The State of Open Data Report 2017

Hahnel, Mark; Treadway, Jon; Fane, Briony; Kiley, Robert; Peters, Dale; Baynes, Grace

doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.5481187.v1

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The metadata provided by some of the larger repositories such as ResearchGate is also often insufficient to identify the data source appropriately and is instead used by researchers as a way to advertise data published elsewhere (e.g., Dataverse or Zenodo). This corresponds with previous research on ASNS showing that the principal use is as a tool, not for sharing research, but for grading and monitoring researcher personas (Barbour & Marshall, 2012;Hahnel et al, 2017;Meishar-Tal & Pieterse, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…A large-scale international survey by Figshare stated that the reason for publishing research data is, foremost, the potential for increased impact and visibility of the research (24%); second, its public benefit (20%). Other motivations include: getting credit (9%), funder requirement (8%), publisher requirement (8%), and trust in the person requesting the data (7%) (Hahnel et al, 2017). Similarly, despite their framing as tools for networking and sharing, findings indicate that ASNS are used mostly for information consumption, and less so for sharing, and just occasionally for peer interaction (Meishar-Tal & Pieterse, 2017).…”

Section: Open Research Data Repositoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Open research data repositories: Practices, norms, and metadata for sharing images

Hansson

Dahlgren

2021

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open research data repositories are promoted as one of the cornerstones in the open research paradigm, promoting collaboration, interoperability, and largescale sharing and reuse. There is, however, a lack of research investigating what these sharing platforms actually share and a more critical interface analysis of the norms and practices embedded in this datafication of academic practice is needed. This article takes image data sharing in the humanities as a case study for investigating the possibilities and constraints in 5 open research data repositories. By analyzing the visual and textual content of the interface along with the technical means for metadata, the study shows how the platforms are differentiated in terms of signifiers of research paradigms, but that beneath the rhetoric of the interface, they are designed in a similar way, which does not correspond well with the image researchers' need for detailed metadata. Combined with the problem of copyright limitations, these data-sharing tools are simply not sophisticated enough when it comes to sharing and reusing images. The result also corresponds with previous research showing that these tools are used not so much for sharing research data, but more for promoting researcher personas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Open Research Data Repositoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%