Reward systems for cohort data sharing: An interview study with funding agencies

Abstract

Data infrastructures are being constructed to facilitate cohort data sharing. These infrastructures are anticipated to increase the rate of data sharing. However, the lack of data sharing has also been framed as being the consequence of the lack of reputational or financial incentives for sharing. Some initiatives try to confer value onto data sharing by making researchers’ individual contributions to research visible (i.e., contributorship) or by quantifying the degree to which research data has been shared (e.g., data indicators). So far, the role of downstream evaluation and funding distribution systems for reputational incentives remains underexplored. This interview study documents the perspectives of members of funding agencies on, amongst other elements, incentives for data sharing. Funding agencies are adopting narrative CVs to encourage evaluation of diverse research outputs and display diversity in researchers’ profiles. This was argued to diminish the focus on quantitative indicators of scientific productivity. Indicators related to open science dimensions may be reintroduced if they are fully developed. Shifts towards contributorship models for research outputs are seen as complementary to narrative review.

German funders’ data sharing policies—A qualitative interview study

“…Leading German funding agencies like the DFG or the BMBF already have data sharing policies in a broad sense of the term, but they are not yet as explicit as the ones of leading international funders, which tend to have more comprehensive data sharing policies. These observations support other reports on different stages of policy development among funding agencies [ 35 , 39 , 42 – 43 , 71 , 72 ] and are particularly noteworthy for two reasons. First, our interviews indicate that smaller agencies orient themselves on the policy approaches of large funders like the BMBF and especially the DFG with its Code of Conduct.…”

“…However, our interviewees also reported various barriers to incentivising data sharing known from other studies [35,39,43,44,47,72,81]. These include internal disagreements within funding agencies with regard to introducing new evaluation metrics that consider data sharing more strongly or convincing grant reviewers of applying those new evaluation metrics.…”

“…However, beyond these financial compensations, there appears to be a lack of other incentives. The wide lack of incentives is both noteworthy and problematic, as numerous studies highlight the importance of incentives for data sharing [5,45,72,[75][76][77][78][79][80]. Similar to the international funder landscape [39], German funders appear to be very aware of the importance of incentives and the current lack thereof.…”

Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science Practices?

“…Another Similarly, funding agencies also have a fundamental role in this progress. Funded research reports should make available and public all the steps related to conducting the research, which should be demanded and audited by the grant agencies [35][36][37]. Moreover, different stakeholders involved in research should value these outputs related to OSPs in the evaluations and funding distribution systems [12,37].…”

Measuring the Impact of Data Sharing: From Author-Level Metrics to Quantification of Economic and Non-tangible Benefits

“…By comparing these metrics with usage statistics, one can identify correlations and trends, informing future data sharing indicators and policies. Despite the increasing recognition of the value of data sharing and open research practices, there are currently insufficient reward mechanisms to motivate such behavior [51]. The Open Science framework has introduced badges that can be assigned to journal articles adhering to Open Science practices [52], but uptake is currently limited.…”