IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v1y2013i3p99-112d29491.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mandates and the Contributions of Open Genomic Data

Author

Listed:
  • Jingfeng Xia

    (School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University, 755 W. Michigan St, UL 3100B, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA)

Abstract

This research attempts to seek changing patterns of raw data availability and their correlations with implementations of open mandate policies. With a list of 13,785 journal articles whose authors archived datasets in a popular biomedical data repository after these articles were published in journals, this research uses regression analysis to test the correlations between data contributions and mandate implementations. It finds that both funder-based and publisher-based mandates have a strong impact on scholars’ likelihood to contribute to open data repositories. Evidence also suggests that like policies have changed the habit of authors in selecting publishing venues: open access journals have been apparently preferred by those authors whose projects are sponsored by the federal government agencies, and these journals are also highly ranked in the biomedical fields. Various stakeholders, particularly institutional administrators and open access professionals, may find the findings of this research helpful for adjusting data management policies to increase the number of quality free datasets and enhance data usability. The data-sharing example in biomedical studies provides a good case to show the importance of policy-making in the reshaping of scholarly communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Jingfeng Xia, 2013. "Mandates and the Contributions of Open Genomic Data," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-14, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:1:y:2013:i:3:p:99-112:d:29491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/1/3/99/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/1/3/99/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lokman I. Meho & Kiduk Yang, 2007. "Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of science versus scopus and google scholar," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(13), pages 2105-2125, November.
    2. Jingfeng Xia, 2010. "A longitudinal study of scholars attitudes and behaviors toward open‐access journal publishing," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(3), pages 615-624, March.
    3. Christine L. Borgman, 2012. "The conundrum of sharing research data," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(6), pages 1059-1078, June.
    4. Christine L. Borgman, 2012. "The conundrum of sharing research data," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(6), pages 1059-1078, June.
    5. Jingfeng Xia, 2010. "A longitudinal study of scholars attitudes and behaviors toward open-access journal publishing," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(3), pages 615-624, March.
    6. King, C. Judson & Harley, Diane & Earl-Novell, Sarah & Arter, Jennifer & Lawrence, Shannon & Perciali, Irene, 2006. "Scholarly Communication: Academic Values and Sustainable Models," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt4j89c3f7, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    7. Yassine Gargouri & Chawki Hajjem & Vincent Larivière & Yves Gingras & Les Carr & Tim Brody & Stevan Harnad, 2010. "Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-12, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jingfeng Xia, 2013. "The Open Access Divide," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-27, October.
    2. Milan Frederik Klus & Alexander Dilger, 2020. "Success factors of academic journals in the digital age," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1115-1143, November.
    3. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2013. "Open Access, Social Norms & Publication Choice," ICER Working Papers 03-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    4. Vikas Jaiman & Leonard Pernice & Visara Urovi, 2022. "User incentives for blockchain-based data sharing platforms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-22, April.
    5. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Mueller-Langer, Frank, 2014. "Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practised," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1621-1633.
    6. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2014. "What Drives Academic Data Sharing?," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 655, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    7. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Data in Brief: Can a mega-journal for data be useful?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 697-709, July.
    8. Carol Tenopir & Elizabeth D Dalton & Suzie Allard & Mike Frame & Ivanka Pjesivac & Ben Birch & Danielle Pollock & Kristina Dorsett, 2015. "Changes in Data Sharing and Data Reuse Practices and Perceptions among Scientists Worldwide," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-24, August.
    9. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "The open access citation premium may depend on the openness and inclusiveness of the indexing database, but the relationship is controversial because it is ambiguous where the open access boundary lie," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 995-1018, November.
    10. Federica Cugnata & Chiara Brombin & Chiara Maria Poli & Roberto Buccione & Clelia Serio, 2024. "Modelling perception and resilience factors to data sharing in clinical and basic research: an observational study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3169-3192, June.
    11. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni Ramello, 2013. "Open access, social norms and publication choice," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 149-167, April.
    12. Andrea K. Thomer, 2022. "Integrative data reuse at scientifically significant sites: Case studies at Yellowstone National Park and the La Brea Tar Pits," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(8), pages 1155-1170, August.
    13. Koenraad De Smedt & Dimitris Koureas & Peter Wittenburg, 2020. "FAIR Digital Objects for Science: From Data Pieces to Actionable Knowledge Units," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, April.
    14. Plantin, Jean-Christophe, 2021. "The data archive as factory: alienation and resistance of data processors," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 109692, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Keren Weinshall & Lee Epstein, 2020. "Developing High‐Quality Data Infrastructure for Legal Analytics: Introducing the Israeli Supreme Court Database," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 416-434, June.
    16. Jenny Bossaller & Anthony J. Million, 2023. "The research data life cycle, legacy data, and dilemmas in research data management," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(6), pages 701-706, June.
    17. Guillaume Cabanac & Thomas Preuss, 2013. "Capitalizing on order effects in the bids of peer-reviewed conferences to secure reviews by expert referees," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 405-415, February.
    18. Liwei Zhang & Liang Ma, 2021. "Does open data boost journal impact: evidence from Chinese economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3393-3419, April.
    19. Danielle H. Lee, 2019. "Predictive power of conference-related factors on citation rates of conference papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 281-304, January.
    20. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:1:y:2013:i:3:p:99-112:d:29491. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.