IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-01831-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived benefits of open data are improving but scientists still lack resources, skills, and rewards

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Borycz

    (Vanderbilt University)

  • Robert Olendorf

    (North Carolina State University)

  • Alison Specht

    (TERN, University of Queensland)

  • Bruce Grant

    (Widener University)

  • Kevin Crowston

    (Syracuse University)

  • Carol Tenopir

    (University of Tennessee)

  • Suzie Allard

    (University of Tennessee)

  • Natalie M. Rice

    (University of Tennessee)

  • Rachael Hu

    (California Digital Library)

  • Robert J. Sandusky

    (University of Illinois at Chicago)

Abstract

Addressing global scientific challenges requires the widespread sharing of consistent and trustworthy research data. Identifying the factors that influence widespread data sharing will help us understand the limitations and potential leverage points. We used two well-known theoretical frameworks, the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Technology Acceptance Model, to analyze three DataONE surveys published in 2011, 2015, and 2020. These surveys aimed to identify individual, social, and organizational influences on data-sharing behavior. In this paper, we report on the application of multiple factor analysis (MFA) on this combined, longitudinal, survey data to determine how these attitudes may have changed over time. The first two dimensions of the MFA were named willingness to share and satisfaction with resources based on the contributing questions and answers. Our results indicated that both dimensions are strongly influenced by individual factors such as perceived benefit, risk, and effort. Satisfaction with resources was significantly influenced by social and organizational factors such as the availability of training and data repositories. Researchers that improved in willingness to share are shown to be operating in domains with a high reliance on shared resources, are reliant on funding from national or federal sources, work in sectors where internal practices are mandated, and live in regions with highly effective communication networks. Significantly, satisfaction with resources was inversely correlated with willingness to share across all regions. We posit that this relationship results from researchers learning what resources they actually need only after engaging with the tools and procedures extensively.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Borycz & Robert Olendorf & Alison Specht & Bruce Grant & Kevin Crowston & Carol Tenopir & Suzie Allard & Natalie M. Rice & Rachael Hu & Robert J. Sandusky, 2023. "Perceived benefits of open data are improving but scientists still lack resources, skills, and rewards," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01831-7
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-01831-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-01831-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-01831-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gray, Denis O & Lindblad, Mark & Rudolph, Joseph, 2001. "Industry-University Research Centers: A Multivariate Analysis of Member Retention," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 247-254, June.
    2. Craig Boardman & Denis Gray, 2010. "The new science and engineering management: cooperative research centers as government policies, industry strategies, and organizations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 445-459, October.
    3. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2015. "What Drives Academic Data Sharing?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-25, February.
    4. Michael P. Milham & R. Cameron Craddock & Jake J. Son & Michael Fleischmann & Jon Clucas & Helen Xu & Bonhwang Koo & Anirudh Krishnakumar & Bharat B. Biswal & F. Xavier Castellanos & Stan Colcombe & A, 2018. "Assessment of the impact of shared brain imaging data on the scientific literature," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.
    5. Pamela R. Bishop & Schuyler W. Huck & Bonnie H. Ownley & Jennifer K. Richards & Gary J. Skolits, 2014. "Impacts of an interdisciplinary research center on participant publication and collaboration patterns: A case study of the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 327-340.
    6. Hajdeja Iglič & Patrick Doreian & Luka Kronegger & Anuška Ferligoj, 2017. "With whom do researchers collaborate and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 153-174, July.
    7. Carol Tenopir & Natalie M Rice & Suzie Allard & Lynn Baird & Josh Borycz & Lisa Christian & Bruce Grant & Robert Olendorf & Robert J Sandusky, 2020. "Data sharing, management, use, and reuse: Practices and perceptions of scientists worldwide," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, March.
    8. Yasset Perez-Riverol & Andrey Zorin & Gaurhari Dass & Manh-Tu Vu & Pan Xu & Mihai Glont & Juan Antonio Vizcaíno & Andrew F. Jarnuczak & Robert Petryszak & Peipei Ping & Henning Hermjakob, 2019. "Quantifying the impact of public omics data," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Tianwei He, 2009. "International scientific collaboration of China with the G7 countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 571-582, September.
    10. Min-Wei Lin & Barry Bozeman, 2006. "Researchers’ Industry Experience and Productivity in University–Industry Research Centers: A “Scientific and Technical Human Capital” Explanation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 269-290, March.
    11. Monya Baker, 2016. "1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility," Nature, Nature, vol. 533(7604), pages 452-454, May.
    12. Shahadat Uddin & Tasadduq Imam & Mohammad Mozumdar, 2021. "Research interdisciplinarity: STEM versus non-STEM," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 603-618, January.
    13. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    14. Zhenyu Zhang & Kyle Hernandez & Jeremiah Savage & Shenglai Li & Dan Miller & Stuti Agrawal & Francisco Ortuno & Louis M. Staudt & Allison Heath & Robert L. Grossman, 2021. "Uniform genomic data analysis in the NCI Genomic Data Commons," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    15. Carter Bloch & Jesper W Schneider & Thomas Sinkjær, 2016. "Size, Accumulation and Performance for Research Grants: Examining the Role of Size for Centres of Excellence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, February.
