Metadata Integrity of Research Data in CONICET Digital
Keywords:
metascience, open science, feminist epistemology, scientific work, subordinate rolesAbstract
The recent addition of the research data repository to the CONICET Digital platform marks a paradigm shift in knowledge production in Argentina. Data moves from being merely part of the research process to becoming a standalone product that requires clear integrity criteria. This paper conducts a discourse analysis on the metadata of research data published in the repository, using the ‘theoretical lens’ technique. The study is grounded in a framework combining Open Science and feminist epistemologies. The findings reveal that the complexity of the scientific community is not fully reflected in the metadata, largely because the principle of scientific neutrality is continually reproduced —omitting key characteristics of the agents involved, such as their employment status, specific contributions to data production, and gender. Furthermore, the study identifies insufficient methodological descriptions that cast doubt on data reusability, a decoupled download process for data and metadata that risks long-term preservation, and a lack of tools for longitudinally evaluating this policy.
Downloads
References
Adami, Valentina, Homer, Natalie, Utz, Nadine, Lippens, Saskia, Rappoport, Joshua Z. & Fernandez-Rodriguez, Julia (2021). An international survey of Training Needs and Career Paths of Core Facility Staff. Journal of biomolecular techniques: JBT, 32(1), 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7171/jbt.21-3201-002.
Armond, Anna. C. V., Cobey, Kelly D. & Moher, David. (2024). Research Integrity definitions and challenges. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 171, 111367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111367.
Baker, Karen. S. & Mayernik Matthew S. (2020). Disentangling knowledge production and data production. Ecosphere, 11(7), e03191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3191.
Caliskan, Aylin, Dangwal, Seema & Dandekar, Thomas (2023). Metadata integrity in bioinformatics: Bridging the gap between data and knowledge. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 21, 4895-4913. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2023.10.006.
CONICET (2024). Lanzamiento del Repositorio de Datos de Investigación. Repositorio Institucional CONICET Digital, 15 de febrero. Recuperado de: https://ri.CONICET.gov.ar/wp/lanzamiento-del-repositorio-de-datos-de-investigacion/.
CONICET (2021a). Guía para autoarchivar un conjunto de datos de investigación en el Banco de Datos del SIGEVA. Repositorio Institucional CONICET Digital. Recuperado de: https://ri.CONICET.gov.ar/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Guia-Formulario-de-datos-en-SIGEVA.pdf.
CONICET (2021b). Políticas del repositorio institucional CONICET Digital -Versión 2.0). Recuperado de: https://ri.CONICET.gov.ar/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/RD-2325-21-con-Politicas-del-RI-CONICET-Digital.pdf.
CONICET (2023). El Gobierno nacional resolvió que los profesionales y técnicos de la Carrera de Apoyo del CONICET sean incluidos dentro del Régimen Previsional Especial para investigadores científicos. CONICET, 20 de octubre. Recuperado de: https://www.conicet.gov.ar/el-gobierno-nacional-resolvio-que-los-profesionales-y-tecnicos-de-la-carrera-de-apoyo-del-conicet-sean-incluidos-dentro-del-regimen-previsional-especial-para-investigadores-cientificos/.
CONICET (s.f.a). Buscador de Institutos y Recursos Humanos. CONICET. Recuperado de: https://www.CONICET.gov.ar/new_scp/advancedsearch.php.
CONICET (s.f.b). CONICET Digital: Repositorio Institucional Abierto. Repositorio Institucional CONICET Digital. Recuperado de: https://ri.CONICET.gov.ar/discover.
CONICET Digital (2023). Set de datos [Captura de pantalla]. Repositorio Institucional CONICET Digital. Recuperado de: https://ri.CONICET.gov.ar/handle/11336/185134.
Crimmins, Gail, Casey, Sarah & Tsouroufli, María (2023). Intersectional barriers to women’s advancement in higher education institutions rewarded for their gender equity plans. Gender and Education, 35(6-7), 653-670. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2023.2238737.
Directores/as de CCT de CONICET (2025). Comunicado Red de Directores/as de Centros Científicos Tecnológicos CONICET. CCT CONICET Mar del Plata, 28 de abril. Recuperado de: https://mardelplata-conicet.gob.ar/comunicado-red-de-directores-as-de-centros-cientificos-tecnologicos-conicet/.
Elkins-Tanton, Lindy (2021). Time to Say Goodbye to Our Heroes? Issues, (XXXVII). Recuperado de: https://issues.org/say-goodbye-hero-model-science-elkins-tanton/.
Faniko, Klea, Ellemers, Naomi & Derks, Belle (2021). The Queen Bee phenomenon in Academia 15 years after: Does it still exist, and if so, why? British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(2), 383-399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12408.
Franchi, Ana, Palomino, Mirta, Cano Colazo, Victoria M., Jeppesen, Cynthia & Kochen, Silvia (2016). Proyecto Desigualdades de género de las trayectorias científicas. Informe elaborado para el Directorio del CONICET (2015-2016). Recuperado de: https://exactas.uba.ar/genex/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Desigualdades-de-género-de-las-trayectorias-científicas-2015-2016-Informe-del-directorio-de-CONICET.pdf.
