Changes in Data Sharing and Data Reuse Practices and Perceptions among Scientists Worldwide

Abstract

The incorporation of data sharing into the research lifecycle is an important part of modern scholarly debate. In this study, the DataONE Usability and Assessment working group addresses two primary goals: To examine the current state of data sharing and reuse perceptions and practices among research scientists as they compare to the 2009/2010 baseline study, and to examine differences in practices and perceptions across age groups, geographic regions, and subject disciplines. We distributed surveys to a multinational sample of scientific researchers at two different time periods (October 2009 to July 2010 and October 2013 to March 2014) to observe current states of data sharing and to see what, if any, changes have occurred in the past 3–4 years. We also looked at differences across age, geographic, and discipline-based groups as they currently exist in the 2013/2014 survey. Results point to increased acceptance of and willingness to engage in data sharing, as well as an increase in actual data sharing behaviors. However, there is also increased perceived risk associated with data sharing, and specific barriers to data sharing persist. There are also differences across age groups, with younger respondents feeling more favorably toward data sharing and reuse, yet making less of their data available than older respondents. Geographic differences exist as well, which can in part be understood in terms of collectivist and individualist cultural differences. An examination of subject disciplines shows that the constraints and enablers of data sharing and reuse manifest differently across disciplines. Implications of these findings include the continued need to build infrastructure that promotes data sharing while recognizing the needs of different research communities. Moving into the future, organizations such as DataONE will continue to assess, monitor, educate, and provide the infrastructure necessary to support such complex grand science challenges.

Research Data Services in European Academic Research Libraries

“…They may require assistance with activities such as creating metadata, locating datasets, and finding appropriate places to store their data (Aydinoglu, Suomela, & Malone, 2014;Enke et al, 2012;Kratz & Strasser, 2015;Schmidt, Gemeinholzer, & Treloar, 2016;Specht et al, 2015;Tenopir et al, 2011Tenopir et al, , 2015a. Earlier surveys of researchers suggest roles for research libraries in providing support for research data management, an extension of the library's traditional role in providing research and reference services (Si et al, 2015;Tenopir et al, 2012Tenopir et al, , 2015bVlaeminck, 2013).…”

Sharing Data Increases Citations

“…Apart from protecting intellectual property as well as protecting personal information or other sensitive data, a lack of incentives to share could be part of the explanation. In recent years, a number of studies have pointed out the importance of data sharing (Altman & Crosas, 2013;Tenopir et al, 2011Tenopir et al, , 2015.…”

Research Data Management Among Life Sciences Faculty: Implications for Library Service

“…Akers and Doty found that the practices, needs, and perceptions of data management varied among faculty ranks (2012) and disciplines (2013) at Emory University. Tenopir et al (2011Tenopir et al ( , 2015 describe differences in data sharing practices and attitudes with relation to age, geographical location, and discipline. Through literature review and original research, Research Libraries UK discovered differences in data handling across the cultures underlying disciplines, subjects, and career stages in the UK and beyond (Aukland, 2012).…”

“…However, inconsistencies extend further than a definition of terms. Previous studies evidence wide variation in practices surrounding research data: differences in how data are collected, stored, and shared (Bishoff & Johnston, 2015;Kennan & Markauskaite, 2015;Tenopir et al, 2011Tenopir et al, , 2015; among disciplines, institutions, departments, and individuals (Akers & Doty, 2013;Buys & Shaw, 2015;Weller & Monroe-Gulick, 2014); and in researchers' experience, knowledge, and perceptions (Akers & Doty, 2012;Jahnke & Asher, 2012;Scaramozzino, Ramírez, & McGaughey, 2012). When viewed collectively, it is evident that librarians must recognize and address those needs that are relevant to their specific users.…”