Open data facilitate reproducibility and accelerate scientific discovery but are hindered by perceptions that researchers bear costs and gain few benefits from publicly sharing their data, with limited empirical evidence to the contrary. We surveyed 140 faculty members working in ecology and evolution across Canada's top 20 ranked universities and found that more researchers report benefits (47.9%) and neutral outcomes (43.6%) than costs (21.4%) from openly sharing data. The benefits were independent of career stage and gender, but men and early career researchers were more likely to report costs. We outline mechanisms proposed by the study participants to reduce the individual costs and increase the benefits of open data for faculty members.

Open data facilitate reproducibility and accelerate scientific discovery but are hindered by perceptions that researchers bear costs and gain few benefits from publicly sharing their data, with limited empirical evidence to the contrary. We surveyed 140 faculty members working in ecology and evolution across Canada’s top 20-ranked universities and found that more researchers report benefits (47.9%) and neutral outcomes (43.6%) than costs (21.4%) from sharing data. Benefits were independent of career stage and gender, but men and early career researchers were more likely to report costs. We outline proposed mechanisms to reduce individual costs of data sharing and increase benefits.

Many leading journals in ecology and evolution now mandate open data upon publication. Yet, there is very little oversight to ensure the completeness and reusability of archived datasets, and we currently have a poor understanding of the factors associated with high-quality data sharing. We assessed 362 open datasets linked to first- or senior-authored papers published by 100 principal investigators (PIs) in the fields of ecology and evolution over a period of 7 years to identify predictors of data completeness and reusability (data archiving quality). Datasets scored low on these metrics: 56.4% were complete and 45.9% were reusable. Data reusability, but not completeness, was slightly higher for more recently archived datasets and PIs with less seniority. Journal open data policy, PI gender and PI corresponding author status were unrelated to data archiving quality. However, PI identity explained a large proportion of the variance in data completeness (27.8%) and reusability (22.0%), indicating consistent inter-individual differences in data sharing practices by PIs across time and contexts. Several PIs consistently shared data of either high or low archiving quality, but most PIs were inconsistent in how well they shared. One explanation for the high intra-individual variation we observed is that PIs often conduct research through students and postdoctoral researchers, who may be responsible for the data collection, curation and archiving. Levels of data literacy vary among trainees and PIs may not regularly perform quality control over archived files. Our findings suggest that research data management training and culture within a PI's group are likely to be more important determinants of data archiving quality than other factors such as a journal's open data policy. Greater incentives and training for individual researchers at all career stages could improve data sharing practices and enhance data transparency and reusability.

We assessed the quality of 362 open datasets shared by 100 principal investigators (PIs) in ecology and evolution to identify predictors of data quality. Datasets generally scored low on completeness and reusability, but these metrics were slightly higher for more recently archived datasets and PIs with less seniority. Journal data sharing policies had no effect on data quality, whereas PI identity explained the largest proportion of the variance in both data completeness (27.8%) and reusability (22.0%), suggesting that a PI’s training and lab culture are key determinants of data quality. Thus, greater incentives and training for individual researchers could help improve data sharing practices.