Gallardo, Osvaldo (2022). Carrera académica y asimetrías de género en el CONICET, Argentina (2004-2018). Revista Temas Sociológicos, (30), 489-521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29344/07196458.30.2985.
Global Indigenous Data Alliance (2019). Principios CARE para la Gobernanza de Datos Indígenas. GIDA. Recuperado de: https://www.gida-global.org/care.
González‐Salmón, Elvira, Chinchilla‐Rodríguez, Zaida & Robinson‐García, Nicolás (2025). The woman researcher's tale: A review of bibliometric methods and results for studying gender in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 76(9), 1188-1209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.25012.
Harding, Sandra G. (1986). Ciencia y feminismo. Madrid: Ediciones Morata.
Jabbaz, Marcela, Samper-Gras, Teresa & Díaz, Capitolina (2019). La brecha salarial de género en las instituciones científicas. Estudio de caso. Convergencia, (80), 1-27. Recuperado de: https://convergencia.uaemex.mx/article/view/11248.
Jungwirth, David & Haluza, Daniela (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Public Health: An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 4541. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054541.
Kim, Jae. (2025). Metadata as Radical Care: How Community-Led Archives Reimagine Descriptive Practices. The IJournal: Student Journal of the Faculty of Information, 10(2), 138–150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/ijournal.v10i2.45416.
Macfarlane, Bruce (2017). The ethics of multiple authorship: power, performativity and the gift economy. Studies in Higher Education, 42(7), 1194–1210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1085009.
Maffia, Diana (2012). Género y políticas públicas en ciencia y tecnología. En Norma Blázquez Graf, Fátima Flores Palacios & Maribel Ríos Everardo (Coords.), Investigación feminista: Epistemología, metodología y representaciones sociales (pp. 301–312). México: UNAM. Recuperado de: https://ru.ceiich.unam.mx/handle/123456789/2911.
NISO (2022). CRediT, Contributor Roles Taxonomy. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3789/ansi.niso.z39.104-2022.
Noone, Hilary (2020). The ARMA survey on research culture 2020. ARMA. Recuperado de: https://arma.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ARMA-Research-Culture-Survey-2020.pdf.
OCDE (2018). Manual de Frascati 2015: Guía para la recopilación y presentación de información sobre la investigación y el desarrollo experimental. Madrid & París: FECYT & OCDE Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264310681-es.
Pastor, Daniela A. (2026). Resultados de la primera encuesta Nacional a CPA-CONICET Argentina 2025. Figshare, preprint. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.32015034.v4.
Pérez, Moira (2019). Violencia epistémica: Reflexiones entre lo invisible y lo ignorable. Revista de Estudios y Políticas de Género, 1(1), 81-98. Recuperado de: https://revistas.untref.edu.ar/index.php/ellugar/article/view/288/267.
Plomp, Esther (2023). Valuing a broad range of research contributions through team infrastructure roles: Why CRediT is not enough. Commonplace, 14 de diciembre. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21428/6ffd8432.f92deec7.
Roka, Yam B. (2017). Plagiarism: Types, causes and how to avoid this worldwide problem. Nepal Journal of Neuroscience, 14(3), 2-6. Recuperado de: https://nepjol.info/index.php/NJN/article/view/20517.
Sayago, Sebastián (2014). El análisis del discurso como técnica de investigación cualitativa y cuantitativa en las ciencias sociales. Cinta de Moebio, 49, 1-10. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-554X2014000100001.
Schöpfel, Joachim, Farace, Dominic J., Prost, Hélène & Zane, Antonella (2019). Data papers as a new form of knowledge organization in the field of research data [Ponencia]. 12ème Colloque international d’ISKO-France: Données et mégadonnées ouvertes en SHS: De nouveaux enjeux pour l’état et l’organisation des connaissances? Montpellier, 9-10 de octubre. Recuperado de: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02284548v1.
Slemon, Allie (2025). Absences and Silences in Critical Discourse Analysis: Methodological Reflections. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24, 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069251321250.
Soria, Eduardo R. (2021). Ley 26.899 Repositorios Digitales Institucionales de acceso abierto. Análisis de su implementación en CONICET [Tesis de grado]. Córdoba: Universidad Siglo 21. Recuperado de: https://repositorio.21.edu.ar/server/api/core/bitstreams/0798745f-6bb4-44d7-a4e0-37c077a64af4/content.
Thangavel, V. (2023). Metadata Role in Retrieve E-Resources and Its Management: A Research. SSRN, 30 de mayo. Recuperado de: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4382143.
UKCORI (2024). Indicators of Research Integrity. Recuperado de: https://ukcori.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Indicators-of-Research-Integrity-UK-Committee-on-Research-Integrity-report.pdf.
UNESCO (2021). Recomendación de la UNESCO sobre la Ciencia Abierta. Recuperado de: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949_spa.
Zárate, Marcos, Buckle, Carlos, Mazzanti, Renato & Samec Gustavo (2019). Improving open science using Linked Open Data: CONICET Digital use case. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 19(1), 45-54. Recuperado de: https://journal.info.unlp.edu.ar/JCST/article/view/1099/942.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
