Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32609767›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

When are researchers willing to share their data? - Impacts of values and uncertainty on open data in academia.

Stefan Stieglitz, Konstantin Wilms, Milad Mirbabaie, Lennart Hofeditz, Bela Brenger, Ania López, Stephanie Rehwald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Perspectives on scientific error.Royal Society open science · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Data rescue: saving environmental data from extinction.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Stefan StieglitzUniversity of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4366-1840
Konstantin WilmsUniversity of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Milad MirbabaieUniversity of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9455-5773
Lennart HofeditzUniversity of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Bela BrengerRWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Ania LópezUniversity of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Stephanie RehwaldUniversity of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5884-4471

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundE-science technologies have significantly increased the availability of data. Research grant providers such as the European Union increasingly require open access publishing of research results and data. However, despite its significance to research, the adoption rate of open data technology remains low across all disciplines, especially in Europe where research has primarily focused on technical solutions (such as Zenodo or the Open Science Framework) or considered only parts of the issue. METHODS AND

findingsIn this study, we emphasized the non-technical factors perceived value and uncertainty factors in the context of academia, which impact researchers' acceptance of open data-the idea that researchers should not only publish their findings in the form of articles or reports, but also share the corresponding raw data sets. We present the results of a broad quantitative analysis including N = 995 researchers from 13 large to medium-sized universities in Germany. In order to test 11 hypotheses regarding researchers' intentions to share their data, as well as detect any hierarchical or disciplinary differences, we employed a structured equation model (SEM) following the partial least squares (PLS) modeling approach.

conclusionsGrounded in the value-based theory, this article proclaims that most individuals in academia embrace open data when the perceived advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Furthermore, uncertainty factors impact the perceived value (consisting of the perceived advantages and disadvantages) of sharing research data. We found that researchers' assumptions about effort required during the data preparation process were diminished by awareness of e-science technologies (such as Zenodo or the Open Science Framework), which also increased their tendency to perceive personal benefits via data exchange. Uncertainty factors seem to influence the intention to share data. Effects differ between disciplines and hierarchical levels.

Indexed as

AdultBiomedical ResearchFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationMaleMiddle AgedOrganizationsPublishingResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesTechnology

Identifiers

PMID32609767
PMCPMC7329060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.