Tracing data: A survey investigating disciplinary differences in data citation | Quantitative Science Studies | MIT Press

Abstract:  Data citations, or citations in reference lists to data, are increasingly seen as an important means to trace data reuse and incentivize data sharing. Although disciplinary differences in data citation practices have been well documented via scientometric approaches, we do not yet know how representative these practices are within disciplines. Nor do we yet have insight into researchers’ motivations for citing – or not citing – data in their academic work. Here, we present the results of the largest known survey (n = 2,492) to explicitly investigate data citation practices, preferences, and motivations, using a representative sample of academic authors by discipline, as represented in the Web of Science (WoS). We present findings about researchers’ current practices and motivations for reusing and citing data and also examine their preferences for how they would like their own data to be cited. We conclude by discussing disciplinary patterns in two broad clusters, focusing on patterns in the social sciences and humanities, and consider the implications of our results for tracing and rewarding data sharing and reuse.


Interview with Robert ‘Bob’ E. Goodin

“The Open Access beat-up has, inadvertently, been the death knell of quality academic publishing, driving a fatal wedge between the incentives of publishers and those of journal editors. There are various different models that publishers are employing to come to grips with the Open Access world, and each of those models has its own implications for what pressures publishers are incentivized to put on the editors of their journals.

Abstracting from particularities, one fact seems to dominate almost all of those approaches, directly or indirectly. That fact is just this. The profits of commercial publishers are increasingly a function of ridiculously large Open Access fees, whether paid by the author, the grant-giver or (nowadays most typically) the author’s home institution or national government through ‘Read and Publish Transformative Agreements’. The way to maximize those profits is to maximize the number of articles a journal publishes – and to do so without regard to quality. (As I have said, given bundling and consortia, no library can unsubscribe to an individual journal of diminishing quality anyway, so a journal’s quality is no longer a commercial concern to publishers seeking to maximize profits.)…”

A decade of surveys on attitudes to data sharing highlights three factors for achieving open science | Impact of Social Sciences

“Over a 10 year period Carol Tenopir of DataONE and her team conducted a global survey of scientists, managers and government workers involved in broad environmental science activities about their willingness to share data and their opinion of the resources available to do so (Tenopir et al., 2011, 2015, 2018, 2020). Comparing the responses over that time shows a general increase in the willingness to share data (and thus engage in Open Science)….

The most surprising result was that a higher willingness to share data corresponded with a decrease in satisfaction with data sharing resources across nations (e.g., skills, tools, training) (Fig.1). That is, researchers who did not want to share data were satisfied with the available resources, and those that did want to share data were dissatisfied. Researchers appear to only discover that the tools are insufficient when they begin the hard work of engaging in open science practices. This indicates that a cultural shift in the attitudes of researchers needs to precede the development of support and tools for data management….

Mandated requirements to share data really do work. However, this effect was shown in the surveys as government researchers were consistently far more willing to share data than those in academia or corporations, and this willingness to share increased substantially from 2011 to 2019….

Researchers working in academia were less willing to share than those in government, but did show significant increases in willingness to share from 2011 to 2015. Researchers in the commercial sector were, unsurprisingly, the least willing to share their data….

government involvement and funding play an important role in improving the attitudes researchers have towards open science practices. The organisational influence of government funding and mandates shifts individual incentives. Researchers then realize that they lack the knowledge, tools, and training they need to properly share data, which can push the social change needed to drastically change the way that science is done for the better.”

Will Building LLMs Become the New Revenue Driver for Academic Publishing? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Are scholarly publishers primed to become the critical content suppliers for the big Generative AI companies such as OpenAI, AI21 Labs, NIVIDIA, and Anthropic? …

In a world where peer-reviewed content holds value for Generative AI companies, the question arises whether content that is locked behind a paywall has greater value than OA content….

“Some publishers may be less willing to accelerate the transition to full open access if they consider licensing content to generative AI companies to be a more lucrative or secure revenue opportunity”, notes James Butcher, author of the Journalology newsletter….

If our curated content is as valuable as I believe it can be when properly leveraged, might we even see GenAI companies looking at scholarly publishers as potential targets of acquisition?”

Readout of OSTP Open Science Listening Sessions with Early Career Researchers | OSTP | The White House

“Throughout the sessions, participants made clear that early career researchers have long been at the forefront of the open science movement, so the future of open science must center their voices and recognize their leadership. Additional key messages included:

