Research Repository
Data RepositoryResearch Repository
Providers using this tag (154)
Ranked by API Evangelist rating — Exemplar and Strong are expanded by default.
Strong 2 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 29 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 63 Limited public surface area
Emerging 57 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 3 Almost no public developer surface
APIs with this tag (154)
Ranked by the provider's API Evangelist rating — the Kin Score is scored per provider, not per API, so every API of a provider shares its band. How the rating works →
Strong 3 Solid coverage with minor gaps
Developing 22 Usable, with meaningful gaps to close
Thin 69 Limited public surface area
Emerging 58 Early or largely undocumented
Minimal 2 Almost no public developer surface
Companies reaching this through an API (14)
These companies publish an API, specification or operation carrying “Research Repository” but do not classify their business under it. Listed unranked and kept out of the count above, because one tagged operation is not a statement about what a company does.
Score breakdown
Related tags
Where this tag comes from
Markets provisional
Kin Score markets whose measured providers carry this tag. Share is the fraction of the market's measured providers that carry it — it describes the market, not this tag.
| Market | Share of the market's providers |
|---|---|
| Higher Education and Research | 46% |
| IIIF and Cultural Heritage (GLAM image interoperability, Linked Art) | 32% |
Cohort brief
Auto-generatedThe 154 providers in the APIs.io catalog tagged Research Repository, scored on the Kin Score. Every figure below is computed from the catalog — nothing here is written.
| Facet | This cohort | Catalog | Difference | Scored |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract Quality | 34.4 | 18.2 | +16.2 | 154 |
| Discoverability | 66 | 57.9 | +8.1 | 154 |
| Developer Ergonomics | 29.1 | 22.1 | +7 | 154 |
| Contract Governance | 14.3 | 9.4 | +4.9 | 154 |
| Operational Transparency | 13.1 | 12.4 | +0.7 | 154 |
| Access Clarity | 22.2 | 25 | -2.8 | 154 |
A facet is averaged over the members that carry it, not over the whole cohort — the “Scored” column is that count. Averaging an absent facet as zero would score our own coverage gaps as the providers’ posture.
| Artifact | This cohort | Catalog | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCP server (any) | 1% | 16% | -15 |
| MCP server (first-party) | 2% | 14% | -12 |
| Agent Skills | 0% | 0% | 0 |
| OAuth scopes | 34% | 13% | +21 |
| Security | 100% | 98% | +2 |
| Arazzo workflows | 0% | 2% | -2 |
| Governance rules | 65% | 35% | +30 |
mcp_pct counts any mcp/ artifact including ones API Evangelist derived from the provider OpenAPI; mcp_first_party_pct counts only servers the provider publishes. Prefer the latter.
- 1 University of Waterloo 61.2
- 2 Dovetail 56.7
- 3 University of Macau 50.8
- 4 University of Warwick 47.9
- 5 Delft University of Technology 47.6
- 6 Pennsylvania State University 46.1
- 7 University of Lausanne 46.1
- 8 University of British Columbia 45.9
- 9 University of Cambridge 45.2
- 10 Dryad 44.8
- 1 Dovetail 50.7
- 2 Rice University 44.8
- 3 Columbia University 41
- 4 University of Melbourne 36.7
- 5 Queensland University of Technology 34.3
- 6 University of New South Wales 32.8
- 7 University of Macau 31.7
- 8 University of Tokyo 31.7
- 9 University of Oxford 31.3
- 10 Lund University 31.2
Coverage caveat. 115 of 154 scored members had under half their catalog-attributable points satisfied at all (catalog_earned / catalog_max < 0.5). They are INCLUDED in the mean above. A large share here means the cohort mean is partly a measurement of how far our enrichment reached, not only of how these providers publish.Generated from the catalog build of 7 November 2026, across 38912 providers, using the same computation served by the APIs.io cohort API. Briefs are published for rosters of 5 or more scored providers; below that a distribution is not meaningful.
Work with this as data
Every tag here is available over the APIs.io API and to AI agents over MCP.