Comments COAR-Repositories

Full support. However, as noted in the 4th VisionElement of Table 1 in the Report, “It’s important to note that while repositories ensure a more equitable and inclusive landscape, not every researcher has access to a repository.” The strategic vision shift from a vision for a US Repository Network to a Network of US Repositories. While a small change in language, it seems to suggest that this work will focus on existing repositories. Some clarity around this issue would be helpful.

I agree.  I think a separate section with a variety of real use cases benefitting both scholars and repository managers would be helpful.

It would be great to have an additional “Foundational Characteristic” that highlights the importance of supporting the continually changing needs and practices of scholars across all disciplines.

Is it worth referencing FAIR principles, just to ensure consistency across the globe? https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/ 

By acting collectively, repositories can standardize content and metadata, leading to a more uniform environment from which Open Access aggregators such as CORE (https://core.ac.uk/ )  can harvest content and present US IR repository content consistently to the world.

Perhaps the ‘why’ could be addressed here.
I think reference to stakeholders is important, and perhaps more concrete wording around ‘crucial role’. To me, the phrase isn’t strong enough, and outcomes are not addressed as concretely as they might be. Perhaps:
Leave a comment on paragraph 23An interoperable network of repositories is an essential component of our national research infrastructure, offering seamless and open access by the global community to research. By working together, U.S. repositories will also play a crucial role in the collective effort to transform global research communication and therefore outcomes into a more open and equitable system.

It has been pointed out that the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles can be applied to scholarly communication in general.  Would it be appropriate to incorporate them into the characteristics of the repositories and the available contents in the U.S. Repository Network?

There are different stakeholders in the landscape of (institutional) repositories.  I think it would be beneficial to think about how the stakeholders can enable (or hinder) the collaboration among repositories in terms of technical, metadata, and other standards.

I have a problem with the example presented and where it is presented. It is so far the only example given in this introductory part. It is very specific, and doesn’t fit with the rest of the document. The rest of the document is very top level stuff, where-as this example is a specific suggestion to the community of a coarse of action.  It feels tacked on. I believe this section would be stronger without the sample.

I can see what you mean. It might be more clearly written in two sentences.
“They allow users to track outputs. They support…” And then list the things that it supports.