Equity must be embedded in open science policies and programs to promote a more inclusive and collaborative scientific ecosystem. Doing so requires recognizing and addressing uneven access to open science infrastructures, expertise, training, and funding to meet the diverse needs of researchers, institutions, and communities to enjoy the benefits of open science.
Dedicated funding and resources are needed to support both formal and informal training opportunities for early career researchers, who tend to be self-taught and are often not afforded dedicated time to learn open science practices. These include openly available training modules on topics like effective data management practices, ethical frameworks for data sharing, and tools to enhance reproducibility, as well as communities of practice, such as workshops and journal clubs.
Rewarding sharing of research outputs beyond publications, such as scientific data and software, in research and performance assessments can elevate their importance in scholarly communication and incentivize the time needed for effective curation and sharing practices. Speakers noted this can help ease the pressure to “publish or perish” within current incentive structures, which emphasize the volume of peer-reviewed publications that researchers must author, as well as enhancing research quality, reproducibility, and rigor.
Investing in centralized open science infrastructure and resources, as well as networks for knowledge sharing, can enable more equitable access to opportunities for technical assistance and skill development given these resources are not evenly distributed across research institutions, particularly lower-resourced or less research-intensive institutions.
Open science enables new pathways for how scientific information is communicated to various audiences. Some speakers advocated for increased sharing of preliminary research findings through preprints and resulting opportunities for open peer review. Others spoke to science communication and public engagement efforts to share research findings and connect with community advocates, science enthusiasts, and other members of the broader public.
Expanding equitable access to the products and processes of research can provide pathways to co-create research questions and solutions with communities and to develop hands-on educational opportunities by reusing openly available data and software.”

Moving away from APCs: a multi-stakeholder working group convened by cOAlition S, Jisc and PLOS | Plan S

“cOAlition S, in partnership with Jisc and PLOS, are seeking to establish a multi-stakeholder working group to identify business models and arrangements that enable equitable participation in knowledge-sharing. The aims of this working group and the eligibility criteria that interested parties must meet in order to apply are outlined below.

We anticipate that the group will consist of a maximum of twelve individuals and will represent the three key stakeholders – funders, institutions/library consortia and publishers – in roughly equal proportions.

Once established, the working group is expected to convene up to six times. The key outcome from this collaborative effort will be the development of a model (or multiple models) that, if implemented, would enable equitable participation in knowledge sharing.

Interested parties should apply using the form available at….”

Perceived benefits of open data are improving but scientists still lack resources, skills, and rewards | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications

Abstract:  Addressing global scientific challenges requires the widespread sharing of consistent and trustworthy research data. Identifying the factors that influence widespread data sharing will help us understand the limitations and potential leverage points. We used two well-known theoretical frameworks, the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Technology Acceptance Model, to analyze three DataONE surveys published in 2011, 2015, and 2020. These surveys aimed to identify individual, social, and organizational influences on data-sharing behavior. In this paper, we report on the application of multiple factor analysis (MFA) on this combined, longitudinal, survey data to determine how these attitudes may have changed over time. The first two dimensions of the MFA were named willingness to share and satisfaction with resources based on the contributing questions and answers. Our results indicated that both dimensions are strongly influenced by individual factors such as perceived benefit, risk, and effort. Satisfaction with resources was significantly influenced by social and organizational factors such as the availability of training and data repositories. Researchers that improved in willingness to share are shown to be operating in domains with a high reliance on shared resources, are reliant on funding from national or federal sources, work in sectors where internal practices are mandated, and live in regions with highly effective communication networks. Significantly, satisfaction with resources was inversely correlated with willingness to share across all regions. We posit that this relationship results from researchers learning what resources they actually need only after engaging with the tools and procedures extensively.


Promoting Equitable and Inclusive Implementation of Open Scholarship Policies A Workshop | National Academies

“The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Roundtable on Aligning Incentives for Open Scholarship will convene a virtual public workshop, Promoting Equitable and Inclusive Implementation of Open Scholarship Policies on Monday, June 26, 2023, 11:00 am – 2:30 pm EDT in conjunction with its Spring 2023 meeting. Please register in advance to receive information on how to attend the workshop. 

The workshop will explore the implications of new policies and practices intended to advance open scholarship, particularly the August 2022 memorandum of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research. The discussion will feature perspectives from a diverse range of speakers directly impacted by these developments, including early career researchers, representatives from minority-serving institutions, center directors, and not-for-profit publishers. A Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief will be prepared and distributed broadly.”

Predicting psychologists’ approach to academic reciprocity and data sharing with a theory of collective action | Emerald Insight

“This study found that data sharing among psychologists is driven primarily by their perceptions of community benefits, academic reciprocity and the norms of data sharing. This study also found that academic reciprocity is significantly influenced by psychologists’ perceptions of community benefits, academic reputation and the norms of data sharing. Both academic reputation and academic reciprocity are affected by psychologists’ prior experiences with data reuse. Additionally, psychologists’ perceptions of community benefits and the norms of data sharing are significantly affected by the perception of their academic reputation.”

G7 Science and Technology Ministers’ Communique

“We share a growing concern that some actors may attempt to unfairly exploit or distort the open research environment and misappropriate research results for economic, strategic, geopolitical, or military purposes. This undermines the principles and values that underpin open, transparent, reciprocal, and accountable international research cooperation and the integrity of research and may pose security risks….

The G7 will collaborate in expanding open science with equitable dissemination of scientific knowledge and publicly funded research outputs including research data and scholarly publications in line with the Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) principles. This is so that researchers and people throughout the world can benefit from them as well as contribute to the creation of new knowledge, stimulation of innovation, democratization of access to knowledge by society and the development of solutions for global challenges. This will also help to build more reproducible and trusted research results.

