FAIR Forever? Accountabilities and responsibilities in the preservation of research data

Digital preservation is a fast-moving and growing community of practice of ubiquitous relevance, but in which capability is unevenly distributed. Within the open science and research data communities, digital preservation has a close alignment to the FAIR principles and is delivered through a complex specialist infrastructure comprising technology, staff and policy. However, capacity erodes quickly, establishing a need for ongoing examination and review to ensure that skills, technology, and policy remain fit for changing purpose. To address this challenge, the Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC) conducted the FAIR Forever study, commissioned by the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) Sustainability Working Group and funded by the EOSC Secretariat Project in 2020, to assess the current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the preservation of research data across EOSC, and the feasibility of establishing shared approaches, workflows and services that would benefit EOSC stakeholders. 
This paper draws from the FAIR Forever study to document and explore its key findings on the identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the preservation of FAIR data in EOSC, and to the preservation of research data more broadly. It begins with background of the study and an overview of the methodology employed, which involved a desk-based assessment of the emerging EOSC vision, interviews with representatives of EOSC stakeholders, and focus groups with digital preservation specialists and data managers in research organizations. It summarizes key findings on the need for clarity on digital preservation in the EOSC vision and for elucidation of roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities to mitigate risks of data loss, reputation, and sustainability. It then outlines the recommendations provided in the final report presented to the EOSC Sustainability Working Group. 
To better ensure that research data can be FAIRer for longer, the recommendations of the study are presented with discussion on how they can be extended and applied to various research data stakeholders in and outside of EOSC, and suggest ways to bring together research data curation, management, and preservation communities to better ensure FAIRness now and in the long term.


Research Design and Methods
• Desk-based assessment reviewed EOSC governance documentation, EOSC projects' outputs and plans, and other relevant literature addressing the current state of development of digital preservation approaches, workflows, and services for the envisioned EOSC Web of FAIR Data and Related Services as communicated in those materials • Semi-structured interviews with representatives of the researcher and e-infrastructure communities, specifically the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) Cluster and Regional projects, to test and refine initial findings and allow others to emerge through discussions of current requirements and capabilities in digital preservation • Focus groups with representatives of the research data management and digital preservation community to help articulate, assess, and compare potential use cases for preservation services within EOSC. Purposive selection (DPC members, at RPOs, Europe/UK, RDM and DP work).

Preservation and the FAIR Principles
• Clearly communicated FAIR requirements and practices expected for ESFRI Ris and other EOSC stakeholders -Strengths of EOSC FAIR Working Group, FAIR task groups, and other related initiatives and projects • Examples of good practice applying FAIR principles that intersect with good practice in digital preservation -Strengths of PIDs, emphasis on DMP, planning for robust storage, repository audit and certification • However… -some doubt on implementation/impact of preservation actions in DMPs sufficiency of preserving metadata and diachronic interoperability -'FAIR fatigue' and aspirational vs achievable goals for preservation

Digital Preservation is not explicit
Illustration by Jørgen Stamp digitalbevaring.dk CC BY 2.5 Denmark There were implicit meanings and assumptions about digital preservation-and data-in the EOSC vision and among stakeholders.
By digital preservation, we mean "the series of managed activities necessary to ensure continued access to digital materials for as long as necessary" We know you know this, but that's more than backup or storage

Recommendations for Action
For the EOSC Secretariat Recommendation One: of urgent priority, establish a working party or task group, reporting directly to the EOSC Association Board with respect to digital preservation. Recommendation Two: of high priority, formalize terms of reference and host an initial meeting of a digital preservation task group to establish an iterative work plan. Recommendation Three: of medium priority, establish an operational basis for partnership to deliver the candidate model services proposed in this report Recommendation Eleven: of medium priority, establish a mechanism to align EOSC implementation and interpretation of 'FAIR' with the path dependent and continuous quality improvement cycles of digital preservation. Recommendation Thirteen: of medium priority, establish and verify business models for preservation services. Recommendation Sixteen: of high priority, establish an ongoing basis for partnership in the digital preservation community, including beyond the research data community.

For the EOSC Association Board
Recommendation Five: of urgent priority, designate a Senior Digital Preservation Rapporteur on behalf of the Board to directly communicate and liaison with a Digital Preservation Task Group, to monitor and oversee EOSC's responses to digital preservation risks. Recommendation Eighteen: of high priority, obtain strategic control of digital preservation risks to EOSC. Recommendation Nineteen: of medium priority, establish a strategic trajectory for management of digital preservation risks, embedding these within reviews and enhancements.
For Funders Recommendation Six: of urgent priority, articulate to all grant holders the clear view that adherence to FAIR principles requires preservation actions to be monitored and managed over the entire life of a project not simply at the point of completion. Recommendation Seven: of high priority, audit preservation pathways for all research outputs to identify critically endangered content. Recommendation Eight: of high priority, initiate a process to establish accountabilities and obligations with respect to implementation of data management plans. Recommendation Nine: of medium priority, establish mechanisms to engage expert communities of practice in the validation of data management plans. Recommendation Fifteen: of medium priority, identify costs of action versus inaction with respect to high value, critically endangered content. Recommendation Seventeen: of medium priority, establish more sustained digital preservation training for researchers and repository managers.

For Research Repositories
Recommendation Four: of urgent priority, adapt workplans to include quality improvement mechanisms where these do not already exist, including DPC Rapid Assessment Model, establishing thereby a strategic framework to achieve baseline certification for primary preservation services, or identifying preservation pathways for data. Recommendation Ten: of medium priority, provide strategic framework for audit of data management plans. Recommendation Fourteen: of medium priority, identify costs of action versus inaction with respect to high value, critically endangered content.
For the DP Community