Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information in Contemporary Society (iConference 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 11420))

Included in the following conference series:

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Borgman, C.L.: Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. MIT Press, Cambridge (2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Tenopir, C., et al.: Changes in data sharing and data reuse practices and perceptions among scientists worldwide. Plos One 10(8) (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Louis, K.S., Jones, L.M., Campbell, E.G.: Sharing in science. Am. Sci. 90(4), 304–307 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blumenthal, D., et al.: Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: prevalences and predictors. Acad. Med. 81(2), 137–145 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Piwowar, H.A.: Who shares? Who doesn’t? Factors associated with openly archiving raw research data. Plos One 6(7) (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Piwowar, H.A.: Foundational studies for measuring the impact, prevalence, and patterns of publicly sharing biomedical research data, University of Pittsburgh (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Reidpath, D.D., Allotey, P.A.: Data sharing in medical research: an empirical investigation. Bioethics 15(2), 125–134 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Savage, C.J., Vickers, A.J.: Empirical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals. Plos One 4(9) (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tenopir, C., et al.: Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions. Plos One 6(6) (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim, Y., Stanton, J.M.: Institutional and individual influences on scientists’ data sharing practices. J. Comput. Sci. Educ. 3(1), 47–56 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bowker, G.C., Star, S.L.: Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Michener, W.K.: Meta-information concepts for ecological data management. Ecol. Inform. 1(1), 3–7 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Scott, W.R.: Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Battilana, J.: Agency and institutions: the enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization 13(5), 653–676 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vandenabeele, W.: Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation - an institutional approach. Public Manag. Rev. 9(4), 545–556 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 52(2), 179–211 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H.: Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2009)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rung, J., Brazma, A.: Reuse of public genome-wide gene expression data. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14(2), 89–99 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Fennema-Notestine, C.: Enabling public data sharing: encouraging scientific discovery and education. Methods Mol. Biol. 569, 25–32 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Duke, C.S., Porter, J.H.: The ethics of data sharing and reuse in biology. Bioscience 63(6), 483–489 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA

    Youngseek Kim

Authors
  1. Youngseek Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Youngseek Kim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    Natalie Greene Taylor

  2. University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    Caitlin Christian-Lamb

  3. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Michelle H. Martin

  4. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

    Bonnie Nardi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kim, Y. (2019). A Comparative Study of Biological Scientists’ Data Sharing Between Genome Sequence Data and Lab Experiment Data. In: Taylor, N., Christian-Lamb, C., Martin, M., Nardi, B. (eds) Information in Contemporary Society. iConference 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11420. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15742-5_1

Download citation

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

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-15741-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-15742-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation