Identifying the Complex Position of Research Data and Data Sharing Among Researchers in Natural Science

Abstract

This article aims to provide an overview of researchers' practices and perceptions on data use and sharing. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 23 Japanese researchers in the natural sciences to identify their research practices and data use, including data sharing. We divided the interview scripts into meaningful phrases as a unit of analysis. Next, we focused on 406 statements on research data and reanalyzed them based on four aspects: stance on research data, practices and perceptions of data use, range of data sharing, and data type. A cluster analysis identified 14 clusters, which were divided into five groups: open access for data, restricted access for data, data interpretation, data processing and preservation, and data infrastructure. Our results reveal the complexity and diversity of the relationship between data and research practices. That is, the practice of research data sharing is heterogeneous, with no "one size fits all" between and among researchers.

Analysis of Leader Effectiveness in Organization and Knowledge Sharing Behavior on Employees and Organization

“…Therefore, providing knowledge sharing in a healthy way is important for the strategic success of the organization. With knowledge sharing, information flows through effective communication, information searching, information learning, or those who need information (Kurata et al, 2017). Knowledge sharing is basically considered as information that can be obtained by other employees within the organization (Ipe, 2003).…”

Understanding the data-sharing debate in the context of Aotearoa/New Zealand: a narrative review on the perspectives of funders, publishers/journals, researchers, participants and Māori collectives

“…In addition to the insights into the limitations of open science and data-sharing provided by quantitative research, qualitative research provides insight into the experiences of researchers and participants relating to data-sharing (Shaw et al 2008). Much of the past quantitative research has treated data-sharing as a homogenous practice in which researchers either share data or do not (Kurata et al 2017). However, researchers' individualised perspectives and approaches to sharing of quantitative data have been found to be heterogeneous across seven qualitative studies on data-sharing that were retrieved from our literature searches.…”

“…However, researchers' individualised perspectives and approaches to sharing of quantitative data have been found to be heterogeneous across seven qualitative studies on data-sharing that were retrieved from our literature searches. These studies can be split into two groups: (1) independent studies (Wallis et al 2013;Levin et al 2016;Kurata et al 2017;Ho et al 2018);and (2) studies within one large multisite research collaboration on data-sharing in low-/middleincome countries (Cheah et al 2015;Denny et al 2015;Hate et al 2015).…”

“…The majority of the qualitative accounts described primary researchers' concerns over retaining 'ownership' of data they had collected (Wallis et al 2013;Cheah et al 2015;Denny et al 2015;Levin et al 2016;Kurata et al 2017). Moreover, it was evident that there are cultural differences in researchers' perspectives about data-sharing (Kurata et al 2017).…”

A Selective Review of Literature on Research Data Management in Academic Libraries

“…Markauskaite, et al (2012) 21 surveyed 864 researchers of seven Australian universities and reported that the data sharing was not a priority for them; just 9 per cent of them shared data with others. The difference in data sharing practices among the researchers have been underlined by Kurata, et al (2017) 22 ; Kim and Stanton(2016) 23 and Nguyen, et al, (2017) 24 .The researchers share their datasets on request or submit to the journals as supplementary content (Joo, et al, 2019) 25 Vidal-Infer, et al (2018) 26 have reviewed 88 websites of journals covered in the 2014 edition of Journal Citation Report (JCR) in the dentistry subject area for data sharing editorial policies. The authors also surveyed the PubMed Central repository to get information about the characteristics of the supplementary material of 88 journal.…”