Reputation, trust, and norms as mechanisms leading to academic reciprocity in data sharing: An empirical test of theory of collective action

Abstract

This research investigated how scientists' academic reputation, community trust, and norms regarding data sharing all influence their academic reciprocity in data sharing, which eventually leads to the scientists' data sharing intentions. This research employed Ostrom's (2003) theory of collective action to better understand scientists' data sharing behaviors from the perspective of cooperation in a community. This research empirically evaluated the research model and related hypotheses by using the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) method on a total of 456 survey responses from biologists in the U.S. The results suggest that biologists' perceived academic reputation significantly increases their perceived community trust, norm of data sharing, and academic reciprocity. Along with perceived academic reputation, both perceived community trust and norms of data sharing also significantly increases biologists' academic reciprocity in data sharing. This research also found that biologists' academic reciprocity and norms of data sharing significantly affect their data sharing intentions. The results of this research show that the theory of collective action provides new insight to scientists' data sharing behaviors. These results suggest how we can facilitate scientists' data sharing behaviors within a research community by increasing academic reciprocity through the mechanisms of reputation, trust, and norm.

Factors Influencing Open Science Participation Through Research Data Sharing and Reuse Among Researchers: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Their study fields, affiliations, or countries often define these groups. For instance, numerous studies explore influences on researchers from fields like Materials Science and Engineering [18], [19], Biological Sciences [20]- [22], and others such as Health, Dentistry, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Psychology, and Agriculture. Another set of studies links to specific institutions or countries.…”

“…As researchers increasingly share their data, methodologies, and findings, maintaining trust within and outside the scientific community becomes paramount [50]. Trust in this context refers to reliance on the integrity, strength, and ability of data, methodologies, and research findings [22]. It's a fundamental cornerstone for the reproducibility and validation of scientific results.…”

Factors Influencing Open Science Participation Through Research Data Sharing and Reuse Among Researchers: a Systematic Literature Review

“…Their study fields, affiliations, or countries often define these groups. For instance, numerous studies explore influences on researchers from fields like Materials Science and Engineering (Mallasvik & Martins, 2021;Suhr et al, 2020), Biological Sciences (Ju & Kim, 2019;Y. Kim, 2018;Yoon & Kim, 2020), and others such as Health, Dentistry, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Psychology, and Agriculture.…”

“…Trust in this context refers to reliance on the integrity, strength, and ability of data, methodologies, and research findings (Y. Kim, 2018). It's a fundamental cornerstone for the reproducibility and validation of scientific results.…”

“…Researchers from areas like biology often share their data. The subject a researcher studies can tell a lot about how willing they are to share or use others' data (Ju & Kim, 2019;Y. Kim, 2018;Yoon & Kim, 2020).…”