SynthesisPloS one2020
What drives and inhibits researchers to share and use open research data? A systematic literature review to analyze factors influencing open research data adoption.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying the most important facilitators of open research data sharing and reuse in Epidemiology: A mixed-methods study.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Incentivising research data sharing: a scoping review.Wellcome open research · 2021Pooled it
- Identifying the motivators, benefits and barriers to sharing participant-level data and samples: results from an international online survey of acute febrile illness cohort teams.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Article
- Does interdisciplinary breadth shape research data sharing and citation impact? Evidence from six research fields.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Mapping Non-Monetary Values in Data Sharing: Development and Validation of an SSH Framework Across Sectors.Open research Europe · 2026Article
- Challenges and opportunities for AMR research in the ASEAN following the One Health approach.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- State-of-the-arts methods for studying factors driving the utilization of open science resources.MethodsX · 2025Review
- Emerging themes and future directions in space radiation health research: a bibliometric exploration from 2013 to 2022.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2025Article
- The quest to share data.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- Investigating the practices and preferences of health scholars in sharing open research data.PloS one · 2025Article
- Data as scientific currency: Challenges experienced by researchers with sharing health data in sub-Saharan Africa.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Best practices for data management and sharing in experimental biomedical research.Physiological reviews · 2024Review
- Defining a malaria diagnostic pathway from innovation to adoption: Stakeholder perspectives on data and evidence gaps.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Gaps between Open Science activities and actual recognition systems: Insights from an international survey.PloS one · 2024Article
- Standardizing the Head and Neck Cancer Treatment and Research.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2023Review
- Is open science a double-edged sword?: data sharing and the changing citation pattern of Chinese economics articles.Scientometrics · 2023Article
- Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines.PloS one · 2023Article
- Data for Psychological Research in the Educational Field: Spotlights, Data Infrastructures, and Findings from Research.Journal of open psychology data · 2023Article
- A proposed de-identification framework for a cohort of children presenting at a health facility in Uganda.PLOS digital health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both sharing and using open research data have the revolutionary potentials for forwarding scientific advancement. Although previous research gives insight into researchers' drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data, both these drivers and inhibitors have not yet been integrated via a thematic analysis and a theoretical argument is lacking. This study's purpose is to systematically review the literature on individual researchers' drivers and inhibitors for sharing and using open research data. This study systematically analyzed 32 open data studies (published between 2004 and 2019 inclusively) and elicited drivers plus inhibitors for both open research data sharing and use in eleven categories total that are: 'the researcher's background', 'requirements and formal obligations', 'personal drivers and intrinsic motivations', 'facilitating conditions', 'trust', 'expected performance', 'social influence and affiliation', 'effort', 'the researcher's experience and skills', 'legislation and regulation', and 'data characteristics.' This study extensively discusses these categories, along with argues how such categories and factors are connected using a thematic analysis. Also, this study discusses several opportunities for altogether applying, extending, using, and testing theories in open research data studies. With such discussions, an overview of identified categories and factors can be further applied to examine both researchers' drivers and inhibitors in different research disciplines, such as those with low rates of data sharing and use versus disciplines with high rates of data sharing plus use. What's more, this study serves as a first vital step towards developing effective incentives for both open data sharing and use behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.