40
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.55.07.4
How to Cite:
Fiialka, S., Figol, N., Fisenko, T., Kasianchuk, V., Holovko, O., & Teremko, V. (2022). Sharing unreviewed research data:
Problems and prospects. Amazonia Investiga, 11(55), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.55.07.4
Sharing unreviewed research data: Problems and prospects
Обмін нерецензованими дослідницькими даними: проблеми та перспективи
Received: March 24, 2022 Accepted: August 1, 2022
Written by:
Svitlana Fiialka16
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1855-7574
Nadija Figol17
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2503-7243
Tetiana Fisenko18
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1837-0117
Valeriia Kasianchuk19
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1690-0735
Olha Holovko20
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9955-4913
Vasyl Teremko21
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9045-7674
Abstract
This paper highlights the results of the survey of
Ukrainian scientists on the exchange of
unreviewed research data with other scientists,
and their motivation to use and disseminate
unreviewed research data. By “research data” we
mean both processed (summarized in the form of
text data, tables, figures, infographics, etc.) and
unprocessed information collected by
researchers due to experiments, observations,
simulations, through surveys or in other ways, or
generated from available information. A
questionnaire was distributed in different
Facebook groups for scientists (“Ukrainian
Scientific Journals” “Ukrainian Scientists
Worldwide”, “Pseudoscience News in Ukraine”,
“Scientific Conferences and Publications”,
“Academic Virtue and Plagiarism”, “Higher
School and Science of Ukraine: Disintegration or
Blossoming?”, “Ukrainian cuisine of scientific
publications”) and through university networks.
Results from 736 respondents demonstrated
awareness and attitudes about data sharing,
advantages, and disadvantages of data sharing
for scientists. Most of the respondents don’t trust
the results of scientific research published in
sources other than peer-reviewed scientific
16
National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Ukraine.
17
National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Ukraine.
18
National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Ukraine.
19
National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Ukraine.
20
National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Ukraine.
21
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine.
Fiialka, S., Figol, N., Fisenko, T., Kasianchuk, V., Holovko, O., Teremko, V. / Volume 11 - Issue 55: 40-49 / July, 2022
Volume 11 - Issue 55
/ July 2022
41
https:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
journals. Only 34.7 % of the respondents use to
publish their unreviewed research data. The
reasons that can stop scientists from sharing
research data are the following: problems with
copyright protection, luck of time, fear to lose
publishing opportunities, contradictions with the
requirements of the journals, risk of
misinterpretation, risk of losing leadership in the
field of research, ethical norms violations,
prejudice. Researchers, especially those who
work at universities, highlighted lack of time for
data sharing, because they teach and supervise
students, conduct research, have administrative
activities, participate in community services.
Among the reasons for data sharing the scientists
noted cooperation, formation of reputation,
increasing the likelihood of being quoted,
feedback from the scientific community,
development of science, saving results to use in
the future, etc. 30.9 % of the respondents
indicated that they do not find anything that
could motivate them to share research data.
Meanwhile about 78.0 % of respondents are sure,
that they need trainings in the field of data
sharing.
Keywords: research data, data sharing, open
science, peer review, repository, scientific
journal, scientific communication.
Introduction
Information and communication technologies
make it possible to disseminate research data on
various platforms before it is published in peer-
reviewed scientific journals and to involve users
in the dissemination and discussion of scientific
information.
There are a lot of different definitions of data
sharing. In an open science data sharing is
considered as making research data publicly
available without any restrictions on reuse
(Nielsen, 2009). N. PM and S. Saeed (2019)
describe data sharing as “the practice of making
data used for academic research available to
other investigators” (p. 290). In general, it is
making data available for people who have not
generated them and preservation data for public
to provide access for reuse (Zhu, 2020).
According to W. Chawinga and S. Zinn, the
concepts “data sharing” and “open data” have
similar meanings (Chawinga, & Zinn, 2019).
Data sharing is a purposeful effort to make raw
data publicly available (Kaye et al., 2018; Ross,
2016). Such data help to create transparency,
reproducibility, and drive further scientific
researchers (Rowhani-Farid, Allen, & Barnett,
2017; Watson, 2015).
Open science movement requires researchers to
share their data by depositing data sets in reliable
sources, by providing metadata. The FAIR
Principles focused on public accessibility, as well
as on encouraging scientists to make information
findable and reusable (Wilkinson, et al., 2016).
European policy is based on the transformation
of Europe into an area where open science is the
new paradigm for carrying out research and to
making the results freely available (Guedj, &
Ramjoue, 2015).
There are a lot of ways of data sharing, including
websites, cloud services, data journals, etc.
42
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
(Bishoff, & Johnston, 2015, p. 11). Funding
agencies, journal publishers, and open science
movement also encourage to use data
repositories, that help “to manage, share, access,
and archive researchers’ data sets” (Uzwyshyn,
2016, p. 18).
With data sharing research data are available for:
(a) researchers; (b) practitioners; (c) science
communicators (scientific journalists);
(d) members of the public (Paradis, et al., 2020).
Some publishers such as Nature, Science,
Elsevier, PLOS One requires authors to submit
research data together with manuscripts.
There are general studies on research data
sharing. S. Huh highlighted advantages of data
sharing: promotion of reproducibility, ensuring
scientific soundness. Data sharing saves
resources because it helps to avoid the need to
generate the same data (Huh, 2019). N. Paradis,
M. Knoll, C. Shah, et al. also proved the
correlation between data sharing on social media
and the whole number of citations (Paradis, et al.,
2020).
The aim of this study is to find out awareness and
attitudes about data sharing among Ukrainian
scientists, advantages, and disadvantages of data
sharing for them.
Methods
A survey was developed and distributed online in
September-October 2021 in Facebook groups
“Ukrainian Scientific Journals”, “Ukrainian
Scientists Worldwide”, “Pseudoscience News in
Ukraine”, “Scientific Conferences and
Publications”, “Academic Virtue and
Plagiarism”, “Higher School and Science of
Ukraine: Disintegration or Blossoming?”,
“Ukrainian cuisine of scientific publications”,
and through university networks.
Closed-ended and open-ended questions were
included in the survey. The project of the survey
was discussed in the Printing and Publishing
Institute of the National Technical University of
Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic
Institute” (12 scientists discussed the survey).
These researchers shared their attitudes about the
questions. Their comments were considered. The
final version of the survey was developed using
the Google Forms. Then the survey was tested at
the National Technical University of Ukraine
“Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute
through university network (90 scientists tested
it). The results of the survey were processed
during October-November 2021.
Overall, 736 researchers answered the questions.
2.5 % of them were 25 years old or younger, 24.0
% were 26–35, 29.6 % were 36–45, 18.8 % were
46–55, 14.3 % were 56–65, and 10.8 % were
above 65 years. 47.5 % of the respondents were
male, 52.2 % were female, and the others
preferred not to answer (0.3 %).
58.8 % of the respondents were PhD, 18.8 %
Doctors of Sciences, 12.5 PhD students, 7.3 %
researchers with no scientific degree, and the
others were students (2.7 %). The representatives
of the following scientific branches answered the
questions: social communication (9.3 %),
economics (8.9 %), chemistry (8.5 %),
engineering (8.4 %), pedagogy (8.1 %), physics
and mathematics (7.3 %), biology (6.2 %),
medicine (5.9 %), agricultural sciences (5.7 %),
history (5.5 %), philology (4.8 %), IT (4.7 %),
jurisprudence (4.4 %), philosophy (3.8 %),
geography (2.9 %), ecology (2.9 %), geology
(2.7 %).
Findings
To the question “Where do you keep the
intermediate results of your research?” the
answers were following (the respondents could
choose several answers): on a PC (93.2 %); on
USB, external hard drives, etc. (62.5 %); in cloud
services (56.3 %); in social networks for
scientists (17.1 %); in repositories (14.5 %); on
corporate servers (7.1 %); in handwritten version
(3.5 %) (Figure 1).
Volume 11 - Issue 55
/ July 2022
43
https:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Figure 1. Percentage of the answers to the question “Where do you keep the intermediate results of your
research?”, %
To the question “Do you trust the results of
scientific research published in sources other
than peer-reviewed scientific journals?” 37.5 %
of the respondents answered “yes”. Meanwhile,
62.5 % of respondents do not trust unreviewed
scientific content (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Level of trust to unreviewed scientific content, %
The sources trusted by the researchers are the
following: repositories, Biorxiv, popular science
media. In addition, some researchers have
indicated that they trust the work of individual
scientists, regardless of where they are published
(for example, data posted on the personal
websites), the results of scientists from
institutions with good reputation, data that is
widely used and cited by other scientists, data
created in collaborations within international
projects.
At the same time, the respondents were
unanimous about the reasons why they do not
trust research data, that have not been peer-
reviewed: only peer reviewing makes it possible
to “weed out” unreliable or low-quality data.
