Survey on the Needs for Chemistry Research Data Management and Sharing

Chen, Xiujuan; Wu, Ming

doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2017.06.006

Cited by 30 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Twenty-four percent of researchers are not sure about the size of data they produce. The results in this study are slightly different to Buys and Shaw (2015) and Chen and Wu (2017) where the majority of researchers expressed that they produced data in gigabytes. These results may mean that the fears of huge server space to store research data may be unfounded.…”

Section: Findings and Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 84%

“…The amount of data produced by researchers is very important for purposes of determining their sharing practices (Chen and Wu 2017). The graph in Figure 3 reflects the size of documents produced by South African researchers.…”

Section: Findings and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data scientists are also interested to know the size of research data produced by researchers. This is because the size of data affects its management, publication and sharing (Chen and Wu 2017). Chen and Wu (2017) determined that 57.15% of chemistry researchers produced data in the gigabytes, followed by 29.41% who indicated that they produced data in the megabytes, 11.76% produced terabytes, while only 1.68% produced petabytes.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is because the size of data affects its management, publication and sharing (Chen and Wu 2017). Chen and Wu (2017) determined that 57.15% of chemistry researchers produced data in the gigabytes, followed by 29.41% who indicated that they produced data in the megabytes, 11.76% produced terabytes, while only 1.68% produced petabytes. In Buys and Shaw's (2015) study, 9% of researchers expressed that they required space for less than 1 Gigabyte, 42% required space in the Gigabytes, 15% in the terabytes, while 0% indicated a requirement for space in the petabytes.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Data Sharing Practices among Researchers at South African Universities

Bangani

Moyo

2019

CODATA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research data management practices have gained momentum the world over. This is due to increased demands by governments and other funding agencies to have research data archived and shared as widely as possible. This paper sought to establish the data sharing practices of researchers in South Africa. The study further sought to establish the level of collaboration among researchers in sharing research data at the university level. The outcomes of the survey will help the researchers to develop appropriate data literacy awareness programmes meant to stimulate growth in data sharing practices for the benefit of research, not only in South Africa, but the world at large. A survey research method was used to gather data from willing public universities in South Africa. A similar study was conducted in other countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Turkey but the Researchers believe that circumstances in the developed world may differ with the South African research environment, hence the current study. The major finding of this study was that most researchers preferred to use data produced by others but less keen on sharing their own data. This study is the first of its kind in South Africa which investigates data sharing practices of researchers from multi-disciplinary fields at the university level and will contribute immensely to the growing body of literature in the area of research data management.

show abstract

Section: Findings and Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 84%

Section: Findings and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Data Sharing Practices among Researchers at South African Universities

Bangani

Moyo

2019

CODATA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2017, Chen and Wu published the results of a survey on the needs for chemistry research data management and sharing conducted with 119 researchers in chemistry of Chinese Academy of Science. [ 13 ] The survey collected feedback on data generation and collection, data recording and processing, data preservation and backup, data publication and sharing with the aim to identify researchers' needs for data management and sharing services to be developed by information infrastructures. One of the latest surveys was conducted by the RDM Team of the RWTH university library and IT Center in May/June 2019 with 427 answers from chemists at North Rhine‐Westphalia universities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Data in Chemistry – Results of the first NFDI4Chem Community Survey

Herres‐Pawlis

Liermann

Koepler³

2020

Zeitschrift anorg allge chemie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Good research data management (RDM) requires a constant endeavour of the researchers but-first and foremost-user-friendly infrastructure and well accepted standards need to be developed for the researchers. The national research data infrastructure initiative for chemistry in Germany NFDI4Chem sets out to embrace the challenge of creating a general research data management portal and hereby connecting already existing infrastructure as well as to foster the cultural change in chemistry towards digitalization by developing general mini

show abstract

Between administration and research: Understanding data management practices in an institutional context

Reichmann

Klebel

Hasani-Mavriqi

et al. 2021

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Data Management (RDM) promises to make research outputs more transparent, findable, and reproducible. Strategies to streamline data management across disciplines are of key importance. This paper presents results of an institutional survey (N = 258) at a medium-sized Austrian university with a STEM focus, supplemented with interviews (N = 18), to give an overview of the state-of-play of RDM practices across faculties and disciplinary contexts.RDM services are on the rise but remain somewhat behind leading countries like the Netherlands and UK, showing only the beginnings of a culture attuned to RDM. There is considerable variation between faculties and institutes with respect to data amounts, complexity of data sets, data collection and analysis, and data archiving. Data sharing practices within fields tend to be inconsistent.RDM is predominantly regarded as an administrative task, to the detriment of considerations of good research practice. Problems with RDM fall in two categories: Generic problems transcend specific research interests, infrastructures, and departments while discipline-specific problems need a more targeted approach. The paper extends the state-of-the-art on RDM practices by combining in-depth qualitative material with quantified, detailed data about RDM practices and needs. The findings should be of interest to any comparable research institution with a similar agenda.Recent years have seen rapid growth in the adoption of Research Data Management (RDM) policies across research institutions. Accompanying these developments, there is now a quickly growing literature studying data

show abstract

Survey on the Needs for Chemistry Research Data Management and Sharing

Cited by 30 publications

References 12 publications

Data Sharing Practices among Researchers at South African Universities

Data Sharing Practices among Researchers at South African Universities

Research Data in Chemistry – Results of the first NFDI4Chem Community Survey

Between administration and research: Understanding data management practices in an institutional context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About