Do researchers use open research data? Exploring the relationships between usage trends and metadata quality across scientific disciplines from the Figshare case
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2022
Do researchers use open research data? Exploring the relationships between usage trends and metadata quality across scientific disciplines from the Figshare case
Open research data (ORD) have been considered a driver of scientific transparency. However, data friction, as the phenomenon of data underutilisation for several causes, has also been pointed out. A factor often called into question for ORD low usage is the quality of the ORD and associated metadata. This work aims to illustrate the use of ORD, published by the Figshare scientific repository, concerning their scientific discipline, their type and compared with the quality of their metadata. Considering all the Figshare resources and carrying out a programmatic quality assessment of their metadata, our analysis highlighted two aspects. First, irrespective of the scientific domain considered, most ORD are under-used, but with exceptional cases which concentrate most researchers’ attention. Second, there was no evidence that the use of ORD is associated with good metadata publishing practices. These two findings opened to a reflection about the potential causes of such data friction.
FecherBFriesikeS.Open science: one term, five schools of thought. In:BartlingSFriesikeS (eds) Opening science. Cham: Springer, 2014, pp. 17–47.
3.
VeletsianosGKimmonsR.Scholars in an increasingly open and digital world: how do education professors and students use Twitter?Inter High Educ2016; 30: 1–10.
4.
GregoryKMCousijnHGrothPet al. Understanding data search as a socio-technical practice. J Inform Sci2020; 46(4): 459–475.
5.
MolloyJC.The open knowledge foundation: open data means better science. PLoS Biol2011; 9(12): e1001195.
6.
LyonL.Transparency: the emerging third dimension of open science and open data. Liber Quart2016; 25: 153–171.
7.
BorgmanCL.Big data, little data, no data: scholarship in the networked world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015.
8.
LourençoRP.An analysis of open government portals: a perspective of transparency for accountability. Govern Inform Quart2015; 32(3): 323–332.
9.
PalmiraniMMartoniMGirardiD.Open government data beyond transparency. In: KöAFrancesconiE (eds) Electronic government and the information systems perspective. Cham: Springer, pp. 275–291.
10.
MàchovàRLnenickaM.Evaluating the quality of open data portals on the national level. J Theor Appl Electr Comm Res2017; 12: 21–41.
11.
WilkinsonMDDumontierMAalbersbergIJet al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data2016; 3: 160018.
12.
JanssenMCharalabidisYZuiderwijkA.Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inform Syst Manage2012; 29(4): 258–268.
ZuiderwijkAJanssenMSushaI.Improving the speed and ease of open data use through metadata, interaction mechanisms, and quality indicators. J Org Comput Electr Comm2016; 26(1–2): 116–146.
15.
ReicheKHofigE.Implementation of metadata quality metrics and application on public government data. In: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 37th annual computer software and applications conference workshops, Japan, 22–26 July 2013, pp. 236–241. New York: IEEE.
16.
NeumaierSUmbrichJPolleresA.Automated quality assessment of metadata across open data portals. J Data Inform Qual2016; 8(1): 21–229.
17.
BatesJ.The politics of data friction. J Documen2017; 74: 412–419.
18.
SadiqSIndulskaM.Open data: quality over quantity. Int J Inform Manage2017; 37(3): 150–154.
19.
VeletsianosG.A case study of scholars’ open and sharing practices. Open Prax2015; 7(3): 199–209.
QuaratiADe MartinoM.Open government data usage: a brief overview. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international database applications & engineering symposium (IDEAS 2019), Athens, 10–12 June 2019, pp. 28. New York: ACM.
23.
RaffaghelliJEMancaS.Is there a social life in open data? The case of open data practices in educational technology research. Publ2019; 7(1): 9.
MinnitiSSantoroVBelliS.Mapping the development of open access in Latin America and Caribbean countries: an analysis of Web of Science core collection and SciELO citation index (2005–2017). Scientometr2018; 117(3): 1905–1930.
GursteinMB.Open data: empowering the empowered or effective data use for everyone?First Mond2011; 16(2): 1–8.
36.
ZuiderwijkAJanssenMDwivediYK.Acceptance and use predictors of open data technologies: drawing upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Govern Inform Quart2015; 32(4): 429–440.
37.
SchneiderR.Research data literacy. In: KurbanoğluSGrassianEMizrachiDet al. (eds) Communications in computer and information science, vol. 397. Cham: Springer, 2013, pp. 134–140.
38.
PouchardLBrackeMS.An analysis of selected data practices: a case study of the Purdue College of Agriculture. Issues Sci Tech Libr2016; 2016: 85.
39.
WiorogórskaZLeśniewskiJRozkoszE.Data literacy and research data management in two top universities in Poland: raising awareness. In: KurbanoğluSBoustanyJŠpiranecSet al. (eds) Communications in computer and information science, vol. 810. Cham: Springer, 2017, pp. 205–214.
40.
VilarPZabukovecV.Research data management and research data literacy in Slovenian science. J Documen2019; 75(1): 24–43.
41.
CarlsonJFosmireMMillerCet al. Determining data information literacy needs: a study of students and research faculty. Portal: Libr Acad2011; 11(2): 629–657.
42.
TealTKCranstonHKaren Aand Lapp WhiteEet al. Data carpentry: workshops to increase data literacy for researchers. Int J Digit Curat2015; 10(1): 135–143.
AmorimRCCastroJARochaDaSilvaJRet al. A comparison of research data management platforms: architecture, flexible metadata and interoperability. Univ Access Inf Soc2017; 16(4): 851–862.
49.
OuzzaniMPapottiPRahmE.Introduction to the special issue on data quality. Inform Syst2013; 38(6): 885–886.
50.
BatiniCScannapiecoM.Data and information quality: dimensions, principles and techniques (data-centric systems and applications). Cham: Springer, 2016.
51.
WangRYStrongDM.Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J Manage Inform Syst1996; 12(4): 5–33.
52.
BizerCCyganiakR.Quality-driven information filtering using the wiqa policy framework. Web Semant2009; 7(1): 1–10.
53.
BatiniCCappielloCFrancalanciCet al. Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement. ACM Comput Surv2009; 41(3): 16.
54.
KimKSSinSCJ. Selecting quality sources: bridging the gap between the perception and use of information sources. J Inform Sci2011; 37(2): 178–188.
55.
QuaratiAAlbertoniRDe MartinoM.Overall quality assessment of SKOS thesauri: an AHP-based approach. J Inform Sci2017; 43(6): 816–834.
56.
ZaveriARulaAMaurinoAet al. Quality assessment for linked data: a survey. Seman Web2016; 7(1): 63–93.
57.
OliveiraMISde OliveiraHROliveiraLAet al. Open government data portals analysis: the Brazilian case. In: Proceedings of the 17th international digital government research conference on digital government research, Shanghai, China, 8–10 June 2016, pp. 415–424. New York: ACM.
58.
VetróACanovaLTorchianoMet al. Open data quality measurement framework: definition and application to open government data. Govern Inform Quart2016; 33(2): 325–337.
59.
ZhuXFreemanMA.An evaluation of U.S. Municipal open data portals: a user interaction framework. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2019; 70(1): 27–37.
60.
WilkinsonMDSansoneSASchultesEet al. A design framework and exemplar metrics for fairness. Sci Data2018; 5: 180118.
BoudreauC.Reuse of open data in Quebec: from economic development to government transparency. Int Rev Admin Sci. Epub ahead of print 16January2020. DOI: 10.1177/0020852319884628.
63.
LeydesdorffLMilojevićS.Scientometrics. In:WrightJ (ed.) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. 2nd ed.Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2012, pp. 322–327.
64.
NgaiEWTaoSSMoonKK.Social media research: theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks. Int J Inform Manage2015; 35(1): 33–44.
65.
KonkielSSchererD.New opportunities for repositories in the age of altmetrics. Bull Assoc Inf Sci Technol2013; 39(4): 22–26.
66.
SafarovIMeijerAJGrimmelikhuijsenS.Utilization of open government data: a systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Inform Pol2017; 22: 1–24.
67.
KhalilzadehJTasciAD.Large sample size, significance level, and the effect size: solutions to perils of using big data for academic research. Tour Manage2017; 62: 89–96.
68.
ZhangLWatsonE.The prevalence of green and grey open access: where do physical science researchers archive their publications?Scientometr2018; 117: 2021–2035.
69.
LeeJOhSDongHet al. Motivations for self-archiving on an academic social networking site: a study on ResearchGate. J Assoc Inform Sci Tech2019; 70(6): 563–574.
MertonRK.The normative structure of science. In:MertonRK (ed.) The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 267–278.
72.
LaveJWengerE.Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, learning in doing, vol. 95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
73.
HarveyLGreenD.Defining quality. Assess Eval High Educ1993; 18(1): 9–34.