Individual answers are the following: “high
probability of data errors”; “different
responsibilities of authors”; “lack of references
does not allow to verify information”; “two
scientists always know more.”
93,2
62,5
56,3
17,1
14,5
7,1
3,5
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
on a PC
on USB, external hard drives
in cloud services
in social networks
in repositories
on corporate servers
in handwritten version
37,5
62,5
trust do not trust
44
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Only 34.7 % of the respondents use to publish
their unreviewed research data. In particular,
they use social media for scientists (76.5 %),
Zenodo (31.3 %), meetings (22.1 %), blogs
(18.5 %), arXiv.org (17.3 %), Figshare (16.2 %),
personal cites (12.2 %) (respondents could
choose several possible answers or add their
own) (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Sources where the respondents use to share their unreviewed research data, %
43.7 % of the scientists use unreviewed research
data of other researchers to prepare their
scientific publications from such sources as
social media for scientists (81.2%), personal cites
(62.6 %), blogs (60.5 %), arXiv.org (56.8 %),
Zenodo (40.1 %), Figshare (35.6 %), meetings
(29.2 %), reports on industrial exhibitions,
producer reports (17.3 %) (respondents could
choose several possible answers or add their
own) (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Sources from which 43.7 % of respondents use unreviewed research data, %
76,5
31,3
22,1
18,5
17,3
16,2
12,2
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
social media
Zenodo
meetings
blogs
arXiv.org
Figshare
personal cites
81,2
62,6
60,5
56,8
40,1
35,6
29,2
17,3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
social media
personal cites
blogs
arXiv.org
Zenodo
Figshare
meetings
reports
Volume 11 - Issue 55
/ July 2022
45
https:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
The most scientists from such fields as biology
(50.3 %), chemistry (58.2 %), physics and
mathematics (63.8 %) use to share their data. By
contrast, psychologists (11.2 %), educational
researchers (9.7 %) social communications (6.3
%) share their data less often. Some universities
give support and trainings in data sharing, for
example Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic
Institute.
About 70.0 % of the respondents lack awareness
of what opportunities data repositories give. For
example, the Zenodo repository is open to all
scholars, regardless of the field of knowledge and
sources of funding for their research. All deposits
are stored in CERN Data Center. Every Zenodo
deposit gets a DOI for free. Figshare allows to
safely manage the results of own scientific
research and make them visible, accessible, and
cited.
To the question “What types of research data
would you prefer if you were sure of its
reliability?” the following answers were
received: presentations (75.0 %), preprints
(68.2%), infographics (51.2 %), databases
(43.8 %), drawings (39.5 %), audio (12.5%)
(respondents could choose several possible
answers or add their own). Researchers agree that
open data should be formatted, adjusted, and user
friendly.
The most popular type of research data among
respondents is preprint – scientific papers
published in open sources for free access to a
wide audience before publication in peer-
reviewed scientific journal. Preprints help to
initiate open discussion, get feedback from
readers, comments, remarks that help to improve
scientific work. Preprints also may serve as an
early indicator of later academic impact. But
there can be errors, inaccurate conclusions,
general phrases, and they cannot be added to
scientific reports (Paradis, et al., 2020).
To the question “What can stop you from
sharing research data before publishing it in
peer-reviewed scientific journals?” we received
the following answers (respondents could
choose answer option or write their own
answer): “I’m not sure about copyright
protection, other scientists can use my data as
“research parasites” (68.8 %), “I have no time”
(65.5 %), “I don’t need it” (43.8 %), “I’m afraid
of losing publishing opportunities” (43.4 %),
“I’m not paid for it” (37.5 %), “it contradicts the
requirements of the journal, where I plan to
publish my results” (31.8 %), “I’m afraid that
the data will be misinterpreted” (31.3 %), “it is
prohibited by grantor” (20.1 %), “I am afraid of
losing leadership in my field of research”
(18.8 %), “I’m afraid that using my data, other
scientists will find mistakes” (12.6%), “I don’t
know how to do it” (12.5 %), “it would violate
ethical norms” (7.3 %), “I have prejudice”
(6.3 %) (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Percentage of the answers to the question “What can stop you from sharing research data before
publishing it in peer-reviewed scientific journals?”, %
68,8
65,5
43,8
43,4
37,5
31,8
31,3
20,1
18,8
12,6
12,5
7,3
6,3
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
I`m not sure about copyright protection
I have no time
I don`t need it
I`m afraid of losing publishing opportunities
I`m not paid for it
it contradicts the requirements of the journal
I`m afraid that data will be misinterpreted
it is prohibited by grantor
I`m afraid of losing leadership in my field of research
I`m afraid that using my data, other scientists will…
I don`t know how to do it
it would violate ethical norms
I have prejudice
46
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Researchers, especially those who work at
universities, highlighted lack of time for data
sharing, because they teach and supervise
students, conduct research, have administrative
activities, participate in community services.
