Open Research Data: From Vision to Practice

Pampel, Heinz; Dallmeier-Tiessen, Sünje

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_14

Cited by 48 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They argued that realigning the incentives of data publication by ensuring the proper citation of data sets could help remove some barriers to a more open scientific environment (Bierer et al, 2017;Kim & Stanton, 2016). Pampel and Dallmeier-Tiessen (2014) was also able to confirm that data citation and data sharing can lead to more citations. Tenopir, Dalton, et al (2015) and Aleixandre-Benavent et al (2016) argued that this should motivate younger academics seeking promotion and tenure to share more of their data.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Data Sharing: Practices and Attitudes of Geophysicists

Tenopir¹,

Christian²,

Allard³

et al. 2018

Earth and Space Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open data policies have been introduced by governments, funders, and publishers over the past decade. Previous research showed a growing recognition by scientists of the benefits of data‐sharing and reuse, but actual practices lag and are not always compliant with new regulations. The goal of this study is to investigate motives, attitudes, and data practices of the community of Earth and planetary geophysicists, a discipline believed to have accepting attitudes toward data sharing and reuse. A better understanding of the attitudes and current data‐sharing practices of this scientific community could enable funders, publishers, data managers, and librarians to design systems and services that help scientists understand and adhere to mandates and to create practices, tools, and services that are scientist‐focused. An online survey was distributed to the members of the American Geophysical Union, producing 1,372 responses from 116 countries. The attitudes of researchers to data sharing and reuse were generally positive, but in practice, scientists had concerns about sharing their own research data. These concerns include the possibility of potential data misuse and the need for assurance of proper citation and acknowledgement. Training and assistance in good data management practices are lacking in many scientific fields and might help to alleviate these doubts.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Data Sharing: Practices and Attitudes of Geophysicists

Tenopir¹,

Christian²,

Allard³

et al. 2018

Earth and Space Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For others it is a political issue: withholding data generated with public funds is seen as undemocratic and it would be wrong to restrict access to a public good (Arzberger et al, 2004;Murray-Rust, 2008;Vision, 2010). A less altruistic argument is made that data sharing can increase a researcher's citation rate, whether by direct citations of the data or of the associated article (Brase, 2014;Pampel and Dallmeier-Tiessen, 2014;Piwowar and Vision, 2013).…”

Section: Why Share Data?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are also marked disciplinary differences in the level of sharing, partially caused by the diverse types of materials used in different disciplines and significantly, given the costs involved in preparing data for public release (Borgman, 2012), the availability of funding in different disciplinary areas. More generally, there are few direct incentives for individual researchers (Pampel and Dallmeier-Tiessen, 2014), especially when research funder requirements are not yet being strictly enforced (Jones, 2012), or they are early in their careers and trying to establish reputations (Hine, 2006). There are also concerns, for both researchers and HEIs, that the costs of RDM and data sharing are poorly understood and funders are offering only minimal financial support (Vision, 2010).…”

Section: Why Share Data?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research data management and openness

Higman

Pinfield

2015

Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between research data management (RDM) and data sharing in the formulation of RDM policies and development of practices in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Design/methodology/approach – Two strands of work were undertaken sequentially: first, content analysis of 37 RDM policies from UK HEIs; and second, two detailed case studies of institutions with different approaches to RDM based on semi-structured interviews with staff involved in the development of RDM policy and services. The data are interpreted using insights from Actor Network Theory. Findings – RDM policy formation and service development has created a complex set of networks within and beyond institutions involving different professional groups with widely varying priorities shaping activities. Data sharing is considered an important activity in the policies and services of HEIs studied, but its prominence can in most cases be attributed to the positions adopted by large research funders. Research limitations/implications – The case studies, as research based on qualitative data, cannot be assumed to be universally applicable but do illustrate a variety of issues and challenges experienced more generally, particularly in the UK. Practical implications – The research may help to inform development of policy and practice in RDM in HEIs and funder organisations. Originality/value – This paper makes an early contribution to the RDM literature on the specific topic of the relationship between RDM policy and services, and openness – a topic which to date has received limited attention.

show abstract

“…Suber, 2012;Joseph, 2013), data (e.g. Boulton, 2016;Pampel and Dallmeier-Tiessen, 2014), software (e.g. Eglen, et al 2016;Hey, 2015) and open participation in the scientific process (e.g.…”

Section: Growing Towards Gosh 2016mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gathering for Open Science Hardware 2016

Dosemagen¹,

Liboiron²,

Molloy

2017

Journal of Open Hardware

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Without hardware, there is no science. Instruments, reagents, computers, and other equipment are essential for producing systematic knowledge. Yet, current supply chains limit access and impede creativity and customization through high mark-ups and proprietary designs, compounded by proprietary hardware licenses and patents. Open Science Hardware (OSH) addresses part of this problem by sharing designs, instructions for building, and protocols. Expanding the reach of OSH within academic research, NGO initiatives, citizen science, and education has potential to increase access to experimental tools and facilitate their customization and reuse. We organized with others the "Gathering for Open Science Hardware" (GOSH) in 2016 to address what we see as the primary barrier to OSH: early adopters are disparate and separated by geographical and disciplinary borders which limit interaction, exchange and community building. This inaugural gathering brought together 50 of the most active developers, users, and thinkers in the OSH movement, complemented by expertise from diverse backgrounds, to seed a global community. This article provides a review of the activities and debates we conducted at GOSH 2016.

show abstract

Open Research Data: From Vision to Practice

Cited by 48 publications

References 24 publications

Research Data Sharing: Practices and Attitudes of Geophysicists

Research Data Sharing: Practices and Attitudes of Geophysicists

Research data management and openness

Gathering for Open Science Hardware 2016

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About