Abstract
Research data management is acknowledged as an important concern for institutions and several platforms to support data deposits have emerged. In this paper we start by overviewing the current practices in the data management workflow and identifying the stakeholders in this process. We then compare four recently proposed data repository platforms-DSpace, CKAN, Zenodo and Figshare-considering their architecture, support for metadata, API completeness, as well as their search mechanisms and community acceptance. To evaluate these features, we take into consideration the identified stakeholders' requirements. In the end, we argue that, depending on local requirements, different data repositories can meet some of the stakeholders requirements. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvements, mainly regarding the compatibility with the description of data from different research domains, to further improve data reuse.

Abstract
In the recent trend of data-intensive science, data publication is essential and institutions have to promote it with the researchers. For the past decade, institutional repositories have been widely established for publications, and the motivations for deposit are well established. The situation is quite different for data, as we argue on the basis of a 5-year experience with research data management at the University of Porto. We address research data management from a disciplined yet flexible point of view, focusing on domain-specific metadata models embedded in intuitive tools, to make it easier for researchers to publish their datasets. We use preliminary data from a recent experiment in data publishing to identify motivators and deterrents for data publishing.

Abstract
Data description is an essential part of research data management, and it is easy to argue for the importance of describing data early in the research workflow. Specific metadata schemas are often proposed to support description. Given the diversity of research domains, such schemas are often missing, and when available they may be too generic, too complex or hard to incorporate in a description platform. In this paper we present a method used to design metadata models for research data description as ontologies. Ontologies are gaining acceptance as knowledge representation structures, and we use them here in the scope of the Dendro platform. The ontology design process is illustrated with a case study from Vehicle Simulation. According to the design process, the resulting model was validated by a domain specialist.

Abstract
Research institutions are considering data repositories to manage their outputs and ensure their visibility. In many domains, purpose-built tools can help collect data and metadata as they are created. LabTablet is such a tool, designed to provide the functions of a laboratory notebook, and being able to accompany users in either experimental sessions or field trips. In these contexts, the interaction with the device can be problematic, so we experimented with a speech recognition extension for two purposes: to provide commands, such as requesting readings from the built-in sensors, and to record observations such as a dictated note in a field trip. Copyright 2016 ACM.

Abstract
Research data are the cornerstone of science and their current fast rate of production is disquieting researchers. Adequate research data management strongly depends on accurate metadata records that capture the production context of the datasets, thus enabling data interpretation and reuse. This chapter reports on the authors' experience in the development of the metadata models, formalized as ontologies, for several research domains, involving members from small research teams in the overall process. This process is instantiated with four case studies: vehicle simulation; hydrogen production; biological oceanography and social sciences. The authors also present a data description workflow that includes a research data management platform, named Dendro, where researchers can prepare their datasets for further deposit in external data repositories. © 2017, IGI Global.

Abstract
The value of research data is recognized, and so is the importance of the associated metadata to contextualize, describe and ultimately render them understandable in the long term. Laboratory notebooks are an excellent source of domain-specific metadata, but this paper-based approach can pose risks of data loss, while limiting the possibilities of collaborative metadata production. The paper discusses the advantages of tools to complement paper-based laboratory notebooks in capturing metadata, regardless of the research domain. We propose LabTablet, an electronic laboratory book aimed at the collection of metadata from the early stages of the research workflow. To evaluate the use of LabTablet and the proposed workflow, researchers in two domains were asked to perform a set of tasks and provided insights about their experience. By rethinking the workflow and helping researchers to actively contribute to data description, the research outputs can be described with generic and domain-dependent metadata, thus improving their chances of being deposited, reused and preserved.