Institutional environments, comprising regulative pressures by funding agencies and journal publishers, and institutional resources, including the availabilities of data repositories and standards for metadata, function as important determinants in scientists’ data-sharing norms, attitudes and behaviours. This research investigates how these functions influence biological scientists’ data-sharing norms and how the data-sharing norms influence their data-sharing behaviours mediated by attitudes towards data sharing. The research model was developed based on the integration of institutional theory and theory of planned behaviour. The proposed research model was validated based on a total of 608 responses from a national survey conducted in the USA. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) was employed to analyse the survey data. Results show how institutional pressures by funding agencies and journals and the availabilities of data repository and metadata standards all have significant influences on data-sharing norms, which have significant influences on data-sharing behaviours, as mediated by attitudes towards data sharing.
Van HornJDIshaiA. Mapping the human brain: New insights from FMRI data sharing. Neuroinformatics2007; 5(3): 146–153.
2.
ReichmanOJonesMBSchildhauerMP.Challenges and opportunities of open data in ecology. Science2011; 331(6018): 703–705.
3.
VickersAJ.Whose data set is it anyway? Sharing raw data from randomized trials. Trials2006; 7: 15.
4.
AndersonBJMerryAF.Data sharing for pharmacokinetic studies. Pediatric Anesthesia2009; 19(10): 1005–1010.
5.
PolineJ-BBreezeJLGhoshSGorgolewskiKHalchenkoYOHankeM. Data sharing in neuroimaging research. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics2012; 6: 9.
6.
ChoudhurySFishmanJRMcGowanMLJuengstET.Big data, open science and the brain: Lessons learned from genomics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience2014; 8: 239.
7.
VickersAJ.Making raw data more widely available. BMJ2011; 342.
8.
KolkerEStewartE.OMICS studies: How about metadata checklist and data publications?Journal of Proteome Research2014; 13(3): 1783–1784.
9.
PapadopoulosD.From publics to practitioners: Invention power and open technoscience. Science as Culture2014; 24(1): 108–121.
10.
Data Documentation Initiative. Welcome to the data documentation initiative2009, http://www.ddialliance.org/ (accessed 1 March 2015).
BorregoÁGarciaF (eds). Provision of supplementary materials in library and information science scholarly journals. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 2013; 65(5): 503–514.
16.
MaunsellJ.Announcement regarding supplementary material. The Journal of Neuroscience2010; 30(32): 10599–10600.
17.
BlumenthalDCampbellEGAndersonMSCausinoNLouisKS.Withholding research results in academic life science – Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association1997; 277(15): 1224–1228.
18.
BlumenthalDCampbellEGGokhaleMYucelRClarridgeBHilgartnerS. Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: Prevalences and predictors. Academic Medicine2006; 81(2): 137–145.
19.
LouisKSJonesLMCampbellEG.Sharing in science. American Scientist2002; 90(4): 304–307.
20.
CampbellEGClarridgeBRGokhaleNNBirenbaumLHilgartnerSHoltzmanNA. Data withholding in academic genetics – Evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association2002; 287(4): 473–480.
21.
BorgmanCL.Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2007.
22.
CraginMHPalmerCLCarlsonJRWittM.Data sharing, small science and institutional repositories. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences2010; 368(1926): 4023–4038.
23.
PryorG.Multi-scale data sharing in the life sciences: Some lessons for policy makers. International Journal of Digital Curation2009; 4(3): 17–82.
24.
TenopirCAllardSDouglassKAydinogluAUWuLReadE. Data sharing by scientists: Practices and perceptions. Plos One2011; 6(6).
25.
PiwowarHA.Foundational studies for measuring the impact, prevalence, and patterns of publicly sharing biomedical research data. University of Pittsburgh, 2010.
26.
CampbellEGWeissmanJSCausinoNBlumenthalD.Data withholding in academic medicine: Characteristics of faculty denied access to research results and biomaterials. Research Policy2000; 29(2): 303–312.
27.
PiwowarHAChapmanWW.Public sharing of research datasets: A pilot study of associations. Journal of Informetrics2010; 4(2): 148–156.
28.
PiwowarHA.Who shares? Who doesn’t? Factors associated with openly archiving raw research data. Plos One2011; 6(7): e18657.
29.
VogeliCYucelRBendavidEJonesLMAndersonMSLouisKS. Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: Results of a national survey. Academic Medicine2006; 81(2): 128–136.
30.
BietzMJBaumerEPSLeeCP.Synergizing in cyberinfrastructure development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: CSCW: An International Journal2010; 19(3–4): 245–281.
31.
FieldDGarrityGGrayTMorrisonNSelengutJSterkP. The minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification. Nature Biotechnology2008; 26(5): 541–547.
32.
HeyTTrefethenAE.UK e-Science Programme: Next generation grid applications. International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications2004; 18(3): 285–291.
33.
KarastiHBakerKSMillerandF.Infrastructure time: Long-term matters in collaborative development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work – the Journal of Collaborative Computing2010; 19(3–4): 377–415.
34.
DiazLGranellCGouldMHuertaJ.Managing user-generated information in geospatial cyberinfrastructures. Future Generation Computer Systems – the International Journal of Grid Computing – Theory Methods and Applications2011; 27(3): 304–314.
35.
KarastiHBakerKS.Digital data practices and the long term ecological research program growing global. International Journal of Digital Curation2008; 2(3): 42–58.
