Open access to research data has been described as a driver of innovation and a potential cure for the reproducibility crisis in many academic fields. Against this backdrop, policy makers are increasingly advocating for making research data and supporting material openly available online. Despite its potential to further scientific progress, widespread data sharing in small science is still an ideal practised in moderation. In this article, we explore the question of what drives open access to research data using a survey among 1564 mainly German researchers across all disciplines. We show that, regardless of their disciplinary background, researchers recognize the benefits of open access to research data for both their own research and scientific progress as a whole. Nonetheless, most researchers share their data only selectively. We show that individual reward considerations conflict with widespread data sharing. Based on our results, we present policy implications that are in line with both individual reward considerations and scientific progress.

Academic data sharing is a way for researchers to collaborate and thereby meet the needs of an increasingly complex research landscape. It enables researchers to verify results and to pursuit new research questions with "old" data. It is therefore not surprising that data sharing is advocated by funding agencies, journals, and researchers alike. We surveyed 2661 individual academic researchers across all disciplines on their dealings with data, their publication practices, and motives for sharing or withholding research data. The results for 1564 valid responses show that researchers across disciplines recognise the benefit of secondary research data for their own work and for scientific progress as a whole-still they only practice it in moderation. An explanation for this evidence could be an academic system that is not driven by monetary incentives, nor the desire for scientific progress, but by individual reputation-expressed in (high ranked journal) publications. We label this system a Reputation Economy. This special economy explains our findings that show that researchers have a nuanced idea how to provide adequate formal recognition for making data available to others-namely data citations. We conclude that data sharing will only be widely adopted among research professionals if sharing pays in form of reputation.Thus, policy measures that intend to foster research collaboration need to understand academia as a reputation economy. Successful measures must value intermediate products, such as research data, more highly than it is the case now.JEL Code: C81, D02, D23, L89

It is widely acknowledged that data sharing has great potential for scientific progress. However, so far making data available has little impact on a researcher’s reputation. Thus, data sharing can be conceptualized as a social dilemma. In the presented study we investigated the influence of the researcher's personality within the social dilemma of data sharing. The theoretical background was the appropriateness framework. We conducted a survey among 1564 researchers about data sharing, which also included standardized questions on selected personality factors, namely the so-called Big Five, Machiavellianism and social desirability. Using regression analysis, we investigated how these personality domains relate to four groups of dependent variables: attitudes towards data sharing, the importance of factors that might foster or hinder data sharing, the willingness to share data, and actual data sharing. Our analyses showed the predictive value of personality for all four groups of dependent variables. However, there was not a global consistent pattern of influence, but rather different compositions of effects. Our results indicate that the implications of data sharing are dependent on age, gender, and personality. In order to foster data sharing, it seems advantageous to provide more personal incentives and to address the researchers’ individual responsibility.

Current cognitive multimedia design theories provide several guidelines on how to integrate verbal and pictorial information. However, the recommendations for the design of auditory texts (narrations) are still fragmentary, especially with regard to the characteristics of the voices used. In the current paper, a fundamental question is addressed, namely, whether to use a male or a female speaker. In two experiments, learners studied dynamic visualizations on probability theory that were accompanied by narrations. The learner's gender and the speaker's gender served as between-subjects variables. In the first study, learners were randomly assigned to speakers of different gender. In the second study, learners could choose among different speakers. The results show that learners achieved better learning outcomes when the narration was presented by a female speaker rather than a male speaker irrespective of the learner's gender (speaker/gender effect). Being given the choice, learners preferred female speakers, but this individual preference had no impact on learning outcomes. The results suggest augmenting purely cognitive approaches to multimedia design by social-motivational assumptions.

There is an ongoing discussion if and how students and lecturers should interact with each other on social networks. In this article, we present an empirical study on the so-called netiquette for Facebook contacts between students and their lecturers (hereinafter called SL-contacts). In addition, we investigated the subjective perception of the majority's behavior. This enabled a comparison between two different kinds of social norms: the injunctive norms (netiquette) and the descriptive norms (majority). Database was an online survey with 2,849 participants (2,550 students and 299 lecturers). SL-contacts were quite rare in our sample and usually initiated by students. Our results showed that the appropriateness of SL-contacts depends on the individual case. In addition, we found that injunctive and descriptive norms are in line with each other. Overall, our results indicate that there is a common ground of understanding, and SL-contacts are less critical than they might appear.