Dataset Information

What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption.

ABSTRACT: Both sharing and using open research data have the revolutionary potentials for forwarding scientific advancement. Although previous research gives insight into researchers' drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data, both these drivers and inhibitors have not yet been integrated via a thematic analysis and a theoretical argument is lacking. This study's purpose is to systematically review the literature on individual researchers' drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data. This study systematically analyzed 32 open data studies (published between 2004 and 2019 inclusively) and elicited drivers plus inhibitors for both open research data sharing and use in eleven categories total that are: 'the researcher's background', 'requirements and formal obligations', 'personal drivers and intrinsic motivations', 'facilitating conditions', 'trust', 'expected performance', 'social influence and affiliation', 'effort', 'the researcher's experience and skills', 'legislation and regulation', and 'data characteristics.' This study extensively discusses these categories, along with argues how such categories and factors are connected using a thematic analysis. Also, this study discusses several opportunities for altogether applying, extending, using, and testing theories in open research data studies. With such discussions, an overview of identified categories and factors can be further applied to examine both researchers' drivers and inhibitors in different research disciplines, such as those with low rates of data sharing and use versus disciplines with high rates of data sharing plus use. What's more, this study serves as a first vital step towards developing effective incentives for both open data sharing and use behavior.

SUBMITTER: Zuiderwijk A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7500699 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption.

Zuiderwijk Anneke A Shinde Rhythima R Jeng Wei W

PloS one 20200918 9

Both sharing and using open research data have the revolutionary potentials for forwarding scientific advancement. Although previous research gives insight into researchers' drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data, both these drivers and inhibitors have not yet been integrated via a thematic analysis and a theoretical argument is lacking. This study's purpose is to systematically review the literature on individual researchers' drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using ...[more]

PMID: 32946521

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:E-science technologies have significantly increased the availability of data. Research grant providers such as the European Union increasingly require open access publishing of research results and data. However, despite its significance to research, the adoption rate of open data technology remains low across all disciplines, especially in Europe where research has primarily focused on technical solutions (such as Zenodo or the Open Science Framework) or considered only parts of the issue. METHODS AND FINDINGS:In this study, we emphasized the non-technical factors perceived value and uncertainty factors in the context of academia, which impact researchers' acceptance of open data-the idea that researchers should not only publish their findings in the form of articles or reports, but also share the corresponding raw data sets. We present the results of a broad quantitative analysis including N = 995 researchers from 13 large to medium-sized universities in Germany. In order to test 11 hypotheses regarding researchers' intentions to share their data, as well as detect any hierarchical or disciplinary differences, we employed a structured equation model (SEM) following the partial least squares (PLS) modeling approach. CONCLUSIONS:Grounded in the value-based theory, this article proclaims that most individuals in academia embrace open data when the perceived advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Furthermore, uncertainty factors impact the perceived value (consisting of the perceived advantages and disadvantages) of sharing research data. We found that researchers' assumptions about effort required during the data preparation process were diminished by awareness of e-science technologies (such as Zenodo or the Open Science Framework), which also increased their tendency to perceive personal benefits via data exchange. Uncertainty factors seem to influence the intention to share data. Effects differ between disciplines and hierarchical levels.