To the question “What would motivate you to
share research data before their publication in
peer-reviewed scientific journals?” we received
the following answers (respondents could
choose several options and suggest their own):
“it allows to cooperate with other scientists”
(56.3 %), “it contributes to the formation of
reputation” (43.8 %), “it increases the
likelihood of being quoted” (37.5 %), “it allows
to get feedback from the scientific community”
(31.3 %), “it stimulates the development of
science” (21.7 %), “I can get not only more
citations, but journalists and donors may know
what I am doing” (21.3 %), “it increases the
likelihood of publishing the results in peer-
reviewed journals” (7.3 %), “it allows save my
results to use in the future” (6.3 %). 30.9 % of
the respondents indicated that they do not find
anything that could motivate them (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Percentage of the answers to the question “What would motivate you to share research data
before their publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals?”, %
About 78.0 % of the respondents need trainings
in several areas of research data sharing: creating
metadata for research data (77.1 %); sharing data
(74.6 %); the use of data repositories and open
access (74.1 %); storing and backing up data
(61.5 %); ethics and consent for data creation
(62.2 %); copyright and intellectual property
(58.4 %). Sharing their own experiences of
disseminating unrealized research data,
scientists also noted cases of violations of
academic integrity.
Discussion
Through the exchange of research data, the
quality of research can be improved and
accelerated. Data sharing gives impetus to
innovation based on existing datasets, helps
generate new knowledge, and promote
discoveries, formulate hypotheses, create new
meanings by combining existing datasets, and
test findings (Smith, & Roberts, 2016). It takes
a lot of time and money to create research data.
By reusing research data, we maintain the
resilience of research systems. In this way, open
data promote sustainable development (Gurin,
Manley, & Ariss, 2015).
С. Borgman defines research data as “entities
used as evidence of phenomena for the purposes
of research or scholarship” (Borgman, 2015,
p. 29). According to Martone et al., research
data are primarily the results of empirical
research on which scientific results and
conclusions are based (Martone, Garcia-Castro,
& Van den Bos, 2018).
In this study we define “research data” as data
obtained by researchers as a result of
observations, experiments, descriptions,
measurements, modeling, etc. or summarized on
the basis of existing data.
56,3
43,8
37,5
31,3
21,7
21,3
7,3
6,3
30,9
010 20 30 40 50 60
it allows to cooperate with other scientists
it contributes to the reputation
it increases the likelihood of being quoted
it allows to get feedback
it stimulates the development of science
I can get media interest
it increases the likelihood of publishing
it allows to save my results
I don`t find anything that could motivate me
Volume 11 - Issue 55
/ July 2022
47
https:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
In line with Y. Zhu our results prove that
scientists usually support the idea of data sharing,
but don’t like to make their own research data
publicly available (Zhu, 2020).
We agree with W. Chawinga and S. Zinn that
data sharing helps to prevent research fraud, for
example falsifying methodologies. Data sharing
allows independent researchers to re-analyse the
data, that promotes research integrity (Chawinga,
& Zinn, 2019).
Our results proved that more experienced
researchers share data much more willingly than
early career scientists. On the other hand,
researchers in every age group may generate low-
quality research data.
We can fully agree with D. Sayogo and T. Pardo,
that negative trends and challenges for
researchers in data sharing are a lack of time
(Sayogo, & Pardo, 2013), and selfish, non-
cooperative behavior (Hunt, 2019).
Many researchers do not share their research
data, even those funded by sponsors who require
to make such data publicly available (Volk,
Lucero, & Barnas, 2014). Our survey also
confirms previous results that scientists are afraid
of misinterpretation of data and losing authorship
and publishing opportunities
(Aleixandre-Benavent, et al., 2020). At the same
time, we found that Ukrainian scientists luck
awareness about data sharing. Meanwhile, the
practice of data sharing is repetitive: the authors
who had such experience, tend to share data in
the future (Zenk-Möltgen, et al., 2018).
