Abstract

Research data has a key importance for the science world, for their verification use, economic and social values. Therefore, the data must be made open and the barriers to sharing must be removed. This study aims to reveal the attitudes of researchers -who managed Scientific Research Projects within Ankara University- towards research data management and describe barriers to data sharing. Descriptive method was used in the study and survey technique was preferred for data collection. Data collected from 194 researchers revealed that researchers were not able to manage data effectively. Most of the researchers do not prepare a written data management plan, or they do not plan applications related to data after the completion of the research, and they retain large amounts of data outside the institutional storage areas as well as not using accepted standards in creating metadata. In this study, the effect of scientific fields on data management process has also been revealed, and findings demonstrated that there are significant differences among scientific fields in terms of types of data created, types of data files, amount of data produced, familiarity with metadata and reasons affecting data sharing. One of the most important results revealed in this study is that participants find it sufficient to share data only through publication. Therefore, researchers prefer to share their results/findings, not research data. This contradicts the idea of open research data. Barriers to researchers’ data sharing are closely related to the current academic system and the anxiety of stealing and research ideas/methods. In addition, issues such as problems in data management processes, legal regulations and service deficiencies are other barriers to data sharing.

Keywords: Research data management, open science, open data, open research data, data sharing

References

  1. Akers, K. G. ve Doty, J. (2013). Disciplinary differences in faculty research data management practices and perspectives. International Journal of Digital Curation, 8(2), 5-26. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v8i2.263
  2. Allard, S. ve Aydınoğlu, A.U. (2012), Environmental researchers’ data practices: an exploratory study in Turkey. S. Kurbanoğlu, U. Al, P. L. Erdoğan, Y. Tonta ve N. Uçak (Ed.), E-Science and Information Management, IMCW 2012, Communications in Computer and Information Science, Practice içinde (ss.13-24). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. http://by2012.bilgiyonetimi.net/proceedings/allard_aydinoglu.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  3. Ankara Üniversitesi Açık Bilim Politikası. (2019). http://kutuphane.ankara.edu.tr/acik-bilim-politikasi/ adresinden erişildi.
  4. Ankara Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Yönergesi. (2017). http://bap.ankara.edu.tr/yonerge/ adresinden erişildi.
  5. Ankara Üniversitesi Dosya Depolama Servisi. (2015). https://dosyam.ankara.edu.tr/help adresinden erişildi.
  6. Averkamp, S., Gu, X. ve Rogers, B. (2014). Data management at the University of Iowa: A university libraries report on campus research data needs. https://ir.uiowa.edu/lib_pubs/153 adresinden erişildi.
  7. Aydınoğlu, A. U., Doğan, G. ve Taşkın, Z. (2017). Research data management in Turkey: perceptions and practices. Library Hi Tech, 35(2), 271-289. doi:10.1108/LHT-11-2016-0134.
  8. BAP Tamamlanan Projeler. (t.y). http://bap.ankara.edu.tr/deneme123/ adresinden erişildi.
  9. Berman, E. A. (2017). An exploratory sequential mixed methods approach to understanding researchers’ data management practices at UVM: Findings from the quantitative phase. Journal of eScience Librarianship 6(1). doi: 10.7191/jeslib.2017.1098.
  10. Bilgi ve İletişim Güvenliği Tedbirleri Hakkında Genelge, T. C. Resmi Gazete (30823, 6 Temmuz 2019). http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2019/07/20190706-10.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  11. Bishoff, C. ve Johnston, L. (2015). Approaches to data sharing: An analysis of NSF data management plans from a large research university. Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 3(2).
  12. Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the internet. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  13. Borgman, C. L. (2015). Big data, little data, no data: Scholarship in the networked World. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  14. Borgman, C. L., Wallis, J. C. ve Mayernik, M. S. (2012). Who’s got the data? Interdependencies in science and technology collaborations. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 21(6), 485-523. doi:10.1007/s10606-012-9169-z
  15. Briney, K. (2015). Data management for researchers: Organize, maintain and share your data for research success. Exeter: Pelagic Publishing Ltd.
  16. Buys, C. M. ve Shaw, P. L. (2015). Data management practices across an institution: Survey and report. Journal of Librarianship & Scholarly Communication, 3(2). doi:10.7710/2162-3309.1225
  17. Carlson, J. (2014). The use of life cycle models in developing and supporting data services. J. Ray (Ed.). Research Data Management: Practical Strategies for Information Professionals içinde (ss. 63-86). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
