, subscription-based with Green OA options, or diamond open access with no author APC. Before submission, check the exact journal and article type, the current APC and taxes, waivers or discounts, institutional agreements, whether optional page or colour charges apply, who retains copyright, which Creative Commons licences are offered, and what each licence permits. KU funding eligibility is a separate question and must be checked against the current KU OA guide and publisher agreement.", "topics": [ "apc", "open access fee", "waiver", "discount", "copyright", "creative commons", "cc by", "diamond oa", "hybrid", "gold oa" ], "sources": [ { "name": "KU Open Access guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/oa" }, { "name": "DOAJ Principles of Transparency and Best Practice", "url": "https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/" } ], "authority": "KU Library and open-access standards", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 90 }, { "id": "special-issues", "category": "journals", "title": "Evaluate special issues separately", "summary": "A legitimate journal can still host a poorly managed special issue. Confirm that the special issue appears on the journal's official website, that guest editors are named and qualified, that the scope is coherent, and that normal peer-review, ethics, and editorial-oversight policies apply. Be cautious about unsolicited invitations, very broad topics, unrealistic deadlines, or claims of guaranteed publication. Also verify whether the issue's articles are indexed in the same way as regular content and whether the APC or licence differs.", "topics": [ "special issue", "guest editor", "call for papers", "invitation", "themed issue" ], "sources": [ { "name": "DOAJ Principles of Transparency and Best Practice", "url": "https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/" }, { "name": "COPE Core Principles", "url": "https://publicationethics.org/core-principles" } ], "authority": "Publication ethics organizations", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 180 }, { "id": "manuscript-readiness", "category": "publishing", "title": "Prepare the manuscript before selecting the final journal", "summary": "Clarify the research question, contribution, methods, main findings, limitations, audience, and article type before finalizing a journal shortlist. Use the reporting guideline appropriate to the study design where one exists, and make the abstract and title accurately reflect the work. Resolve authorship and contributorship early, check ethical approvals and conflicts, organize data and code, and prepare a data-availability statement. A polished, complete manuscript gives journal-matching tools better evidence and reduces avoidable desk rejection.", "topics": [ "manuscript preparation", "reporting guideline", "equator", "desk rejection", "data availability statement", "authorship", "contributorship" ], "sources": [ { "name": "EQUATOR reporting-guideline library", "url": "https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/" }, { "name": "CRediT Contributor Role Taxonomy", "url": "https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles-defined/" } ], "authority": "Reporting and contributorship standards", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "cover-letter-and-submission", "category": "publishing", "title": "Submission and cover-letter essentials", "summary": "Follow the target journal's current author instructions exactly. A concise cover letter should identify the manuscript, state its central contribution and why it fits the journal's readership, confirm originality and submission status, and disclose any required ethics, conflicts, preprints, or related manuscripts. Do not repeat the entire abstract or make exaggerated claims. Before submission, confirm files, figures, tables, supplementary material, reporting checklist, author details, ORCID iDs, funding, contributor roles, and suggested or opposed reviewers where requested.", "topics": [ "cover letter", "submission checklist", "author guidelines", "orcid", "credit roles", "submit manuscript" ], "sources": [ { "name": "ORCID", "url": "https://orcid.org/" }, { "name": "CRediT Contributor Role Taxonomy", "url": "https://credit.niso.org/contributor-roles-defined/" }, { "name": "EQUATOR reporting-guideline library", "url": "https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/" } ], "authority": "Research identifiers and reporting standards", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "revision-and-peer-review-response", "category": "publishing", "title": "Responding to peer review", "summary": "Read the decision letter and all reviews carefully, separate mandatory editorial requests from reviewer suggestions, and prepare a point-by-point response. Quote or summarize each comment, state exactly what changed and where, and explain respectfully when a requested change is not appropriate. Keep the revised manuscript, tracked or highlighted version, clean version, response letter, and supplementary files consistent. Never claim that a change was made when it was not, and alert the editor to conflicting or ethically problematic requests.", "topics": [ "peer review response", "revision letter", "reviewer comments", "major revision", "minor revision", "resubmit" ], "sources": [ { "name": "COPE Core Principles", "url": "https://publicationethics.org/core-principles" } ], "authority": "Publication ethics guidance", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "open-access-versions", "category": "open-access", "title": "Preprint, accepted manuscript, and version of record", "summary": "A preprint or submitted manuscript is the author's version before formal peer review. The accepted author manuscript, often called the AAM or postprint, includes changes made through peer review but not the publisher's final layout. The version of record is the final published version. Publisher policies often allow different versions in different repositories, sometimes with an embargo or required statement. Do not infer permission from another journal by the same publisher. Check the exact title, version, repository