Ethical perspectives on data and software sharing in the sciences: A research agenda

Darch, Peter T.; Knox, Emily J.M.

doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2017.11.008

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data management needs planning and appropriate metadata. [ 30 – 32 ] The creation and/or collection context of the data, the purpose of data creation/collection, storage format and access rights are essential information for the reuse of data. [ 33 , 34 ] Providing such metadata demands expertise on data management, knowledge about the data and the context of their usage.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use and users of a social science research data archive

Late

Kekäläinen

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study focuses on the use and users of Finnish social science research data archive. Study is based on enriched user data of the archive from years 2015-2018. Study investigates the number and type of downloaded datasets, the number of citations for data, the demographics of data downloaders and the purposes data are downloaded for. Datasets were downloaded from the archive 10346 times. Majority of the downloaded datasets are quantitative. Quantitative datasets are also more often cited, but the number of citations vary and does not always correlate with the number of downloads. Use of the archive varies by user's country, organization, and discipline. Datasets from the archive were downloaded most often for study work, bachelor's and master's theses, and research purposes. It is likely that reusing research data will increase in the near future as more data will become available, scholars are more informed about research data management, and data citation practices are established.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use and users of a social science research data archive

Late

Kekäläinen

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, researchers fear that if they are fully transparent, others question their conclusions (Piwowar et al 2007) and thereby tarnish their reputation, but this is in fact a key process in science (Benestad et al 2016). Further barriers to reproducible research are legal aspects, sensitive data , and ethical concerns (Darch and Knox 2017). As a result of these issues, some have proclaimed that science is suffering from a reproducibility crisis (Baker 2016).…”

Section: Reasons For Irreproducible Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computational reproducibility in geoscientific papers: Insights from a series of studies with geoscientists and a reproduction study

Konkol

Kray

Pfeiffer

2018

International Journal of Geographical Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reproducibility is a cornerstone of science and thus for geographic research as well. However, studies in other disciplines such as biology have shown that published work is rarely reproducible. To assess the state of reproducibility, specifically computational reproducibility (i.e. rerunning the analysis of a paper using the original code), in geographic research, we asked geoscientists about this topic using three methods: a survey (n = 146), interviews (n = 9), and a focus group (n = 5). We asked participants about their understanding of open reproducible research (ORR), how much it is practiced, and what obstacles hinder ORR. We found that participants had different understandings of ORR and that there are several obstacles for authors and readers (e.g. effort, lack of openness). Then, in order to complement the subjective feedback from the participants, we tried to reproduce the results of papers that use spatial statistics to address problems in the geosciences. We selected 41 open access papers from Copernicus and Journal of Statistical Software and executed the R code. In doing so, we identified several technical issues and specific issues with the reproduced figures depicting the results. Based on these findings, we propose guidelines for authors to overcome the issues around reproducibility in the computational geosciences. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…This research assumed that biological scientists' data sharing is primarily affected by their research ethics toward data sharing, and it investigated how biological scientists' research ethics for data sharing is formed by diverse ethical components, and how those ethical components eventually lead to researchers' data sharing decision making. Darch and Knox (2017) posit that most of the data sharing studies focus on perceived costs and benefits, but that the influence of researchers' ethical perspectives on their data sharing decision has not been explored enough. By echoing this issue, the current study employs the consequential theorists' perspective of ethics in order to examine how egoism, utilitarianism and practice norm factors contribute to biological scientists' formation of research ethics toward data sharing.…”

Section: Ajim 715mentioning

confidence: 99%

The formation of research ethics for data sharing by biological scientists: an empirical analysis

Kim

2019

AJIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate how biological scientists form research ethics for data sharing, and what the major factors affecting biological scientists’ formation of research ethics for data sharing are. Design/methodology/approach A research model for data sharing was developed based on the consequential theorists’ perspective of ethics. An online survey of 577 participants was administered, and the proposed research model was validated with a structural equation modeling technique. Findings The results show that egoism factors (perceived reputation, perceived risk, perceived effort), utilitarianism factors (perceived community benefit and perceived reciprocity) and norm of practice factors (perceived pressure by funding agency, perceived pressure by journal and norm of data sharing) all contribute to the formation of research ethics for data sharing. Research limitations/implications This research employed the consequentialist perspective of ethics for its research model development, and the proposed research model nicely explained how egoism, utilitarianism and norm of practice factors influence biological scientists’ research ethics for data sharing, which eventually leads to their data sharing intentions. Practical implications This research provides important practical implications for examining scientists’ data sharing behaviors from the perspective of research ethics. This research suggests that scientists’ data sharing behaviors can be better facilitated by emphasizing their egoism, utilitarianism and normative factors involved in research ethics for data sharing. Originality/value The ethical perspectives in data sharing research has been under-studied; this research sheds light on biological scientists’ formation of research ethics for data sharing, which can be applied in promoting scientists’ data sharing behaviors across different disciplines.

show abstract

Ethical perspectives on data and software sharing in the sciences: A research agenda

Cited by 9 publications

References 37 publications

Use and users of a social science research data archive

Use and users of a social science research data archive

Computational reproducibility in geoscientific papers: Insights from a series of studies with geoscientists and a reproduction study

The formation of research ethics for data sharing by biological scientists: an empirical analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About