KGS was established in 1854 as a part of Kentucky’s state government before joining the University of Kentucky in 1932. Today, KGS is a research centre under the University of Kentucky’s Office of the Vice President for Research. The survey is responsible for researching Kentucky's geology and natural resources and disseminating those results to its many stakeholders. KGS's mission and purpose are similar to those of many state surveys, but its ability and strategy to execute its mission are unique. KGS has a robust in-house digital infrastructure that allows its data, samples and publications to be offered free to the public through its website, digital map layers, web map services and search query applications. This means KGS has the autonomy and knowledge to enforce data management best practices, a rarity amongst many surveys and other state-level organisations. Internal standards have been designed to address the data needs of each of the organisation’s five sections (geologic hazards, water resources, energy and minerals, geologic mapping and geoscience information management). Researchers are responsible for managing their project data under the guidance of the geoscience information management section, an internal digital data working group and the director. They are also expected to submit their research publications and related data to UKnowledge, the institutional repository at the University of Kentucky, to preserve access and register their research products with digital object identifiers (DOIs) to promote findability.

KGS is also the state-mandated repository of oil and gas data (along with related documentation and well-bore samples) and groundwater data. The KGS Earth Analysis Research Library (EARL) houses many of the physical geologic collections and data that fulfil this mandate. Beyond the state-mandated collections, EARL holdings include rock cores, limestone samples, coal samples, soil cores and T-probe soil samples from across Kentucky.

Given the time and financial scope of the project, as well as the existence of a nascent KGS data working group engaged in open science topics, 20 KGS researchers were recruited for the workshop. Two informal pilot activities, a preliminary survey and two focus groups were conducted to assist in scoping and developing the primary workshop content and materials (Suppl. material 1). After these preliminary scoping activities, project leaders engaged with the University of Kentucky’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) to seek formal guidance and approval for data-gathering mechanisms to be used during and after the workshop to assess the workshop's efficacy and identify improvement opportunities. We describe the preliminary activities in general terms below, but do not report data acquired through this informal information-gathering process. In the Key Outcomes and Discussion section, we present data and outcomes from the University of Kentucky IRB-approved study, including both the one-day workshop and the post-workshop survey.

The workshop was held on 10 May 2024, on the University of Kentucky campus. All KGS research staff with active data projects that met the criteria for inclusion in external repositories (i.e. adequate metadata, non-proprietary file formats and non-confidential data) were invited. Seven researchers attended the one-day workshop. With respect to career stage, one participant identified as “exploring”, five identified as “establishing” and one identified as “maintaining”. Participants self-reported active research in the following topics: geochronology, geographic information systems (GIS), geomorphology and surface processes, hazards, hydrogeology, remote sensing, seismology and geophysics, tectonics and structure and 3D geological modelling. In accordance with the project protocol reviewed and approved by the University of Kentucky IRB (IRB #93757), no identifying information from participants will be released.

The agenda for the one-day workshop was divided into morning and afternoon segments (Table 1). The morning session consisted of two presentations, both with Q&A segments. The first presentation delivered an overview of open science principles, including the federal and state policy landscape, use of persistent identifiers and leading data stewardship practices (Adams et al. 2025). The second presentation by University of Kentucky Research Data Librarian Isaac Wink and Institutional Repository Specialist Kyle Bachman-Johnson covered details about FAIR principles (Adams et al. 2025). Together, these presentations provided KGS researchers with a better understanding of data management, FAIR data, proper data formatting, differences in domain-specific and generalist repositories and the institutional resources available to them. An open lunch discussion allowed participants to discuss additional topics and questions meaningful to the challenges they face.

In the afternoon, a hands-on data publication exercise was conducted in a computer lab at the University of Kentucky’s William T. Young Library, where KGS researchers explored repositories relevant to their own data. Since the participants work in various geo-disciplines, this exercise instructed them to identify the most suitable repositories for their data as well as the submission requirements. Throughout the session, authors N. Raia, S. Choe and E. Adams were available for support and to answer questions. Post-session, the group reconvened to discuss the challenges and successes of the exercise and what the researchers envisioned would help them and their colleagues in data publication endeavours.

Six weeks after the workshop, participants were emailed an eleven-question post-workshop survey. The questions focused on identifying behavioural changes resulting from the workshop and what portions of the workshop were most and least effective. Specific focus was given to the researchers’ confidence level when interacting with external domain repositories and the different steps of the data lifecycle.

Several key themes emerged over the course of Q&A sessions and the open lunch discussion. These are summarised below with key quotes from participants, which have been lightly edited for clarity where necessary.

The group data publication exercise marked a shift in participants’ confidence in their ability to understand the data publication and data repository landscape. Participants found it challenging to navigate the domain repository landscape and expressed frustration when repositories required creation of accounts in order to access information about data submission and retrieval.

Prior to the workshop, participants noted that repositories have different requirements and guidelines for data submissions, based on data type and discipline. Some require membership or only accept data from participating countries or institutions: “You have to be part of their membership, or you have to be in that country in order to publish and get a whole bunch of data, is that right”? Restrictions narrow the list of accessible repositories, which are further culled, based on the types of data they accept: “… A lot of people come and deposit whatever data they have… and you have to find the one [repository] that's appropriate for you”. In addition, repository curators do not specialise in all data types and disciplines, making it more challenging for researchers to find the appropriate repositories for their data: “If there isn't [another domain-specific data repository], then I don't know how to help you, because it's not what you do”.

Some participants expressed hesitancy about the credibility of repositories. One participant, for instance, expressed frustration that guidelines and requirements listed on repository webpages do not necessarily align with funder requirements for data publishing: “I'm always just a little bit suspicious about, you know, is this actually reflecting current policies for any of these smaller repositories? And I've even seen this with some of the domain-specific repositories that the NIH recommends. They provide sort of a similar table where they provide information there. And then I go and I actually read the policies on that repository's website. And in my view, they don't actually reflect what the NIH has put out there. They'll say they take open submissions, but then I don't see any open submission portal anywhere on the repository”. While the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is focused on biology and health, it is a major national funding agency that parallels geoscience agencies. Participants also found that, in general, representatives for many repositories are difficult to contact and many never respond: “I try contacting them, and I hear no response from them”. Facing tight budgets and limited staff, repositories may be hard-pressed to keep up with user support amidst the deluge of increased, to-be-curated data submissions resulting from new funder and publisher requirements and a scientific community undertrained in data management practices.

The data publication exercise helped workshop participants consider revising the timing of their data workflows and, more specifically, engaging with repositories earlier in the research data lifecycle. Previously, participants were more likely to reach out to repositories and submit data when their manuscript was under review, as required by many journals. One participant noted, “I am more forward-thinking of how and where my data products will be shared”. Another participant stated, “I really do think that there is no substitute for just establishing that contact early on”. They also noted, “Just make sure that there's a human on the other end of that who can say, yes, this data looks good”.

Post-workshop, participants were more inclined to reach out to repositories early in the publication process, speak to UKnowledge librarians and to seek advice from other KGS staff on making their data public.

All slides used in this workshop are available in Adams et al. (2025). Information detailing the initial pilot activities is available as a supplement to this paper. A preliminary summary poster on this work was presented at ESIP’s annual meeting in July 2024 (Adams et al. 2024).