type, embargo, licence, acknowledgement, and effective policy date.", "topics": [ "preprint", "submitted version", "accepted manuscript", "aam", "postprint", "version of record", "vor", "manuscript version" ], "sources": [ { "name": "Open Policy Finder", "url": "https://openpolicyfinder.jisc.ac.uk/" }, { "name": "KU Open Access guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/oa" } ], "authority": "Jisc and KU Library", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 90 }, { "id": "open-policy-finder", "category": "open-access", "title": "Use Open Policy Finder for current journal and funder policies", "summary": "Open Policy Finder supports searches for journal, publisher, and funder open-access policies, funder-compliance information, and transitional agreements. Because these records can change, ResearchBee should use the live API for a specific journal whenever possible and label the result with its source and retrieval date. The answer must keep separate the manuscript version, permitted repository, embargo, licence or required statement, and any policy option or exception. If no reliable record is returned, say that the permission is unverified and direct the user to the current journal policy or library support rather than guessing.", "topics": [ "open policy finder", "publisher policy", "funder policy", "transitional agreement", "self archiving policy", "embargo policy" ], "sources": [ { "name": "Open Policy Finder", "url": "https://openpolicyfinder.jisc.ac.uk/" }, { "name": "Open Policy Finder API guidance", "url": "https://openpolicyfinder.jisc.ac.uk/help/developers/how-to-access-the-api-platform" } ], "authority": "Jisc", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 30 }, { "id": "green-oa-deposit-check", "category": "open-access", "title": "Green OA deposit decision checklist", "summary": "Before depositing an article, identify the exact journal and article, confirm the manuscript version available, check the permitted repository type, calculate any embargo from the correct event, apply the required licence or acknowledgement, and retain evidence of the policy used. Keep repository-holdings status separate from permission status: an article being absent from Khazna does not mean it may be deposited, and an existing metadata record does not prove that a particular full-text version is permitted. Use DOI-first article-level checking when available.", "topics": [ "green oa", "deposit article", "khazna deposit", "self archive", "repository rights", "embargo calculation" ], "sources": [ { "name": "Open Policy Finder", "url": "https://openpolicyfinder.jisc.ac.uk/" }, { "name": "KU Open Access guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/oa" } ], "authority": "Jisc and KU Library", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 90 }, { "id": "rdm-overview-dmp", "category": "rdm", "title": "Research data management starts with a living plan", "summary": "A data management plan should be created early and updated as the project changes. It should describe the data and formats, collection or creation methods, documentation and metadata, quality assurance, storage and backup, access control and security, ethics and legal constraints, responsibilities, sharing and repository plans, licences, retention and preservation, and required resources or costs. The plan should align with KU, funder, collaborator, ethics, contractual, and disciplinary requirements. A DMP is an operational plan, not merely a form completed for a proposal.", "topics": [ "data management plan", "dmp", "rdm", "research data management", "storage", "backup", "data sharing plan" ], "sources": [ { "name": "KU Research Data guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/researchdata" }, { "name": "DMPonline guidance", "url": "https://dmponline.dcc.ac.uk/help" } ], "authority": "KU Library and Digital Curation Centre", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 180 }, { "id": "fair-principles", "category": "rdm", "title": "Apply FAIR principles appropriately", "summary": "FAIR means Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. It does not mean that all data must be openly accessible. Sensitive or restricted data can still be FAIR when metadata are discoverable, access conditions are clear, identifiers are persistent, standards and vocabularies are used, provenance is recorded, and legitimate access routes are described. Practical FAIR actions include rich metadata, a persistent identifier, documented formats and variables, clear licences or access terms, links between data and publications, and use of disciplinary standards where available.", "topics": [ "fair data", "findable accessible interoperable reusable", "fair principles", "machine actionable", "open data" ], "sources": [ { "name": "GO FAIR principles", "url": "https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/" }, { "name": "KU Research Data guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/researchdata" } ], "authority": "FAIR principles and KU Library", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "repository-selection-workflow", "category": "repositories", "title": "How to choose a research-data repository", "summary": "Start with funder, publisher, ethics, collaboration, and institutional requirements. Prefer a reputable disciplinary repository when it serves the relevant community and accepts the data; otherwise consider a suitable generalist or institutional repository. Check scope, accepted content and formats, maximum size, costs, access options and embargoes, sensitive-data controls, licences, metadata quality, persistent identifiers, versioning, links to publications, review or curation, preservation commitment, withdrawal and tombstone policies, and export or API options. Verify all terms on the repository's current site before deposit.", "topics": [ "choose repository", "data repository", "where to deposit data", "repository criteria", "generalist repository", "disciplinary repository" ], "sources": [ { "name": "KU Research Data guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/researchdata" }, { "name": "re3data", "url": "https://www.re3data.org/" }, { "name": "FAIRsharing", "url": "https://fairsharing.org/" }, { "name": "CoreTrustSeal", "url": "https://www.coretrustseal.org/" } ], "authority": "KU Library and repository registries", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 90 }, { "id": "disciplinary-vs-generalist-repository", "category": "repositories", "title": "Disciplinary, generalist, and institutional repositories", "summary": "A disciplinary repository is often the strongest choice when it is trusted by the research community, supports appropriate metadata and file types, and is recognized by the funder or journal. A generalist repository can be suitable when no disciplinary repository fits or when mixed outputs need a common home. An institutional repository supports local stewardship and visibility but may have different collection scope, access controls, or data functionality. More than one service may be used when policies permit, but avoid creating ambiguous duplicate records; connect versions with persistent identifiers and clearly identify the authoritative record.", "topics": [ "disciplinary repository", "subject repository", "generalist repository", "institutional repository", "khazna", "zenodo", "dryad", "figshare" ], "sources": [ { "name": "re3data", "url": "https://www.re3data.org/" }, { "name": "KU Research Data guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/researchdata" } ], "authority": "Repository registry and KU Library", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 180 }, { "id": "repository-trust-and-certification", "category": "repositories", "title": "Repository trust, preservation, and certification", "summary": "Trust depends on evidence such as a clear mission and governance, sustainable staffing and funding, transparent licences and terms, data integrity and authenticity controls, documented ingest and preservation workflows, security, access management, metadata and discovery, continuity planning, and support for the designated community. CoreTrustSeal certification is useful evidence that a repository has been assessed against core trustworthy-repository requirements, but lack of certification does not automatically make a repository unsuitable. Evaluate the repository's actual services and the needs of the dataset.", "topics": [ "coretrustseal", "trusted repository", "trustworthy repository", "preservation", "certification", "repository sustainability" ], "sources": [ { "name": "CoreTrustSeal requirements", "url": "https://www.coretrustseal.org/why-certification/requirements/" }, { "name": "re3data", "url": "https://www.re3data.org/" } ], "authority": "Repository certification and registry", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "repository-registries", "category": "repositories", "title": "Use repository registries to discover candidates, then verify", "summary": "re3data can be searched or accessed programmatically to discover repositories by subject, country, content type, access, identifiers, certification, and other recorded attributes. FAIRsharing links repositories, standards, and data policies. Registry records are discovery aids, not substitutes for checking the repository's own current terms. ResearchBee should use registry identifiers to shortlist repositories and then present direct verification links for deposit rules, costs, size limits, licences, sensitive-data support, identifiers, and preservation.", "topics": [ "re3data", "fairsharing", "repository registry", "repository directory", "repository api", "find repository" ], "sources": [ { "name": "re3data", "url": "https://www.re3data.org/" }, { "name": "re3data API", "url": "https://www.re3data.org/api/doc/" }, { "name": "FAIRsharing", "url": "https://fairsharing.org/" } ], "authority": "Repository registries", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 90 }, { "id": "data-documentation-metadata-formats", "category": "rdm", "title": "Documentation, metadata, file formats, and README files", "summary": "A reusable dataset needs enough documentation for someone outside the project to understand what the files contain, how the data were created or processed, units and codes, missing values, software and version dependencies, quality checks, file relationships, and known limitations. Use a disciplinary metadata standard and controlled vocabularies when available. Prefer open, well-documented, non-proprietary or widely supported preservation formats when practical, while retaining necessary original files. Include a README, data dictionary or codebook, licence or access terms, provenance, and links to related software, protocols, and publications.", "topics": [ "metadata", "readme", "data dictionary", "codebook", "file format", "documentation", "controlled vocabulary", "provenance" ], "sources": [ { "name": "GO FAIR principles", "url": "https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/" }, { "name": "KU Research Data guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/researchdata" } ], "authority": "FAIR principles and KU Library", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "sensitive-data", "category": "rdm", "title": "Sensitive, confidential, personal, and restricted data", "summary": "Do not upload sensitive or restricted data to a public repository merely to satisfy an open-data expectation. Follow ethics approval, informed consent, applicable law, KU policy, contracts, data-use agreements, and funder requirements. Consider data minimization, de-identification or anonymization, separation of identifiers, encryption, role-based access, secure transfer, retention and destruction rules, and controlled access. When data cannot be shared openly, publish a metadata record and a clear access statement where permitted, explaining what can be requested, by whom, under which conditions, and who reviews requests.", "topics": [ "sensitive data", "personal data", "confidential", "patient data", "controlled access", "anonymization", "de-identification", "ethics" ], "sources": [ { "name": "KU Research Data guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/researchdata" }, { "name": "CoreTrustSeal