Preamble Intro The EJP-RD Quality Assessment. To capture information on each Service that allows users to understand the maturity of each service and consider whether it meets their needs. (Not setting a mininum requirement for a service, simply capturing the current position.) Service Details Service name URL Lead / Principal Investigator / Contact point Lead / Principal Investigator / Contact point Outline Comment The most basic information about the service (feel free to add more information below). Service Policies Software License - None -Open SourceFreeProprietaryEnd User License AgreementOther (please expand below) Oversight - None -Scientific Advisory BoardPrincipal Investigator Organised user communityOther (please expand below) How is the integrity and future direction of the software managed? FAIR - None - Yes In the process of adopting this No but will consider it Not applicable Other (please expand below) Does the service actively support the principles of open science? Review - None - Peer review (Journal or online service eg. F1000) Independant organisation (eg. ELIXIR CDR, GA4GH Standard) Users (eg. adopted by an established user community, seen as default/norm) Other (please expand below) Has this service been assessed by an independent body? Cost - None - Free to all users Free to non-profit organisations A free version with limited functionality A suggested contribution according to perceived valueOther (please expand below) Is there any cost for using the software? Metrics - None - UptimeOther (please expand below) Comment Functionality Sustainability - None - Yes, the service is mature and stable There might be some issues It is assumed that all services are mature, stable and intend to be available in the medium term (2-3 years). (We understand that nothing is permanent in this world. ) Secure access - None - Sign-in via independent service (eg. AAI) Register and sign-in via local service Does not use secure sign-in Not applicableOther (please expand below) Run the service Download and run locally (eg. GitHub, Bitbucket, Biocontainers, Docker) Through a webpage via API (as part of a pipeline or virtual platform) Other (please expand below) (please tick all that apply) Features Intuitive Interface (eg. Adjustable parameters, functions, settings etc) Default settings and advanced mode (fine tuning) Command line (Allows modification to particular, non-standard requirements) Scalability (Can be incorporated into a pipeline / workflow; either pre-existing or purpose built) Automatable (Can be incorporated into a pipeline / workflow; either pre-existing or purpose built) Flexible file formats (Input & Output in a range of formats) Trackable processing (Errors, Warnings or Log Files. Intermediate results are checkable.) Please tick all that apply: Comment Support & Development Training User documentation Webinar Consultant Release documentation versions Other (please expand below) Development of the service Ongoing development (Release cycle, permanent archive of releases, eg zenodo.org, figshare.com) New feature request Bug fixing (maintain the current level of functionality) Other (please expand below) Expert support, guidance and advice available via: University / Institute / Company (ie. a group not an individual, alongside other work.) Dedicated customer support. (ie. commercial software) Wider support (eg. community or others outside the host, consultants) Other (please expand below) Comment How does the service enable users to get the best from it now and in the future? (Please tick all that apply) Feel free to add more information below.