    16. Boardman, Craig & Ponomariov, Branco, 2011. "A preliminary assessment of the potential for "team science" in DOE Energy Innovation Hubs and Energy Frontier Research Centers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3033-3035, June.
    17. Claire M Mason & Paul J Box & Shanae M Burns, 2020. "Research data sharing in the Australian national science agency: Understanding the relative importance of organisational, disciplinary and domain-specific influences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-17, August.
    18. Ding, Ying, 2011. "Scientific collaboration and endorsement: Network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 187-203.
    19. Youngseek Kim & Jeffrey M. Stanton, 2016. "Institutional and individual factors affecting scientists' data-sharing behaviors: A multilevel analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(4), pages 776-799, April.
    20. 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.
    21. Candelaria Barrios & Esther Flores & M. Ángeles Martínez & Marta Ruiz-Martínez, 2019. "Is there convergence in international research collaboration? An exploration at the country level in the basic and applied science fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 631-659, August.
    22. Svein Kyvik & Ingvild Reymert, 2017. "Research collaboration in groups and networks: differences across academic fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 951-967, November.
    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. Gibson, Elizabeth & Daim, Tugrul U. & Dabic, Marina, 2019. "Evaluating university industry collaborative research centers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 181-202.
    2. Claire M Mason & Paul J Box & Shanae M Burns, 2020. "Research data sharing in the Australian national science agency: Understanding the relative importance of organisational, disciplinary and domain-specific influences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Youngseek Kim & Ayoung Yoon, 2017. "Scientists' data reuse behaviors: A multilevel analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2709-2719, December.
    4. Keiko Kurata & Mamiko Matsubayashi & Shinji Mine, 2017. "Identifying the Complex Position of Research Data and Data Sharing Among Researchers in Natural Science," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(3), pages 21582440177, July.
    5. Dennis Bontempi & Leonard Nuernberg & Suraj Pai & Deepa Krishnaswamy & Vamsi Thiriveedhi & Ahmed Hosny & Raymond H. Mak & Keyvan Farahani & Ron Kikinis & Andrey Fedorov & Hugo J. W. L. Aerts, 2024. "End-to-end reproducible AI pipelines in radiology using the cloud," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Michael Fritsch & Stefan Krabel, 2012. "Ready to leave the ivory tower?: Academic scientists’ appeal to work in the private sector," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 271-296, June.
    7. Pablo Dorta-González & Sara M. González-Betancor & María Isabel Dorta-González, 2021. "To what extent is researchers' data-sharing motivated by formal mechanisms of recognition and credit?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2209-2225, March.
    8. Kumar, Parveen & Hendriks, Tim & Panoutsopoulos, Hercules & Brewster, Christopher, 2024. "Investigating FAIR data principles compliance in horizon 2020 funded Agri-food and rural development multi-actor projects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    9. Mike Thelwall & Marcus Munafò & Amalia Mas-Bleda & Emma Stuart & Meiko Makita & Verena Weigert & Chris Keene & Nushrat Khan & Katie Drax & Kayvan Kousha, 2020. "Is useful research data usually shared? An investigation of genome-wide association study summary statistics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-11, February.
    10. Branco Ponomariov, 2013. "Government-sponsored university-industry collaboration and the production of nanotechnology patents in US universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(6), pages 749-767, December.
    11. Thu-Mai Christian & Amanda Gooch & Todd Vision & Elizabeth Hull, 2020. "Journal data policies: Exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Carol Tenopir & Natalie M Rice & Suzie Allard & Lynn Baird & Josh Borycz & Lisa Christian & Bruce Grant & Robert Olendorf & Robert J Sandusky, 2020. "Data sharing, management, use, and reuse: Practices and perceptions of scientists worldwide," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, March.
    13. Olena Leonchuk & Denis O. Gray, 2019. "Scientific and technological (human) social capital formation and Industry–University Cooperative Research Centers: a quasi-experimental evaluation of graduate student outcomes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1638-1664, October.
    14. Borah, Dhruba & Ellwood, Paul, 2022. "The micro-foundations of conflicts in joint university-industry laboratories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    15. Jun-Ping Qiu & Ke Dong & Hou-Qiang Yu, 2014. "Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1345-1360, November.
    16. Harper, Lindsey M. & Kim, Youngseek, 2018. "Attitudinal, normative, and resource factors affecting psychologists’ intentions to adopt an open data badge: An empirical analysis," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 23-32.
    17. Maxim N. Kotsemir & Tatiana E. Kuznetsova & Elena G. Nasybulina & Anna G. Pikalova, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Multinational S&T Collaboration Priorities –The Case of Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 53/STI/2015, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    18. Carolina Cañibano & Richard Woolley & Eric J. Iversen & Sybille Hinze & Stefan Hornbostel & Jakob Tesch, 2019. "A conceptual framework for studying science research careers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1964-1992, December.
    19. Jennifer Clark, 2010. "Coordinating a conscious geography: the role of research centers in multi-scalar innovation policy and economic development in the US and Canada," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 460-474, October.
    20. Gennaro Strazzullo & William J. Ion & Jillian MacBryde, 2022. "An Investigation of the Translational Asset: A Proposed Classification," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(4), pages 3123-3149, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-01831-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.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.