  18. Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common X2 tests. Biometrics, 10(4), 417-451.
  19. Cochran, W. G. (1977) Sampling techniques. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
  20. European Commission. (2017). H2020 programme: Guidelines on FAIR data management in Horizon 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  21. European Commission. (2018). Commission staff working document: Implementation roadmap for the European Open Science Cloud https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/swd_2018_83_f1_staff_working_paper_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none adresinden erişildi.
  22. Freeman, G. ve Halton, J. H. (1951). Note on an exact treatment of contingency, goodness of fit and other problems of significance. Biometrika, 38(1/2), 141-149.
  23. Gezelter, D. (2009). What, exactly, is Open Science? http://openscience.org/what-exactly-is-open-science/ adresinden erişildi.
  24. Gibbs, H. (2009). Southampton data survey: Our experience and lessons learned. http://www.disc-uk.org/docs/SouthamptonDAF.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  25. Goben, A. ve Griffin, T. (2019). In aggregate: Trends, needs, and oportunities from research data management surveys. College and Research Libraries, 80(7), 903-924. doi: 10.5860/crl.80.7.903
  26. Gürbüz, S. ve Şahin, F. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  27. Hämäläinen, W. (2016). New upper bounds for tight and fast approximation of Fisher’s exact test in dependency rule mining. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 93, 469-482.
  28. Hey, T., Tansley, S. ve Tolle, K. M. (2009). The fourth paradigm: data-intensive scientific discovery. Washington: Microsoft Research.
  29. Hickson, S., Poulton, K. A., Connor, M., Richardson, J. ve Wolski, M. (2016). Modifying researchers’ data management practices: A behavioural framework for library practitioners. IFLA journal, 42(4), 253-265. doi:10.1177/0340035216673856
  30. Higman, R., Bangert, D. ve Jones, S. (2019). Three camps, one destination: the intersections of research data management, FAIR and Open. Insights, 32(1). doi: 10.1629/uksg.468
  31. International Business Machines [IBM]. (2020). Fisher Exact Test shows a value for a test statistic in R x C tables. https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/fisher-exact-test-shows-value-test-statistic-r-x-c-tables adresinden erişildi.
  32. Jahnke, L. M. ve Asher, A. (2012). The problem of data: Data management and curation practices among university researchers. The Problem of Data (s. 3-28) içinde. Washington: Council on Library and Information Resources. https://clir.wordpress.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/pub154.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  33. Kalaycı, Ş. (2006). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayınevi.
  34. Kansa E. C. ve Kansa S. W. (2013). We all know that a 14 is a sheep: Data publication and professionalism in archaeological communication. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies, 1(1), 88–97. doi: 10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.1.1.0088
  35. Kim, Y. ve Stanton, J. M. (2016). Institutional and individual factors affecting scientists’ data sharing behaviors: A multilevel analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(4), 776-799. doi:10.1002/asi.23424
  36. Krahe, M. A., Toohey, J., Wolski, M., Scuffham, P. A. ve Reilly, S. (2019). Research data management in practice: Results from a cross-sectional survey of health and medical researchers from an academic institution in Australia. Health Information Management Journal, 1-9. doi:10.1177/1833358319831318
  37. Kroll, S. ve Forsman, R. (2010). A slice of research life: information support for research in the United States. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC. https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2010/2010-15.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  38. Lydersen, S., Pradhan, V., Senchaudhuri, P. ve Laake, P. (2007). Choice of test for association in small sample unordered r× c tables. Statistics in medicine, 26(23), 4328-4343.
  39. Mancilla, H. A., Teperek, M., van Dijck, J., den Heijer, K., Eggermont, R., Plomp, E., . . . Kurapati, S. (2019). On a quest for cultural change-surveying research data management practices at Delft University of Technology. LIBER Quarterly, 29(1), 1–27. doi: 10.18352/lq.10287
  40. Mehta, C. R. ve Patel, N. R. (1983). A network algorithm for performing Fisher’s exact test in r× c contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78(382), 427-434.
  41. Mehta, C. R. ve Patel, N. R. (2011). IBM SPSS Exact Tests. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/pdfs/SPSS_Exact_Tests_21.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  42. Mosconi, G., Li, Q., Randall, D., Karasti, H., Tolmie, P., Barutzky, J., . . . Pipek, V. (2019). Three Gaps in Opening Science. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 28(3-4), 749-789. doi:10.1007/s10606-019-09354-z
