The availability of open research data offers significant benefits for educational research. It enables secondary studies that validate and expand original findings, fosters comparative analyses, and allows the formulation of new research questions beyond the initial context. Open data practices thus contribute to greater transparency, reproducibility, and innovation in science (Fecher et al., 2015). However, sustainably archiving data is resource-intensive, both for researchers and data-managing institutions. With limited capacity and rising costs, the question arises: Which data should be archived and prepared for reuse (Burrows, Tobi, 2000)? Such selective decisions are essential but also controversial because they often involve subjective assessments and normative decisions. To systematize and make selection processes more objective, a criteria catalog is being developed to evaluate both the technical and substantive aspects of data. This catalog is a joint effort by three research data centers and was created as part of a network of subject-specific data centers in the educational and social sciences. It provides a framework to assess the reusability and analytical potential of data, addressing aspects such as data quality, the completeness of metadata, and the relevance of datasets for current and future secondary research. A major advantage of the criteria catalog is its dual assessment approach by a team of researchers and archivists to assess the reusability and analytical potential. Researchers, as experts in their respective fields, assess the substantive significance and analytical potential of the data, while archivists bring expertise in evaluating technical and legal aspects. This collaboration minimizes subjective biases and promotes well-informed decisions, supplemented by the expertise of the involved stakeholders. This contribution invites participants to critically engage with the criteria catalog and provide feedback based on their own research perspectives. Such discussions are vital for refining the developed approaches and ensuring they meet the needs of the educational research community.

Burrows, Tobi. (2000). Preserving the Past, Conceptualising the Future: Research Libraries and Digital Preservation. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 32(4), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2000.10755131 Fecher, B., Friesike, S., & Hebing, M. (2015). What Drives Academic Data Sharing? PLOS ONE, 10(2), e0118053. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118053