Our survey illustrated good and bad practices of
research data sharing among Ukrainian
scientists. As С. Tenopir, N. Rice, S. Allard, et
al., we consider as advanced practice storing
research data in repositories; mediocre practice is
archiving data in the personal cloud or on the
server of the institution; and bad practice is using
flash drive, computer, or paper for storing such
data (Tenopir, et al., 2020). Our study confirms
previous research that scientists still share research
data via e-mail and memory cards or CDs (Koopman,
& De Jager, 2016).
We fully agree that the problem of data quality
assessment before research data publication is
being updated (Luzi, Ruggieri, & Pisacane,
2019). This assessment could help the members
of the scientific community improve his or her
paper and save readers’ time.
Our findings are consistent with prior research of
S. Koslow about technical, economic, political,
motivational, legal, and ethical barriers for data
sharing (Koslow, 2002). The main barriers are
ethical, especially if data are collected from
children and young adults. Sharing some
research data can harm people and offend them
(Takashima, et al., 2018; Mbuagbaw, et al.,
2017).
Moreover, sharing some types of data may be
restricted or prohibited. It can also sometimes harm
specific researchers, institutions or society as a whole
(Research Data Alliance and The Committee on Data
for Science and Technology, 2016). Our research
confirms the need for training in several areas of
data sharing. It is important to involve
professionals in data management, research
support departments, and libraries (Melero, &
Navarro‐Molina, 2020).
Conclusion
The results of the survey show that most of the
researchers don’t deposit scientific data in open-
access repositories or have low level of data
sharing. On one hand, many scientists worry
about authorship. But, on the other hand, data
sharing has some benefits: it helps in
collaboration, increases confidence in findings
and generate discussions among scientists. Data
sharing contributes to the intensification and
diversification of research, the establishment of
scientific communication, helps to solve social
problems and increases the level of
understanding of science by citizens. So, it is
important to provide support for research data
sharing. An educational campaign is also needed
about the importance of data sharing for
collaboration, recognition, and proper citation.
As a result of a survey, it was found the positive
effects of data sharing such as intellectual
development, new publishing opportunities, etc.
However, ethical problems were also revealed,
such as violation the ethical norms of scientific
communication.
Bibliographic references
Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Vidal-Infer, A.,
Alonso-Arroyo, A., Peset, F., & Ferrer
Sapena, A. (2020). Research Data Sharing in
Spain: Exploring Determinants, Practices,
and Perceptions. Data, 5(2), doi:
10.3390/data5020029
Bishoff, C., & Johnston, L. (2015). Approaches
to data sharing: an analysis of NSF data
management plans from a large research
48
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
university. Journal of Librarianship and
Scholarly Communication, 3(2), 1-27. doi:
10.7710/2162-3309.1231
Borgman, C. L. (2015). Big data, little data, no
data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
doi: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9963.0
01.0001
Chawinga, W. D., & Zinn, S. (2019). Global
perspectives of research data sharing: A
systematic literature review. Library &
Information Science Research, 41(2),
109–122. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2019.04.004
Guedj, D., & Ramjoué, C. (2015). European
Commission policy on open-access to
scientific publications and research data in
Horizon 2020. Biomed Data Journal, 1(1),
11–14. https://doi.org/10.11610/bmdj.01102
Gurin, J., Manley, L., & Ariss, A. (2015).
Sustainable Development Goals and Open
Data. World Bank. Retrieved October 21,
2021 from
https://blogs.worldbank.org/digital-
development/sustainable-development-
goals-and-open-data.
Huh, S. (2019). Recent trends in medical
journals’ data sharing policies and statements
of data availability. Archives of plastic
surgery, 46(6), 493–497.
https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2019.01515
Hunt, L. T. (2019). The life-changing magic of
sharing your data. Nat. Hum.
Behav., 3, 312-315.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0560-3
Kaye, J., Terry, S.F., Juengst, E., Coy, S.,
Harris, J.R., Chalmers, D., &
Bezuidenhout, L. (2018). Including all voices
in international data-sharing governance.
HumanGenomics, 12(1), 13.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-018-0143-9
Koopman, M. M., & De Jager, K. (2016).
Archiving South African digital research
data: how ready are we? South African
Journal of Science, 112(7/8), 1–7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2016/201
50316
Koslow, S. H. (2002). Sharing primary data: A
threat or asset to discovery? Nat. Rev.
Neurosci., 3, 311–313.
Luzi, D., Ruggieri, R., & Pisacane, L. (2019).
