This article assesses the difference between the concepts of ‘open data’ and ‘FAIR data’ in data management. FAIR data is understood as data that complies with the FAIR Guidelines – data that is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable – while open data was born out of awareness of the need to democratise data by improving its accessibility, based on the idea that data should not have limitations that prevent people from using it. This study compared FAIR data with open data by analysing relevant documents using a coding analysis with conceptual labels based on Kingdon's theory of agenda setting. The study found that in relation to FAIR data the problem stream focuses on the complexity of data collected for research, while open data primarily emphasises giving the public access to non-confidential data. In the policy stream, the two concepts share common standpoints in terms of making data available and reusable, although different approaches are adopted in practice to accomplish these goals. In the politics stream, stakeholders with different objectives support FAIR data and from those who support open data.

This study provides an analysis of the implementation of FAIR Guidelines in selected non-Western geographies. The analysis was based on a systematic literature review to determine if the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability of data is seen as an issue, if the adoption of the FAIR Guidelines is seen as a solution, and if the climate is conducive to the implementation of the FAIR Guidelines. The results show that the FAIR Guidelines have been discussed in most of the countries studied, which have identified data sharing and the reusability of research data as an issue (e.g., China, Kazakhstan, Russia, countries in the Middle East), and partially introduced in others (e.g., Indonesia). In Indonesia, a FAIR equivalent system has been introduced, although certain functions need to be added for data to be entirely FAIR. In Japan, both FAIR equivalent systems and FAIR-based systems have been adopted and created, and the acceptance of FAIR-based systems is recommended by the Government of Japan. In a number of African countries, the FAIR Guidelines are in the process of being implemented and the implementation of FAIR is well supported. In conclusion, a window of opportunity for implementing the FAIR Guidelines is open in most of the countries studied, however, more awareness needs to be raised about the benefits of FAIR in China, Russia and Kazakhstan to place it firmly on the policy agenda.

The Virus Outbreak Data Network (VODAN)-Africa aims to contribute to the publication of Findable Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) health data under well-defined access conditions. The next step in the VODAN-Africa architecture is to locally deploy the Center for Expanded Data Annotation and Retrieval (CEDAR) and arrange accessibility based on the ‘data visiting’ concept. Locally curated and reposited machine-actionable data can be visited by queries or algorithms, provided that the conditions of access are met. The goal is to enable the multiple (re)use of data with secure access functionality by clinicians (patient care), an idea aligned with the FAIR-based Personal Health Train (PHT) concept. The privacy and security requirements in relation to the FAIR Data Host and the FAIRification workspace (to produce metadata) or dashboard (for the patient) must be clear to design the IT architecture. This article describes a (first) practice, a reference implementation in development, within the VODAN-Africa and Leiden University Medical Center community.

No abstract