A study of the determinants of psychologists' data sharing and open data badge adoption

Kim, Youngseek

doi:10.1002/leap.1388

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies also concluded that the availability of data repositories can significantly promote scientists’ data sharing behaviours (Kim and Adler, 2015; Kim and Stanton, 2016). For psychologists, in particular, Houtkoop and colleagues (2018) argued that the availability of more data repositories would increase psychologists’ data sharing tendencies; another recent study conducted by Kim (2021) also found that the availability of data repositories in the field of psychology specifically had a significant effect on psychologists’ data sharing intentions.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Initial studies in data sharing reported that potential risks of data sharing negatively affected scientists’ data sharing behaviours (Campbell et al , 2002; Louis et al , 2002; Tenopir et al , 2015; Vickers, 2006). However, a series of recent studies found that scientists’ perceived risks in data sharing (as an opposite form of trust) were not a significant factor that prevented them from sharing their data (Kim, 2017, 2021; Kim and Stanton, 2016). Because of this reason, the trust factor in some of the early studies has been replaced by community benefits (Lin and Huang, 2013; Tohidinia and Mosakhani, 2010).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Borghi and Van Gulick (2020) also reported in their survey study that only 8.4% of psychologists (23 out of 274) shared their research data through data repositories. Another more recent study conducted by Kim (2021) reported that 15.4% of APA journals (14 out of 91) adopted the open science badges in 2020; of those 14 journals, only 7.1% of empirical research articles (88 out of 1,235) received the open science badges for sharing their research data in public data repositories for the entire year of 2020.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared to other social science disciplines, the field of psychology has had a long history with data sharing as a concept through the implementation of an ethical principle, and through the using of open science badges; however, data sharing is not yet widely practiced and remained the same in the psychology research community until now (Borghi and Van Gulick, 2020; Houtkoop et al , 2018; Kim, 2021). This is because the discipline of psychology did not have any substantial infrastructure (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…journal publishers’ and funding agencies’ policies) to promote data sharing (Borghi and Van Gulick, 2020; Harper and Kim, 2018). Most importantly, the psychology research community did not have a strong consensus about data sharing; they also have not had a strong mechanism governing academic reputation, community benefits and data sharing norms that can encourage collaborative data sharing behaviour (Cummings and Day, 2019; Kim, 2021; Martone et al , 2018). It is therefore important to understand psychologists’ data sharing habits from the perspective of their collective actions in the psychology research community.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Predicting psychologists’ approach to academic reciprocity and data sharing with a theory of collective action

Lee

Jung

Kim

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to investigate the factors influencing the data sharing habits of psychologists with respect to academic reciprocity. Design/methodology/approach A research model was developed based on Ostrom’s (2003) theory of collective action to map psychologists’ underlying motivations for data sharing. The model was validated by data from a survey of 427 psychologists, primarily from the psychological sciences and related disciplines. Findings This study found that data sharing among psychologists is driven primarily by their perceptions of community benefits, academic reciprocity and the norms of data sharing. This study also found that academic reciprocity is significantly influenced by psychologists’ perceptions of community benefits, academic reputation and the norms of data sharing. Both academic reputation and academic reciprocity are affected by psychologists’ prior experiences with data reuse. Additionally, psychologists’ perceptions of community benefits and the norms of data sharing are significantly affected by the perception of their academic reputation. Research limitations/implications This study suggests that Ostrom’s (2003) theory of collective action can provide a new theoretical lens in understanding psychologists’ data sharing behaviours. Practical implications This study suggests several practical implications for the design and promotion of data sharing in the research community of psychology. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the initial studies that applied the theory of collective action to the mechanisms of reputation, community benefits, norms and reciprocity in psychologists’ data sharing behaviour. This research demonstrates that perceived community benefits, academic reputation and the norms of data sharing can all encourage academic reciprocity, and psychologists’ perceptions of community benefits, academic reciprocity and data sharing norms all facilitate their data sharing intentions.

show abstract