IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0239283.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption

Author

Listed:
  • Anneke Zuiderwijk
  • Rhythima Shinde
  • Wei Jeng

Abstract

Both sharing and using open research data have the revolutionary potentials for forwarding scientific advancement. Although previous research gives insight into researchers’ drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data, both these drivers and inhibitors have not yet been integrated via a thematic analysis and a theoretical argument is lacking. This study’s purpose is to systematically review the literature on individual researchers’ drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data. This study systematically analyzed 32 open data studies (published between 2004 and 2019 inclusively) and elicited drivers plus inhibitors for both open research data sharing and use in eleven categories total that are: ‘the researcher’s background’, ‘requirements and formal obligations’, ‘personal drivers and intrinsic motivations’, ‘facilitating conditions’, ‘trust’, ‘expected performance’, ‘social influence and affiliation’, ‘effort’, ‘the researcher’s experience and skills’, ‘legislation and regulation’, and ‘data characteristics.’ This study extensively discusses these categories, along with argues how such categories and factors are connected using a thematic analysis. Also, this study discusses several opportunities for altogether applying, extending, using, and testing theories in open research data studies. With such discussions, an overview of identified categories and factors can be further applied to examine both researchers’ drivers and inhibitors in different research disciplines, such as those with low rates of data sharing and use versus disciplines with high rates of data sharing plus use. What’s more, this study serves as a first vital step towards developing effective incentives for both open data sharing and use behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Anneke Zuiderwijk & Rhythima Shinde & Wei Jeng, 2020. "What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-49, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0239283
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239283
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239283&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0239283?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. Renata Gonçalves Curty & Kevin Crowston & Alison Specht & Bruce W Grant & Elizabeth D Dalton, 2017. "Attitudes and norms affecting scientists’ data reuse," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-22, December.
    2. Heather A Piwowar & Roger S Day & Douglas B Fridsma, 2007. "Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(3), pages 1-5, March.
    3. Ayoung Yoon, 2017. "Data reusers' trust development," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(4), pages 946-956, April.
    4. Juliana E. Raffaghelli & Stefania Manca, 2019. "Is There a Social Life in Open Data? The Case of Open Data Practices in Educational Technology Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Somayeh Soheilirad & Kannan Govindan & Abbas Mardani & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Mehrbakhsh Nilashi & Norhayati Zakuan, 2018. "Application of data envelopment analysis models in supply chain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 915-969, December.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Dolores Gallardo-Vázquez & Flavio Hourneaux Junior & Marcelo Luiz Dias da Silva Gabriel & Luis Enrique Valdez-Juárez, 2021. "On Earth as It Is in Heaven: Proxy Measurements to Assess Sustainable Development Goals at the Company Level through CSR Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    4. Suriyan Jomthanachai & Wai Peng Wong & Khai Wah Khaw, 2024. "An Application of Machine Learning to Logistics Performance Prediction: An Economics Attribute-Based of Collective Instance," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 63(2), pages 741-792, February.
    5. Garret Christensen & Allan Dafoe & Edward Miguel & Don A Moore & Andrew K Rose, 2019. "A study of the impact of data sharing on article citations using journal policies as a natural experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Xinxiang Zhang, 2020. "Ongoing Trust and Tourism O2O Platform Continuance: A Two-Trustee Involved Model With Moderating Variable," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Javier Martínez-Vega & David Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 2022. "Protected Area Effectiveness in the Scientific Literature: A Decade-Long Bibliometric Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, June.
    10. Mark J. McCabe & Frank Mueller-Langer, 2019. "Does Data Disclosure Increase Citations? Empirical Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Leading Economics Journals," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2019-02, Joint Research Centre.
    11. 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.
    12. Dyckhoff, Harald & Souren, Rainer, 2022. "Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis and production theory for performance evaluation: Framework and review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(3), pages 795-816.
    13. 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.
    14. Xiaohong Liu & Feng Yang & Jie Wu, 2020. "DEA considering technological heterogeneity and intermediate output target setting: the performance analysis of Chinese commercial banks," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 291(1), pages 605-626, August.
    15. Kai Li & Jason Rollins & Erjia Yan, 2018. "Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: a selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 1-20, April.
    16. Giovanni Colavizza & Iain Hrynaszkiewicz & Isla Staden & Kirstie Whitaker & Barbara McGillivray, 2020. "The citation advantage of linking publications to research data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, April.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Renata Gonçalves Curty & Kevin Crowston & Alison Specht & Bruce W Grant & Elizabeth D Dalton, 2017. "Attitudes and norms affecting scientists’ data reuse," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-22, December.
    20. Barbara McGillivray & Paola Marongiu & Nilo Pedrazzini & Marton Ribary & Mandy Wigdorowitz & Eleonora Zordan, 2022. "Deep Impact: A Study on the Impact of Data Papers and Datasets in the Humanities and Social Sciences," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-40, October.

    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:pone00:0239283. 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.