Citationsort descending Purpose Method Study Type
Borgman, C. L. (2015).  Big data, little data, no data: scholarship in the networked world. Metrics, Targeted
Earth Science Information Partners (2011).  Interagency Data Stewardship/Principles. ESIP. Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP Federation) statement of data stewardship principles Metrics, Targeted
Fearon, D., Gunia B., Pralle B., Lake S., & Sallans A. (2013).  ARL Spec Kit 334: Research data management services. To assess early endeavors in research data services and benchmark future growth in ARL member libraries. Conducted a survey of ARL member libraries. 73 of 125 responded. Measurement, Wider
Gibbs, H. (2009).  Southampton Data Survey: Our Experience and Lessons Learned. To pilot the Digital Asset Framework (or Digital Audit Framework) methodology Used a modified version of the Digital Asset Framework; modified mainly due to time considerations; distributed an online questionnaire and follow-up interviews with researchers at the University of Southampton Measurement, Wider
Jerrome, N., & Breeze J. (2009).  Imperial College Data Audit Framework Implementation: Final Report. To pilot the Digital Asset Framework Methodology; evaluate the scale and scope of research data; and make recommendations accordingly Used a modified form of the Digital Asset Framework in multiple departments: used the audit framework in a first phase of investigation, then conducted an online survey and follow up interviews. Measurement, Wider
Lavoie, B. (2003).  The Incentives to Preserve Digital Materials: Roles, Scenarios, and Economic Decision-Making. Based on three key economic decision-makers, identifies five organizational models, or scenarios, under which digital preservation activities might take place Metrics, Targeted
National Academy of Sciences (2009).  Ensuring the integrity, accessibility, and stewardship of research data in the digital age. 325(5939), 368. An ad hoc committee will conduct a study of issues that have arisen from the evolution of practices in the collection, processing, oversight, publishing, ownership, accessing, and archiving of research data. The key questions to be addressed are: 1. What are the growing varieties of research data? In addition to issues concerned with the direct products of research, what issues are involved in the treatment of raw data, prepublication data, materials, algorithms, and computer codes? 2. Who owns research data, particularly that which results from federally funded research? Is it the public? The research institution? The lab? The researcher? 3. To what extent is a scientist responsible for supplying research data to other scientists (including those who seek to reproduce the research) and to other parties who request them? Is a scientist responsible for supplying data, algorithms, and computer codes to other scientists who request them? 4. What challenges do the science and technology community face arising from actions that would compromise the integrity of research data? What steps should be taken by the science and technology community, research institutions, journal publishers, and funders of research in response to these challenges? 5. What are the current standards for accessing and maintaining research data, and how should these evolve in the future? How might such standards differ for federally funded and privately funded research, and for research conducted in academia, government, nongovernmental organizations, and industry? The study will not address privacy issues and other issues related to human subjects. Metrics, Targeted
National Research Council (2003).  Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences. A study to evaluate the responsibilities of authors of scientific papers in the life sciences to share data and materials referenced in their publications Held a workshop attended by more than 70 participants Metrics, Targeted
National Science Foundation, National Cyber Infrastructure Foundation (2007).  Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery. Director. Metrics, Targeted
Open Exeter Project Team (2012).  Summary Findings of the Open Exeter Data Asset Framework Survey. Investigated how researchers at the University of Exeter created data, where they stored their data, whether they backed up their data and what happened to their data when the project was finished Adapted from the Data Curation Centre’s Data Asset Framework methodology, an online survey was created and follow up interviews were conducted with respondents. Measurement, Wider
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2015).  Making Open Science A Reality. Reviews the progress in OECD countries in making the results of publicly funded research, namely scientific publications and research data openly accessible to researchers and innovators alike. The report i) reviews the policy rationale behind open science and open data; ii) discusses and presents evidence on the impacts of policies to promote open science and open data; iii) explores the legal barriers and solutions to greater access to research data; iv) provides a description of the key actors involved in open science and their roles; and finally v) assesses progress in OECD and selected non-member countries based a survey of recent policy trends. Metrics, Targeted