36.
MillerandFBakerKS.Who are the users? Who are the developers? Webs of users and developers in the development process of a technical standard. Information Systems Journal2010; 20(2): 137–161.
37.
RibesDLeeCP.Sociotechnical studies of cyberinfrastructure and e-research: Current themes and future trajectories. Computer Supported Cooperative Work-the Journal of Collaborative Computing2010; 19(3–4): 231–244.
38.
PatonNW.Managing and sharing experimental data: Standards, tools and pitfalls. Biochemical Society Transactions2008; 36: 33–36.
39.
CampbellEGBendavidE.Data-sharing and data-withholding in genetics and the life sciences: Results of a national survey of technology transfer officers. Journal of Health Care Law and Policy2003; 6(2): 241–255.
40.
ScottWR.Institutions and organizations, 2nd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
41.
AjzenI.The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Process1991; 52(2): 179–211.
42.
PowellWW.Expanding the scope of institutional analysis, DiMaggioPJPowellWW (eds). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991.
43.
ThorntonPHOcasioW.Institutional logics. In: GreenwoodROliverCSuddabyRSahlin-AnderssonK (eds) The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008, pp. 99–129.
44.
LawrenceTSuddabyRLecaB.Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry2011; 20(1): 52–58.
45.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW.The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review1983; 48(2): 147–160.
46.
KuhnTS.The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edn.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
47.
ScottWR.Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2007.
PiwowarHABecichMJBilofskyHCrowleyRS.Towards a data sharing culture: Recommendations for leadership from academic health centers. Plos Medicine2008; 5(9): 1315–1319.
52.
BrownC.The changing face of scientific discourse: Analysis of genomic and proteomic database usage and acceptance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology2003; 54(10): 926–938.
53.
PiwowarHAChapmanWW. A review of journal policies for sharing research data. In: International Conference on Electronic Publishing, 2008.
54.
HsuM-HChiuC-M.Predicting electronic service continuance with a decomposed theory of planned behaviour. Behaviour & Information Technology2004; 23(5): 359–373.
55.
Fennema-NotestineC.Enabling public data sharing: Encouraging scientific discovery and education. Methods in Molecular Biology2009; 569: 25–32.
56.
ZimmermanA.Not by metadata alone: The use of diverse forms of knowledge to locate data for reuse. International Journal on Digital Libraries2007; 7(1–2): 5–16.
57.
SaltzJOsterSHastingsSLangellaSKurcTSanchezW. caGrid: Design and implementation of the core architecture of the cancer biomedical informatics grid. Bioinformatics2006; 22(15): 1910–1916.
58.
HorsburghJSTarbotonDGMaidmentDRZaslavskyI.Components of an environmental observatory information system. Computers & Geosciences2011; 37(2): 207–218.
59.
BowkerGStarSL.Sorting things out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
60.
HeinrichCJFournierE.Dimensions of publicness and performance in substance abuse treatment organizations. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management2004; 23(1): 49–70.
61.
DeephouseDL.Does isomorphism legitimate?Academy of Management Journal1996; 39(4): 1024–1039.
62.
RyuSHoSHHanI.Knowledge sharing behaviour of physicians in hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications2003; 25(1): 113–122.
63.
BockG-WKimY-G.Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal2002; 15(2): 14–21.
64.
Burton-JonesAStraubDW.Reconceptualizing system usage: An approach and empirical test. Information Systems Research2006; 17(3): 228–246.
65.
LimayemMHirtSGCheungCMK. How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly2007; 31(4): 705–737.
66.
BajajANidumoluSR.A feedback model to understand information system usage. Information & Management1998; 33(4): 213–224.
67.
YangH-dYooY.It’s all about attitude: Revisiting the technology acceptance model. Decision Support Systems2004; 38(1): 19–31.
68.
KimYAdlerM.Social scientists’ data sharing behaviours: Investigating the roles of individual motivations, institutional pressures, and data repositories. International Journal of Information Management2015; 35(4): 408–418.
69.
KimYKimS.Institutional, motivational, and resource factors influencing health scientists’ data-sharing behaviours. Journal of Scholarly Publishing2015; 46(4): 366–389.
70.
PunchKF.Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005.
71.
FornellCLarckerDF.Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research1981; 18(3): 382–388.
72.
KimYStantonJM. Institutional and individual factors affecting scientists’ data-sharing behaviours: A multilevel analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology2015: 1–24.
73.
ChinWW.The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research1998; 295(2): 295–336.
FieldA.Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009.
79.
KostovaTRothK.Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal2002; 45(1): 215–233.
80.
TeoHHWeiKKBenbasatI.Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly2003; 27(1): 19–49.
81.
ThompsonRLHigginsCAHowellJM.Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems1991; 15(1): 125–142.
82.
TaylorSToddPA.Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research1995; 6(2): 144–176.
83.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGBDavisFD.User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly2003; 27(3): 425–478.
84.
SonJYBenbasatI.Organizational Buyers’ adoption and use of B2B electronic marketplaces: Efficiency- and legitimacy-oriented perspectives. Journal of Management Information Systems2007; 24(1): 55–99.
85.
AjzenIFishbeinM.The influence of attitudes on behaviour. In: AlbarracinDJohnsonBTZannaMP (eds) Handbook of attitudes and attitude change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005, pp. 173–221.
