Resp: Other: Share or Provide Access

Citationsort descending Purpose Method Study Type
Borgman, C. L. (2015).  Big data, little data, no data: scholarship in the networked world. Metrics, Targeted
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
Manyika, J., Chui M., Groves P., Farrell D., Van Kuiken S., Doshi E. Almasi, et al. (2013).  Open data: Unlocking innovation and performance with liquid information. 103. Identified ways open data can create economic value in terms of revenue and savings and economic surplus (e.g., time savings that commuters gain when they avoid congestion); estimated potential annual value that use of open data could bring in seven domains: education, transportation, consumer products, electric power, oil and gas, health care, and consumer finance Quantified (in monetary terms) the potential value of using open data in seven “domains” of the global economy: education, transportation, consumer products, electricity, oil and gas, health care, and consumer finance; identified “levers” through which open data can create economic value and explored the barriers to adoption and “enablers” for capturing value by making data more open; provided examples of uses of open data that have a significant impact Measurement, 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
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
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 Resp: Other: Share or Provide Access