requirements", "url": "https://www.coretrustseal.org/why-certification/requirements/" } ], "authority": "KU Library and trustworthy repository guidance", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 90 }, { "id": "data-licensing-citation-pids", "category": "rdm", "title": "Data licences, citation, and persistent identifiers", "summary": "A data licence should match what the depositor is legally able and intends to permit; ownership, third-party material, consent, contracts, and database rights must be checked first. A persistent identifier such as a DOI helps users find and cite a stable dataset record, but persistence also requires the repository to maintain the landing page and metadata. Dataset citations should identify creators, year, title, repository or publisher, version where relevant, and persistent identifier. Link the dataset and article in both directions and document how updated versions relate to earlier ones.", "topics": [ "data licence", "data license", "dataset doi", "persistent identifier", "pid", "data citation", "cite dataset", "versioning" ], "sources": [ { "name": "DataCite DOI basics", "url": "https://support.datacite.org/docs/doi-basics" }, { "name": "DataCite data citation", "url": "https://support.datacite.org/docs/data-citation" }, { "name": "GO FAIR principles", "url": "https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/" } ], "authority": "DataCite and FAIR principles", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "data-versioning-and-preservation", "category": "rdm", "title": "Version datasets and plan for preservation", "summary": "Decide what constitutes a new dataset version and record the change history. Minor metadata corrections may not require the same treatment as changes to files or data values; follow the repository's versioning model. Keep identifiers and relationships clear so users can locate the latest version and reproduce the version cited in a paper. Preservation planning should identify which data, software, documentation, and formats must be retained, for how long, who is responsible, and how integrity, migration, access, and repository continuity will be managed.", "topics": [ "data version", "dataset versioning", "preservation", "retention", "checksums", "tombstone", "long term access" ], "sources": [ { "name": "CoreTrustSeal requirements", "url": "https://www.coretrustseal.org/why-certification/requirements/" }, { "name": "DataCite DOI persistence", "url": "https://support.datacite.org/docs/doi-persistence" } ], "authority": "Repository trust and PID guidance", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "orcid-and-credit", "category": "publishing", "title": "Use ORCID and CRediT for identity and contributions", "summary": "An ORCID iD is a persistent identifier for an individual researcher and helps connect the person with affiliations, publications, datasets, funding, peer review, and other research activities across systems. CRediT is a taxonomy of 14 contributor roles that can describe who did what in a research output. CRediT complements rather than decides authorship. Confirm authorship and author order using the relevant journal and disciplinary criteria, obtain agreement from all contributors, and keep contributor statements accurate and consistent across submission systems and the manuscript.", "topics": [ "orcid", "credit taxonomy", "contributor roles", "authorship", "author order", "researcher identifier" ], "sources": [ { "name": "ORCID", "url": "https://orcid.org/" }, { "name": "CRediT Contributor Role Taxonomy", "url": "https://credit.niso.org/" } ], "authority": "Research identifier and contributorship standards", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 365 }, { "id": "responsible-ai-for-research", "category": "ai", "title": "Use AI tools responsibly in research and publishing", "summary": "Use only tools appropriate for the sensitivity and confidentiality of the material. Do not upload unpublished manuscripts, personal data, confidential peer-review material, or restricted research information to an unapproved service. Verify every generated reference, quotation, factual claim, calculation, and summary against the original source. Human authors remain responsible for accuracy, originality, attribution, ethics, and compliance. Check the target journal, funder, and KU requirements for disclosure of AI-assisted work, and describe material use transparently when required.", "topics": [ "ai tools", "generative ai", "chatgpt", "ai disclosure", "hallucinated references", "confidential manuscript", "responsible ai" ], "sources": [ { "name": "KU AI Tools guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/aitools" }, { "name": "COPE AI in publishing resources", "url": "https://publicationethics.org/" } ], "authority": "KU Library and publication ethics guidance", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 90 }, { "id": "research-analytics-tools", "category": "analytics", "title": "Choose the right research analytics tool", "summary": "Use Scopus or Web of Science for source verification, citation searching, author and organization profiles, and journal-level metrics available in each database. Use Journal Citation Reports for JIF, JCI, category benchmarks, and related journal intelligence. Use SciVal for broader institutional, collaboration, topic, and benchmarking analyses based on Scopus data. Results differ because databases have different coverage, data models, disambiguation, and update schedules. State the database, retrieval date, search strategy, filters, and metric definitions in any formal analysis.", "topics": [ "scopus", "web of science", "scival", "research analytics", "citation analysis", "h index", "fwci", "benchmarking" ], "sources": [ { "name": "KU Journal Finder guide", "url": "https://library.ku.ac.ae/journalfinder" }, { "name": "Clarivate Journal Citation Reports", "url": "https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-funding-analytics/journal-citation-reports/" }, { "name": "Scopus", "url": "https://www.scopus.com/" } ], "authority": "KU Library and database providers", "reviewed": "2026-09-09", "review_cycle_days": 180 } ] }