Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Buchtitelbild

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

A Comparative Study of Biological Scientists’ Data Sharing Between Genome Sequence Data and Lab Experiment Data

verfasst von : Youngseek Kim

Erschienen in: Information in Contemporary Society

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This research aims to explore how the institutional pressure, resource, and individual motivation factors all affect biological scientists’ data sharing behaviors in different data types. This research utilized a combined theoretical framework including institutional theory and theory of planned behavior to examine institutional pressure, resource, and individual motivation factors influencing biological scientists’ data sharing intentions between different data types including genome sequence data and lab experiment data. A total of 342 survey responses from biological sciences were employed for a series of statistical analyses including Cronbach’s alpha, factor analysis, hierarchical regression, and t-test. This research shows that biological scientists’ data sharing intentions are led by institutional pressure, resource, and individual motivation factors, and the levels of those factors are significantly different between genome sequence data and lab experiment data. This research shows that biological scientists’ data sharing differs depending on the data they share, and different policies and support needs to be applied to encourage biological scientists’ data sharing of different data types.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Nächstes Kapitel Surfacing Data Change in Scientific Work
Literatur
1.
Borgman, C.L.: Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. MIT Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRef
2.
Tenopir, C., et al.: Changes in data sharing and data reuse practices and perceptions among scientists worldwide. Plos One 10(8) (2015)
3.
Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E.G., Anderson, M.S., Causino, N., Louis, K.S.: Withholding research results in academic life science - evidence from a national survey of faculty. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 277(15), 1224–1228 (1997)CrossRef
4.
Campbell, E.G., et al.: Data withholding in academic genetics - evidence from a national survey. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 287(4), 473–480 (2002)CrossRef
5.
Louis, K.S., Jones, L.M., Campbell, E.G.: Sharing in science. Am. Sci. 90(4), 304–307 (2002)CrossRef
6.
Blumenthal, D., et al.: Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: prevalences and predictors. Acad. Med. 81(2), 137–145 (2006)CrossRef
7.
Piwowar, H.A., Becich, M.J., Bilofsky, H., Crowley, R.S.: Towards a data sharing culture: recommendations for leadership from academic health centers. Plos Medicine. 5(9), 1315–1319 (2008)CrossRef
8.
Piwowar, H.A.: Who shares? Who doesn’t? Factors associated with openly archiving raw research data. Plos One 6(7) (2011)
9.
Piwowar, H.A.: Foundational studies for measuring the impact, prevalence, and patterns of publicly sharing biomedical research data, University of Pittsburgh (2010)
10.
Noor, M.A.F., Zimmerman, K.J., Teeter, K.C.: Data sharing: how much doesn’t get submitted to GenBank? PLoS Biol. 4(7), 1113–1114 (2006)CrossRef
11.
Kim, Y., Stanton, J.M.: Institutional and individual factors affecting scientists’ data-sharing behaviors: a multilevel analysis. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 1–24 (2016)
12.
Weber, N.M., Piwowar, H.A., Vision, T.J.: Evaluating data citation and sharing policies in the environmental sciences. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 47(1), 1–2 (2010)CrossRef
13.
Piwowar, H.A., Day, R.S., Fridsma, D.B.: Sharing detailed research data is associated with increased citation rate. Plos One 2(3) (2007)
14.
Kling, R., Spector, L.: Rewards for scholarly communication. In: Andersen, D.L. (ed.) Digital Scholarship in the Tenure, Promotion, and Review Process. M.E. Sharpe, Inc., Armonk (2003)
15.
Reidpath, D.D., Allotey, P.A.: Data sharing in medical research: an empirical investigation. Bioethics 15(2), 125–134 (2001)CrossRef
16.
Savage, C.J., Vickers, A.J.: Empirical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals. Plos One 4(9) (2009)
17.
Tenopir, C., et al.: Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. Plos One 6(6) (2011)
18.
Liotta, L.A., et al.: Importance of communication between producers and consumers of publicly available experimental data. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 97(4), 310–314 (2005)CrossRef
19.
Kim, Y., Stanton, J.M.: Institutional and individual influences on scientists’ data sharing practices. J. Comput. Sci. Educ. 3(1), 47–56 (2012)CrossRef
20.
Bowker, G.C., Star, S.L.: Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)
21.
Michener, W.K.: Meta-information concepts for ecological data management. Ecol. Inform. 1(1), 3–7 (2006)CrossRef
22.
Kim, Y., Burns, C.S.: Norms of data sharing in biological sciences: the roles of metadata, data repository, and journal and funding requirements. J. Inf. Sci. 42(2), 230–245 (2016)CrossRef
23.
Cragin, M.H., Palmer, C.L., Carlson, J.R., Witt, M.: Data sharing, small science and institutional repositories. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A-Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2010(368), 4023–4038 (1926)
24.
Marcial, L.H., Hemminger, B.M.: Scientific data repositories on the web: an initial survey. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 61(10), 2029–2048 (2010)CrossRef
25.
Scott, W.R.: Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2007)
26.
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M.: The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: Albarracin, D., Johnson, B.T., Zanna, M.P. (eds.) Handbook of Attitudes and Attitude Change, pp. 173–221. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2005)
27.
Bjorck, F. (ed.): Institutional theory: a new perspective for research into IS/IT security in organisations. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Citeseer (2004)
28.
Battilana, J.: Agency and institutions: the enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization 13(5), 653–676 (2006)CrossRef
29.
Vandenabeele, W.: Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation - an institutional approach. Public Manag. Rev. 9(4), 545–556 (2007)CrossRef
30.
Zucker, L.G.: The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. In: Powell, W.W., DiMaggio, P.J. (eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 83–107. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1991)
31.
Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 52(2), 179–211 (1991)CrossRef
32.
Ajzen, I.: Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 32(4), 665–683 (2002)CrossRef
33.
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H.: Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)
34.
Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2009)MATH
35.
Gefen, D., Straub, D.W., Boudreau, M.-C.: Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun. AIS 4(7), 1–77 (2000)
36.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L.: Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2006)
37.
Kim, Y.: Fostering scientists’ data sharing behaviors via data repositories, journal supplements, and personal communication methods. Inf. Process. Manage. 53(4), 871–885 (2017)CrossRef
38.
McGuire, A.L., et al.: To share or not to share: a randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research. Genet. Med. 13(11), 948–955 (2011)CrossRef
39.
Paltoo, D.N., et al.: Data use under the NIH GWAS data sharing policy and future directions. Nat. Genet. 46(9), 934–938 (2014)CrossRef
40.
Kim, Y., Zhang, P.: Understanding data sharing behaviors of STEM researchers: the roles of attitudes, norms, and data repositories. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 37(3), 189–200 (2015)CrossRef
41.
Rung, J., Brazma, A.: Reuse of public genome-wide gene expression data. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14(2), 89–99 (2013)CrossRef
42.
Fennema-Notestine, C.: Enabling public data sharing: encouraging scientific discovery and education. Methods Mol. Biol. 569, 25–32 (2009)CrossRef
43.
Duke, C.S., Porter, J.H.: The ethics of data sharing and reuse in biology. Bioscience 63(6), 483–489 (2013)CrossRef
44.
Manolio, T.A., et al.: New models of collaboration in genome-wide association studies: the genetic association information network. Nat. Genet. 39(9), 1045–1051 (2007)CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
A Comparative Study of Biological Scientists’ Data Sharing Between Genome Sequence Data and Lab Experiment Data
verfasst von
Youngseek Kim
Copyright-Jahr
2019
Buch
Information in Contemporary Society

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-15741-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-15742-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15742-5_1

Neuer Inhalt

    Bildnachweise