  43. National Science Foundation [NSF]. (2017). Proposal preparation instructions. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappg17_1/pappg_2.jsp#IIC2j adresinden erişildi.
  44. Parsons, T., Grimshaw, S. ve Williamson, L. (2013). Research data management survey. https://admire.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2013/02/ADMIRe-Survey-Results-and-Analysis-2013.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  45. Paton, N. W. (2008). Managing and sharing experimental data: standards, tools and pitfalls. Biochemical Society Transactions, 36 (1), 33-36. doi:10.1042/BST0360033.
  46. Penn Libraries Guides. (2019). Data management best practices: Storage and backups. https://guides.library.upenn.edu/datamgmt/storage adresinden erişildi.
  47. Peters, C. ve Dryden, A. R. (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. doi:10.1080/0194262X.2011.626340
  48. Piwowar, H. A., Vision, T. J. ve Whitlock, M. C. (2011). Data archiving is a good investment. Nature, 473. doi:10.1038/473285a
  49. Ray, J. (2014). Introduction to research data management. J. Ray (Ed.). Research Data Management: Practical Strategies for Information Professionals içinde (ss. 1-23). West Lafayette: Purdue University Press.
  50. Research Information Network [RIN]. (2008). To share or not to share: Publication and quality assurance of research data outputs. http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/To-share-data-outputs-summary.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  51. Rusbridge, C. (2007). Create, curate, re-use: The expanding life course of digital research data. https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1731 adresinden erişildi.
  52. Scaramozzino, J. M., Ramírez, M. L. ve McGaughey, K. J. (2012). A study of faculty data curation behaviors and attitudes at a teaching-centered university. College & Research Libraries, 73(4), 349-365. doi:10.5860/crl-255
  53. Sprent, P. (2011). Fisher Exact Test. M. Lovric (Ed.) International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science içinde (s. 524-525). Berlin: Springer.
  54. Stamatoplos, A., Neville, T. ve Henry, D. (2016). Analyzing the Data Management Environment in a Master’s-level Institution. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(2), 154-160. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.11.004
  55. Tenopir, C., Allard, S., Douglass, K., Aydinoglu, A. U., Wu, L., Read, E., . . . Frame, M. (2011). Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. PLoS ONE, 6(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021101
  56. Tonta, Y. (2015). Açık bilim ve açık erişim. U. Al ve Z. Taşkın (Yay. haz.). Prof. Dr. İrfan Çakın`a Armağan içinde (ss. 235-250). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Bilgi ve Belge Yönetimi Bölümü. http://www.bby.hacettepe.edu.tr/akademik/zehrataskin/file/festschrift_ic(1).pdf adresinden erişildi.
  57. Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu [TÜBİTAK] Açık Bilim Politikası. (2019). http://www.tubitak.gov.tr/sites/default/files/tubitak_acik_bilim_politikasi_190316.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  58. Ünal, Y. ve Kurbanoğlu, S. (2018). Araştırma verilerinin yönetimi: Türk araştırmacılar verilerini açmaya hazır mı? Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 32(4), 287-311. doi:10.24146/tkd.2018.42
  59. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2016). Guidelines for a data management plan. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002565/256544e.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  60. Van Loon, J. E., Akers, K. G., Hudson, C. ve Sarkozy, A. (2017). Quality evaluation of data management plans at a research university. IFLA Journal, 43(1), 98-104. doi:10.1177/0340035216682041
  61. Weller, T. ve Monroe-Gulick, A. (2014). Understanding methodological and disciplinary differences in the data practices of academic researchers. Library Hi Tech, 32(3), 467-482. doi:10.1108/LHT-02-2014-0021
  62. Whyte, A. ve Tedds, J. (2011). Making the case for research data management. http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/briefing-papers/making-case-rdm adresinden erişildi.
  63. Yükseköğretim Kurulu [YÖK]. (2018). YÖK, akademide “açık erişim ve açık bilim” çalışmalarını başlattı. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/acik-erisim-ve-acik-bilim-calismalarina-baslandi.aspx adresinden erişildi.
  64. Yükseköğretim Kurumları Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Hakkında Yönetmelik, T. C. Resmi Gazete (29900, 28 Kasım 2016). http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2016/11/20161126-8.htm adresinden erişildi.
  65. Zencir, M. B. (2019). Ankara Üniversitesi akademisyenlerinin araştırma verilerinin yönetimi ile ilgili tutumları ve bir model önerisi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.

License

Copyright (c) 2020 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to Cite

Zencir, M. B., & Oğuz, T. (2020). The Attitudes of Ankara University Researchers towards Research Data Management and Barriers to Data Sharing. Information World, 21(1), 89-123. https://doi.org/10.15612/BD.2020.806