Peters, C., & Dryden A. (2011).  Assessing the Academic Library's Role in Campus-Wide Research Data Management: A First Step at the University of Houston. Science & Technology Libraries. 30(4), 387 - 403. Interviewed PIs of significant grants, to assess individuals in as many science and engineering departments as possible, and to obtain information on data management practices from both individual and group-based projects Conducted interviews with PIs of 10 projects (14 contacted), as well as one Co-PI, one post-doctorate and one graduate student associated with one of the projects) Measurement, Wider
Scaramozzino, J., Ramírez M., & McGaughey K. (2012).  A Study of Faculty Data Curation Behaviors and Attitudes at a Teaching-Centered University. College & Research Libraries. 73(4), 349 - 365. Investigated science researchers’ data curation awareness, behaviors, and attitudes, as well as what needs they exhibited for services and education regarding maintenance and management of data Distributed survey via email to 331 College of Science and Mathematics faculty at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), a master’s-granting, teaching-centered institution. Filtered results to include only science faculty from the Biology, Chemistry, Kinesiology, Mathematics, Physics, and Statistics departments who engaged in data collection in the course of their research (131 tenure-track faculty; 82 responded (62.6%) Measurement, Wider
Tenopir, C., Birch B., & Allard S. (2012).  Academic Libraries and Research Data Services: Current Practices and Future Plans. Surveyed a cross section of academic library members of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) in the United States and Canada to provide a baseline assessment of the current state of and future plans for research data services in academic libraries in these countries Conducted an online survey of ACRL library directors Measurement, Wider
van der Hoeven, J. (2010).  PARSE.Insight: Insight into issues of Permanent Access to the Records of Science in Europe. Final Report. Final Report of the PARSE.Insight study, which sought to gain insight into issues surrounding the preservation of research data in Europe Conducted a literature review, an online survey, and case study interviews Metrics, Targeted
UNC-CH (2012).  Research Data Stewardship at UNC: Recommendations for Scholarly Practice and Leadership. Sought to identify policy options for digital research data stewardship at UNC; further understanding of the full-breadth of activities, concerns, and opinions surrounding research data stewardship among researchers at UNC-CH Conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 faculty researchers representing several disciplines at UNC-CH; conducted an online survey of all faculty members, graduate students, and staff assigned to departments that engage in research Measurement, Wider
Waller, M., & Sharpe R. (2006).  Mind the Gap: Assessing Digital Preservation Needs in the UK. A study carried out for the Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC) to reveal the extent of the risk of loss or degradation to digital material held in the UK's public and private sectors Surveyed 900 individuals from a wide range of organisations in different sectors. The selected individuals all had an assumed interest in digital preservation as part of their professional responsibilities, and included a range of roles including records managers, archivists, librarians, but also IT managers and data producers. 104 responses were received, giving a good response rate of over 10%. These included respondents from education, libraries, archives, museums, local and central government bodies, scientific research institutions, and from organisations in the pharmaceutical, financial, manufacturing and engineering, media, energy and chemical, and publishing sectors. Note: Discusses duration for keeping data. Measurement, Wider
Bigagli, L., Sveinsdottir T., Wessels B., Smallwood R., Linde P., Tsoukala V., et al. (2014).  Infrastructural and technological challenges and potential solutions. Investigated infrastructural and technological barriers to Open Access and preservation of research data in Europe. This work was conducted within the EU FP7 funded project RECODE, which focuses on developing policy recommendations for Open Access to Research Data in Europe. In particular, this work is coordinated by RECODE Work Package 2 (WP2), Infrastructure and technology. It distinguishes between different categories of stakeholders in terms of how the experience and respond to these challenges Conducted desk research, an online survey, interviews, and a validation workshop Measurement, Metrics, Wider
Sveinsdottir, T., Wessels B., Smallwood R., Linde P., Kala V., Tsoukala V., et al. (2013).  Stakeholder values and relationships within open access and data dissemination and preservation ecosystems. Identify and map the diverse range of stakeholder values in Open Access data and data dissemination and preservation; map stakeholder values on to research ecosystems using case studies from different disciplinary perspectives; conduct a workshop to evaluate and identify good practice in addressing conflicting value chains and stakeholder fragmentation. This work was conducted within the EU FP7 funded project RECODE, which focuses on developing policy recommendations for Open Access to Research Data in Europe. Conducted desk research, case study interviews, and a validation workshop Measurement, Metrics, Wider
Subscribe to Responsibility