IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0238071.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research data sharing in the Australian national science agency: Understanding the relative importance of organisational, disciplinary and domain-specific influences

Author

Listed:
  • Claire M Mason
  • Paul J Box
  • Shanae M Burns

Abstract

This study delineates the relative importance of organisational, research discipline and application domain factors in influencing researchers’ data sharing practices in Australia’s national scientific and industrial research agency. We surveyed 354 researchers and found that the number of data deposits made by researchers were related to the openness of the data culture and the contractual inhibitors experienced by researchers. Multi-level modelling revealed that organisational unit membership explained 10%, disciplinary membership explained 6%, and domain membership explained 4% of the variance in researchers’ intentions to share research data. However, only the organisational measure of openness to data sharing explained significant unique variance in data sharing. Thus, whereas previous research has tended to focus on disciplinary influences on data sharing, this study suggests that factors operating within the organisation have the most powerful influence on researchers’ data sharing practices. The research received approval from the organisation’s Human Research Ethics Committee (no. 014/18).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0238071
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238071
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238071&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0238071?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing & Stephanie Linek & Armin Sauermann, 2015. "A Reputation Economy: Results from an Empirical Survey on Academic Data Sharing," RatSWD Working Papers 246, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    3. Kimberly Douglass & Suzie Allard & Carol Tenopir & Lei Wu & Mike Frame, 2014. "Managing scientific data as public assets: Data sharing practices and policies among full-time government employees," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(2), pages 251-262, February.
    4. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve, 2015. "Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 67(i01).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp1454 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Charles Ayoubi & Boris Thurm, 2023. "Knowledge diffusion and morality: Why do we freely share valuable information with Strangers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 75-99, January.
    4. Stephanie B Linek & Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2017. "Data sharing as social dilemma: Influence of the researcher’s personality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-24, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Bettina Suhr & Johanna Dungl & Alexander Stocker, 2020. "Search, reuse and sharing of research data in materials science and engineering—A qualitative interview study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-26, September.
    7. Xiaoguang Wang & Qingyu Duan & Mengli Liang, 2021. "Understanding the process of data reuse: An extensive review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(9), pages 1161-1182, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Kraft-Todd, Gordon T. & Rand, David G., 2021. "Practice what you preach: Credibility-enhancing displays and the growth of open science," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-10.
    10. Stefan Reichmann & Thomas Klebel & Ilire Hasani‐Mavriqi & Tony Ross‐Hellauer, 2021. "Between administration and research: Understanding data management practices in an institutional context," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(11), pages 1415-1431, November.
    11. 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.
    12. Linek, Stephanie B. & Fecher, Benedikt & Friesike, Sascha & Hebing, Marcel, 2017. "Data sharing as social dilemma: Influence of the researcher’s personality," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(8), pages 1-24.
    13. Libby Hemphill & Margaret L. Hedstrom & Susan Hautaniemi Leonard, 2021. "Saving social media data: Understanding data management practices among social media researchers and their implications for archives," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(1), pages 97-109, January.
    14. Jacqmin, Julien, 2018. "Why are some online courses more open than others?," MPRA Paper 89929, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. JANSSENS, Jochen & DE CORTE, Annelies & SÖRENSEN, Kenneth, 2016. "Water distribution network design optimisation with respect to reliability," Working Papers 2016007, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    16. Raymond Hernandez & Elizabeth A. Pyatak & Cheryl L. P. Vigen & Haomiao Jin & Stefan Schneider & Donna Spruijt-Metz & Shawn C. Roll, 2021. "Understanding Worker Well-Being Relative to High-Workload and Recovery Activities across a Whole Day: Pilot Testing an Ecological Momentary Assessment Technique," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-17, October.
    17. Christopher Hassall & Michael Nisbet & Evan Norcliffe & He Wang, 2024. "The Potential Health Benefits of Urban Tree Planting Suggested through Immersive Environments," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-12, February.
    18. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    19. Elisabeth Beckmann & Lukas Olbrich & Joseph Sakshaug, 2024. "Multivariate assessment of interviewer-related errors in a cross-national economic survey (Lukas Olbrich, Elisabeth Beckmann, Joseph W. Sakshaug)," Working Papers 253, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank).
    20. F J Heather & D Z Childs & A M Darnaude & J L Blanchard, 2018. "Using an integral projection model to assess the effect of temperature on the growth of gilthead seabream Sparus aurata," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, May.

    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:plo:pone00:0238071. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.