The OpenUP Pilot on Research Data Sharing,
Validation and Dissemination in Social
Sciences. Digital Libraries: Supporting Open
Scienc. Springer, 248–258. doi: 10.1007/978-
3-030-11226-4_20
Martone, M. E., Garcia-Castro, A. &
Van den Bos, G. R. (2018). Data sharing in
psychology. American Psychologist, 73(2),
111–125.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000242
Mbuagbaw, L., Foster, G., Cheng, J., &
Thabane, L. (2017). Challenges to complete
anduseful data sharing. Trials, 18(1), 71.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1816-8.
Melero, R., & Navarro‐Molina, C. (2020).
Researchers’ attitudes and perceptions
towards data sharing and data reuse in the
field of food science and technology. Learned
Publishing, 33(2), 163-179. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1287
Nielsen, M.A. (2009). Doing science in the
open. Physics World, 22, 30-35.
Paradis, N., Knoll, M. A., Shah, C., Lambert, C.,
Delouya, G., Bahig, H., & Taussky, D.
(2020). Twitter. American Journal of Clinical
Oncology, 43(6), 442–445. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1097/coc.0000000000000
685
PM, N., & Saeed, S. (2019). Research Data
Management and Data Sharing among
Research Scholars of Life Sciences and
Social Sciences. DESIDOC Journal of
Library & Information Technology, 39(06),
290-299.
https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.39.06.14997
Research Data Alliance and The Committee on
Data for Science and Technology. (2016).
Legal interoperability of research data:
principles and implementation
guidelines. RDA-CODATA Legal
Interoperability Interest Group. Retrieved
October 21, 2021
from http://www.codata.org/uploads/Legal%
20Interoperability%20Principles%20and%2
0Implementation%20Guidelines_Final2.pdf
Ross, J. S. (2016). Clinical research data sharing:
What an open science world means for
researchers involved in evidence synthesis.
Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 159.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0334-1
Rowhani-Farid, A., Allen, M., & Barnett, A. G.
(2017). What incentives increase datasharing
in health and medical research? A systematic
review. Research Integrity and Peer Review,
2(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-
0028-9
Sayogo, D. S., & Pardo, T. A. (2013). Exploring
the determinants of scientific data sharing:
understanding the motivation to publish
research data. Government Information
Quarterly, 30, S19-S31. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.011
Smith, R., & Roberts, I. (2016). Time for sharing
data to become routine: The seven excuses
for not doing so are all invalid.
F1000Research, 5, 781
Takashima, K., Maru, Y., Mori, S., Mano, H.,
Noda, T., & Muto, K. (2018). Ethical
concernson sharing genomic data including
Volume 11 - Issue 55
/ July 2022
49
https:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
patients’ family members. BMC Medical
Ethics, 19(1), 61.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0310-5
Tenopir, C., Dalton E. D., Allard S., Frame M.,
Pjesivac I., Birch B., Pollock, D., &
Dorsett, K. (2015). Changes in Data Sharing
and Data Reuse Practices and Perceptions
among Scientists Worldwide. PLoS ONE,
10(8), e0134826.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.013482
6
Tenopir, C., Rice, N. M., Allard, S, Baird, L,
Borycz, J, Christian L, Grant, B.,
Olendorf, R., & Sandusky, R.J. (2020). Data
sharing, management, use, and reuse:
Practices and perceptions of scientists
worldwide. PLoS ONE 15(3), e0229003.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.022900
3
Uzwyshyn, R. (2016). Research data
repositories: the what, when, why, and how.
Computers in Libraries, 36(3), 18-21.
Volk, C. J., Lucero, Y., & Barnas, K. (2014).
Why is data sharing in collaborative natural
resource efforts so hard and what can we do
to improve it? Environmental management,
53(5), 883-93.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0258-2
Watson, M. (2015). When will ‘open science’
become simply ‘science’? Genome Biology,
16(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-
015-0669-2
Wilkinson, M.D., Dumontier, M.,
Aalbersberg, Ij. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M.,
Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W.,
da Silva Santos, L.B., Bourne, P.E.,
Bouwman, J., Brookes, A.J., Clark, T.,
Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O.,
Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., &
Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Attitudes toward
data sharing guiding principles for scientific
data management and stewardship. Scientific
Data, 3, 160018. Doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Zenk-Möltgen, W., Akdeniz, E., Katsanidou,
A., Naßhoven, V., & Balaban, E. (2018).
Factors influencing the data sharing behavior
of researchers in sociology and political
science. Journal of Documentation, 74(5),
1053-1073. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-09-
2017-0126
Zhu, Y. (2020). Open-access policy and data-
sharing practice in UK academia. Journal of
Information Science, 46(1),41–
52. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515188231
74