We recognize openness, freedom, and inclusiveness should be enhanced globally for the sound development of scientific research. When making decisions about openness, the respect for universal human rights and the protection of national security are essential, and principles and rules related to academic freedom, research integrity, privacy, and protection of intellectual property rights should be applied and upheld.

We acknowledge that open science platforms can allow the rapid sharing of pathogen samples and pathogen genetic sequence data on a global scale. They should also enable early development and more rapid, effective, and equitable access to MCMs for the prevention and control of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. Robust multilateral data sharing is needed to ensure continued societal resilience to the global issues of today and the future….

The G7 also supports immediate open and public access to government-funded scholarly publications and scientific data, and supports the endeavors of the scientific community to address challenges in scholarly publishing for broader sharing of appropriate scientific outputs. To this end, we support the efforts of the G7 Open Science Working Group in promoting the interoperability and sustainability of infrastructure for research outputs, supporting research assessment approaches that incentivize and reward open science practices, and encouraging “research on research”, aimed at helping to shape a more effective evidence-based research policy…. ”

Incentivizing Collaborative and Open Research (ICOR) Public Meeting

“Incentivizing Collaborative and Open Research (ICOR) is building a collaborative research culture by strategizing, connecting and implementing projects that seek to change the status quo of competition throughout the research cycle. We have identified and begun to implement practical, real-life solutions involving tools and processes, aiming to gather evidence that sharing early research results will result in faster, more reproducible outcomes. ICOR is building a body of evidence and library of best practices and case studies on the impact of projects that facilitate collaborative open research. We have begun to register projects with similar aims as described here with the goal of presenting to funders and research groups a unified approach to problem solving.

At our inaugural webinar, we will present some of the representative projects and resources that have been curated to promote standardized best practices. More info: Agenda: ”

English – Knowledge Equity Network

“For Higher Education Institutions

Publish a Knowledge Equity Statement for your institution by 2025, incorporating tangible commitments aligned with the principles and objectives below.
Commit to institutional action(s) to support a sustained increase of published educational material being open and freely accessible for all to use and reuse for teaching, learning, and research.
Commit to institutional action(s) to support a sustained increase of new research outputs being transparent, open and freely accessible for all, and which meet the expectations of funders.
Use openness as an explicit criteria in reaching hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions. Reward and recognise open practices across both research and research-led education. This should include the importance of interdisciplinary and/or collaborative activities, and the contribution of all individuals to activities.
Define Equity, Diversity and Inclusion targets that will contribute towards open and inclusive Higher Education practices, and report annually on progress against these targets.
To create new mechanisms in and between Higher Education Institutions that allow for further widening participation and increased diversity of staff and student populations.
Review the support infrastructure for open Higher Education, and invest in the human, technical, and digital infrastructure that is needed to make open Higher Education a success.
Promote the use of open interoperability principles for any research or education software/system that you procure or develop, explicitly highlighting the option of making all or parts of content open for public consumption.
Ensure that all research data conforms to the FAIR Data Principles: ‘findable’, accessible, interoperable, and re-useable.

For Funding Agencies

Publish a statement that open dissemination of research findings is a critical component in evaluating the productivity and integrity of research.
Incorporate open research practices into assessment of funding proposals.
Incentivise the adoption of Open Research through policies, frameworks and mandates that require open access for publications, data, and other outputs, with as liberal a licence as possible for maximum reuse.
Actively manage funding schemes to support open infrastructures and open dissemination of research findings, educational resources, and underpinning data.
Explicitly define reward and recognition mechanisms for globally co-produced and co-delivered open educational resources that benefit society….”


Spotlight Series Recap: Incentivizing Open in Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure, and Hiring — Higher Education Leadership Initiative for Open Scholarship

“On March 22, 2023 the Higher Education Leadership Initiative for Open Scholarship (HELIOS) convened academic leaders to discuss incentivizing open scholarship practices in hiring, reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT)….

McKiernan framed the day’s conversation: “when we are talking about incentives within promotion, tenure, and hiring, what we’re really talking about is what universities value, what they recognize, and whether they are the same things.” In McKiernan’s research, she and her co-authors have discovered that what gets rewarded in these policies is not what universities always state they value. University mission statements often talk about the importance of community and public engagement for the betterment of society. Open scholarship practices like making our work openly available by sharing data, code, notebooks, and all kinds of outputs allow individuals to engage with the work, collaborate, and build on the work. There are many public aspects of what faculty do in their day-to-day work, including openly disseminating scholarly outputs, but tenure and promotion guidelines at many universities do not adequately reward public engagement and outreach that open scholarship practices enable….”

Open everything, everywhere, all at once

“This is the first in a series of blog posts exploring the evolving Open landscape, library roles and OCLC’s place within it. This post provides a general overview of Open, sign-posting important categories as they relate to libraries and exploring motivations that draw libraries – and other stakeholders – into this ecosystem. Subsequent posts will describe OCLC’s engagement in the Open landscape and examine our distinctive position as a member-driven infrastructure partner.”