Project description:Providing access to non-confidential government data to the public is one of the initiatives adopted by many governments today to embrace government transparency practices. The initiative of publishing non-confidential government data for the public to use and re-use without restrictions is known as Open Government Data (OGD). Nevertheless, after several years after its inception, the direction of OGD implementation remains uncertain. The extant literature on OGD adoption concentrates primarily on identifying factors influencing adoption decisions. Yet, studies on the underlying factors influencing OGD after the adoption phase are scarce. Based on these issues, this study investigated the post-adoption of OGD in the public sector, particularly the data provider agencies. The OGD post-adoption framework is crafted by anchoring the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework and the innovation adoption process theory. The data was collected from 266 government agencies in the Malaysian public sector. This study employed the partial least square-structural equation modeling as the statistical technique for factor analysis. The results indicate that two factors from the organizational context (top management support, organizational culture) and two from the technological context (complexity, relative advantage) have a significant contribution to the post-adoption of OGD in the public sector. The contribution of this study is threefold: theoretical, conceptual, and practical. This study contributed theoretically by introducing the post-adoption framework of OGD that comprises the acceptance, routinization, and infusion stages. As the majority of OGD adoption studies conclude their analysis at the adoption (decisions) phase, this study gives novel insight to extend the analysis into unexplored territory, specifically the post-adoption phase. Conceptually, this study presents two new factors in the environmental context to be explored in the OGD adoption study, namely, the data demand and incentives. The fact that data providers are not influenced by data requests from the agency's external environment and incentive offerings is something that needs further investigation. In practicality, the findings of this study are anticipated to assist policymakers in strategizing for long-term OGD implementation from the data provider's perspective. This effort is crucial to ensure that the OGD initiatives will be incorporated into the public sector's service thrust and become one of the digital government services provided to the citizen.

Project description:BackgroundReal-world data (RWD) privacy is an increasingly complex topic within the scope of personalized medicine, as it implicates several sources of data.ObjectiveTo assess how privacy-related experiences, when adjusted for age and education level, may shape adult research participants' willingness to share various sources of real-world data with researchers.MethodsAn electronic survey was conducted in April 2021 among adults (≥18 years of age) registered in ResearchMatch, a national health research registry. Descriptive analyses were conducted to assess survey participant demographics. Logistic regression was conducted to assess the association between participants' five distinct privacy-related experiences and their willingness to share each of the 19 data sources with researchers, adjusting for education level and age range.ResultsA total of 598 ResearchMatch adults were contacted and 402 completed the survey. Most respondents were over the age of 51 years (49% total) and held a master's or bachelor's degree (63% total). Over half of participants (54%) had their account accessed by someone without their permission. Almost half of participants (49%) reported the privacy of their personal information being violated. Analyses showed that, when adjusted for age range and education level, participants whose reputations were negatively affected as a result of information posted online were more likely to share electronic medical record data (OR = 2.074, 95% CI: 0.986-4.364) and genetic data (OR = 2.302, 95% CI: 0.894-5.93) versus those without this experience. Among participants who had an unpleasant experience as a result of giving out information online, those with some college/associates/trade school compared to those with a doctoral or other terminal degree were significantly more willing to share genetic data (OR = 1.064, 95% CI: 0.396-2.857). Across all privacy-related experiences, participants aged 18 to 30 were significantly more likely than those over 60 years to share music streaming data, ridesharing history data, and voting history data. Additionally, across all privacy-related experiences, those with a high school education were significantly more likely than those with a doctorate or other terminal degree to share credit card statement data.ConclusionsThis study offers the first insights into how privacy-related experiences, adjusted for age range and education level, may shape ResearchMatch participants' willingness to share several sources of real-world data sources with precision medicine researchers. Future work should further explore these insights.

Project description:Currently, there is a growing interest in ensuring the transparency and reproducibility of the published scientific literature. According to a previous evaluation of 441 biomedical journals articles published in 2000-2014, the biomedical literature largely lacked transparency in important dimensions. Here, we surveyed a random sample of 149 biomedical articles published between 2015 and 2017 and determined the proportion reporting sources of public and/or private funding and conflicts of interests, sharing protocols and raw data, and undergoing rigorous independent replication and reproducibility checks. We also investigated what can be learned about reproducibility and transparency indicators from open access data provided on PubMed. The majority of the 149 studies disclosed some information regarding funding (103, 69.1% [95% confidence interval, 61.0% to 76.3%]) or conflicts of interest (97, 65.1% [56.8% to 72.6%]). Among the 104 articles with empirical data in which protocols or data sharing would be pertinent, 19 (18.3% [11.6% to 27.3%]) discussed publicly available data; only one (1.0% [0.1% to 6.0%]) included a link to a full study protocol. Among the 97 articles in which replication in studies with different data would be pertinent, there were five replication efforts (5.2% [1.9% to 12.2%]). Although clinical trial identification numbers and funding details were often provided on PubMed, only two of the articles without a full text article in PubMed Central that discussed publicly available data at the full text level also contained information related to data sharing on PubMed; none had a conflicts of interest statement on PubMed. Our evaluation suggests that although there have been improvements over the last few years in certain key indicators of reproducibility and transparency, opportunities exist to improve reproducible research practices across the biomedical literature and to make features related to reproducibility more readily visible in PubMed.

