This study assesses the research data management (RDM) awareness, attitude, practices, and behaviors of Pakistan's academic researchers. By using an internationally designed structured questionnaire as a data collection instrument. Quantitative survey research method was opted to meet the research objectives and data was collected from academicians and researchers of four premier universities of Pakistan. The study reveals used and produced data file formats, data acquisition sources, data storage patterns, metadata and tagging practices, data sharing patterns, RDM awareness, attitude, and behavior of the respondents by investigating the self-opinion of respondents on extensive sets of structured questionnaire items. It is a comprehensive assessment of the phenomenon from a developing country's perspective where research data management policies are absent at national and institutional level. The findings have theoretical implications for researchers and practical implications for policymakers, university administrators, university library administrators, and educational trainers.
AkersKGDotyJ (2013) Disciplinary differences in faculty research data management practices and perspectives. International Journal of Digital Curation8(2): 5–26.
2.
AydinogluAUDoganGTaskinZ (2017) Research data management in Turkey: Perceptions and practices. Library Hi Tech35(2): 271–289.
3.
BardynTPResnickTCaminaSK (2012) Translational researchers’ perceptions of data management practices and data curation needs: Findings from a focus group in an academic health sciences library. Journal of Web Librarianship6(4): 274–287.
4.
BerghmansSCousijnHDeakinG, et al. (2017) Open data: the researcher perspective. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17632/bwrnfb4bvh.1 (accessed 18 October 2020).
5.
Berlin Declaration (2003) Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Available at: https://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration (accessed 15 June 2020).
6.
BurnetteMHWilliamsSCImkerHJ (2016) From plan to action: Successful data management plan implementation in a multidisciplinary project. Journal of EScience Librarianship5(1): 6.
7.
CheahPYTangseefaDSomsamanA, et al. (2015) Perceived benefits, harms, and views about how to share data responsibly: A qualitative study of experiences with and attitudes toward data sharing among research staff and community representatives in Thailand. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics10(3): 278–289.
8.
ChenXWuM (2017) Survey on the needs for chemistry research data management and sharing. Journal of Academic Librarianship43(4): 346–353.
9.
Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI) (n.d.) The CASRAI dictionary. Available at: https://casrai.org/rdm-glossary/ (accessed 16 June 2020).
10.
Data Repositories (2018) Available at: http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Data_repositories (accessed 15 June 2020).
11.
DonnellyM (2017) An analysis of national open data and open science policies in Europe: process and findings. Report, Digital Curation Centre/SPARC-Europe. Available at: https://sparceurope.org/new-sparc-europe-report-analyses-open-data-open-science-policies-europe/.
12.
FecherBFriesikeSHebingM, et al. (2015) A reputation economy: Results from an empirical survey on academic data sharing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.00481.
13.
FedererLMLuYLJoubertDJ (2016) Data literacy training needs of biomedical researchers. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA104(1): 52–57.
14.
Government of Canada (2016) Tri-agency statement of principles on digital data management. Available at: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/063.nsf/eng/h_83F7624E.html (accessed 15 June 2020).
15.
HoutkoopBLChambersCMacleodM, et al. (2018) Data sharing in psychology: A survey on barriers and preconditions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science1(1): 70–85.
16.
MclureMLevelAVCranstonCL, et al. (2014) Data curation: A study of researcher practices and needs introduction and research questions. Portal Libraries and the Academy14(2): 139–164.
17.
MallasvikMLMartinsJT (2020) Research data sharing behaviour of engineering researchers in Norway and the UK: Uncovering the double face of Janus. Journal of Documentation77(2): 576–593.
18.
National Health and Medical Research Council (2018) Australian code for the responsible conduct of research. Available at: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-code-responsible-conduct-research-2018 (accessed 15 June 2020).
19.
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) (2013) OSTP increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf (accessed 13 March 2018).
20.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2007) OECD principles and guidelines for access to research data from public funding, OECD Publishing. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264034020-en-fr.
21.
PirachaHAAmeenK (2018) Research data management practices of faculty members. Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries20: 60–75.
22.
PiwowarHA (2011) Who shares? Who doesn’t? Factors associated with openly archiving raw research data. PLoS ONE6(7): 1–13.
23.
Registry of Research Data Repositories (2018) Available at: https://www.re3data.org/.
24.
RiceRHaywoodJ (2011) Research data management initiatives at University of Edinburgh. International Journal of Digital Curation6(2): 232–244.
25.
SchmidtBGemeinholzerBTreloarA (2016) Open data in global environmental research: The Belmont Forum's Open data survey. PloS One11(1): e0146695. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146695.
26.
Scientific Data (2018) Recommended data repositories. Available at: https://www.nature.com/sdata/policies/repositories#close (assessed 25 July 2020).
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) (2016) Concordat on open research data. Available at https://www.ukri.org/files/legacy/documents/concordatonopenresearchdata-pdf/ (accessed 16 June 2020).
29.
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) (n.d.) Data policy - UK Research and Innovation. Available at: https://www.ukri.org/funding/information-for-award-holders/data-policy/ (accessed 16 June 2020).
30.
University of Minnesota (2018) Discipline-based data archives. Available at: https://www.lib.umn.edu/datamanagement/datacenters (accessed 18 June 2020).
31.
Van den EyndenVBishopL (2014) Sowing the seed: incentives and motivations for sharing research data, a researcher's perspective. Available at: https://repository.jisc.ac.uk/5662/1/KE_report-incentives-for-sharing-researchdata.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2020).
32.
Van den EyndenVCortiL (2020) The importance of managing and sharing research data. In: CortiLEyndenVBishopLWoollardM (eds) Managing and Sharing Research Data. London: Sage Publications, 1–32.
33.
Van PanhuisWGPaulPEmersonC, et al. (2014) A systematic review of barriers to data sharing in public health. BMC Public Health14(1): 1–9.
34.
WaardADRotmanDLauruhnM (2014) Research data management at institutions: visions, bottlenecks and ways forward. Library Connect Digest:18–21. Available at https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/1046603/Library-Connect-Digest-2014.pdf (accessed 15 March, 2021).
35.
WhitmireALBoockMSuttonSC (2015) Variability in academic research data management practices: Implications for data services development from a faculty survey. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems49(4): 382–407.
36.
Wolff-EisenbergCRodABSchonfeldRC (2016) UK Survey of Academics 2015: Ithaka S + R | Jisc | RLUK. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.282736 (accessed 15 March 2021).
