Interview with Marius Michael Engler from the Technical University of Ilmenau, one of the two 2026 award winners
The time I invested was definitely worth it: for me, for my future work, but also, without a doubt, for the way we work in future and for establishing standards within the team.
What was the data set you submitted about?
This dataset supplements my publication on iron redox flow batteries, specifically regarding the composition of the anolyte. As is often the case with publications under time pressure, the manuscript and the subsequent reviewer corrections had to be processed quickly. Later, as the topics of research data management (RDM) and the data steward became more prominent within our group, the idea arose to restructure these data and then publish them properly as a supplement to my publication. In principle, it was a trial run for our working group to find out just how much effort such a publication actually entails.
How do you and your institute view this test in hindsight?
I presented the results and the process to the group – specifically, the resources the university provides, the difficulties we encountered, and what the next steps will be. As we are a team with a fairly young average age, the topic was received very positively. Many are in favour of digital working and prefer electronic lab books. We are now actively involving Master’s students and interns as well. The aim is to reduce the number of ‘scattered notes’ lying around in the laboratories and to make analogue logbooks for equipment obsolete.
Were there any specific difficulties with storing the data in a ‘FAIR’ manner?
Getting started took a bit of time because I first had to think the structure through thoroughly. The README template from the Thuringian Competence Network for Research Data Management (TKFDM) was a great help. Filling in this template and adapting it to our own needs was a good way to begin. As we had little experience at the time, the first few iterations simply took time. You also have to consider what information is necessary for external parties to understand the experiments, data collection and processing. You often forget details that you take for granted – for example, that all experiments took place at room temperature. You have to document that explicitly.
You have chosen Zenodo as your repository. Why?
I have uploaded the data to Zenodo and also linked to it in REFODAT, the repository of the Thuringian University Network. Zenodo offers key advantages: you can reserve a DOI whilst you are still drafting a publication and link to it directly within the paper. This means reviewers also have immediate access to the data. For me, this is a clear sign of good scientific practice. Another reason was that there is no specific niche repository for our field – an interface between electrochemistry and materials science. As a general-purpose platform, Zenodo is the ideal solution here, and was also recommended by our data steward.
What is the situation regarding data management plans in your team?
We are currently working on these. This is only just really taking off for us. We want to draw up specific plans for our group to make our work more sustainable – including for future generations of researchers. Moreover, institutions such as the DFG or the EU now require such plans when applications are submitted.
What prompted you to apply for the FAIR4Chem Award?
That was the initiative of our data steward, Kevin Lindt. We had a meeting about our internal infrastructure and data management plans. During the follow-up, he drew our attention to the award. As he had already advised me previously, he encouraged me to submit my dataset – evidently with success.
What advice would you give to researchers who do not yet store their data in accordance with the FAIR principles?
You should do it if only to keep track of things yourself. It’s easy to lose sight of your own standards when you’re not paying attention. I used to sometimes name measurements simply as “Measurement_1”, “Measurement_1_1” or “Measurement_1_2”, in the hope of remembering the changes. A week later, you often couldn’t remember exactly what had been changed in the setup. Saving files using the FAIR principles helps to structure your work better from the ground up and make it traceable – for yourself, for the group and for the international scientific community.
What’s the best way to get started?
You really need to sit down and think through the entire process: from preparation, through the experiment itself, to the follow-up. What data do the devices generate? Where is it stored, and are these proprietary formats? How is it processed? In my data publication, I’ve added a chapter that describes the journey from raw data, through analysis, to the final plots. You have to invest that time at some point. But the time I invested was definitely worth it: for me, for my future work, but also for the way we work in the future and for establishing standards within the team.