Project description:IntroductionValue and waste in preclinical and clinical research projects are intensively debated in biomedicine at present. Such different aspects as the need for setting objectives and priorities, improving study design, quality of reporting, and problematic incentives of the academic reward system are addressed. While this debate is also fueled by ethical considerations and thus informed by bioethical research, up to now, the field of bioethics lacks a similar extensive debate. Nonetheless, bioethical research should not go unquestioned regarding its scientific or social value. What exactly constitutes the value of bioethical research, however, remains widely unclear so far.MethodsThis explorative study investigated possible value dimensions for bioethical research by conducting a qualitative literature analysis of researchers' statements about the value of their studies. 40 bioethics articles published 2015 in four relevant journals (The American Journal of Bioethics, Bioethics, BMC Medical Ethics and Journal of Medical Ethics) were analyzed. The value dimensions of "advancing knowledge" (e.g. research results that are relevant for science itself and for further research) and "application" (e.g. increasing applicability of research results in practice) were used as main deductive categories for the analysis. Further subcategories were inductively generated.ResultsThe analysis resulted in 62 subcategories representing a wide range of value dimensions for bioethical research. Of these, 45 were subcategories of "advancing knowledge" and 17 of "application". In 21 articles, no value dimensions related to "application" was found; the remaining 19 articles mentioned "advancing knowledge" as well as "application". The value dimensions related to "advancing knowledge" were, in general, more fine-grained.ConclusionsEven though limitations arise regarding the sample, the study revealed a plethora of value dimensions that can inform further debates about what makes bioethical research valuable for science and society. Besides theoretical reflections on the value of bioethics more meta-research in bioethics is needed.

Project description:Demands are increasingly being made for clinical trialists to actively share individual participant data (IPD) collected from clinical trials using responsible methods that protect the confidentiality and privacy of clinical trial participants. Clinical trialists, particularly those receiving public funding, are often concerned about the additional time and money that data-sharing activities will require, but few published empirical data are available to help inform these decisions. We sought to evaluate the activity and resources required to prepare anonymised IPD from a clinical trial in anticipation of a future data-sharing request.Data from two UK publicly funded clinical trials were used for this exercise: 2437 participants with epilepsy recruited from 90 hospital outpatient clinics in the SANAD trial and 146 children with neuro-developmental problems recruited from 18 hospitals in the MENDS trial. We calculated the time and resources required to prepare each anonymised dataset and assemble a data pack ready for sharing.The older SANAD trial (published 2007) required 50 hours of staff time with a total estimated associated cost of £3185 whilst the more recently completed MENDS trial (published 2012) required 39.5 hours of staff time with total estimated associated cost of £2540.Clinical trial researchers, funders and sponsors should consider appropriate resourcing and allow reasonable time for preparing IPD ready for subsequent sharing. This process would be most efficient if prospectively built into the standard operational design and conduct of a clinical trial. Further empirical examples exploring the resource requirements in other settings is recommended.SANAD: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry: ISRCTN38354748 . Registered on 25 April 2003.EU Clinical Trials Register Eudract 2006-004025-28 . Registered on 16 May 2007. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry: ISRCTN05534585 /MREC 07/MRE08/43. Registered on 26 January 2007.

Dataset Information

What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption.

Publications

What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets