Hubbry Logo
Data sharingData sharingMain
Open search
Data sharing
Community hub
Data sharing
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Data sharing
Data sharing
Data sharing
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
The decision whether and how to share data often rests with researchers.

Data sharing is the practice of making data used for scholarly research available to other investigators. Many funding agencies, institutions, and publication venues have policies regarding data sharing because transparency and openness are considered by many to be part of the scientific method.[1]

A number of funding agencies and science journals require authors of peer-reviewed papers to share any supplemental information (raw data, statistical methods or source code) necessary to understand, develop or reproduce published research. A great deal of scientific research is not subject to data sharing requirements, and many of these policies have liberal exceptions. In the absence of any binding requirement, data sharing is at the discretion of the scientists themselves. In addition, in certain situations governments[2] and institutions prohibit or severely limit data sharing to protect proprietary interests, national security, and subject/patient/victim confidentiality. Data sharing may also be restricted to protect institutions and scientists from use of data for political purposes.

Data and methods may be requested from an author years after publication. In order to encourage data sharing[3] and prevent the loss or corruption of data, a number of funding agencies and journals established policies on data archiving. Access to publicly archived data is a recent development in the history of science made possible by technological advances in communications and information technology. To take full advantage of modern rapid communication may require consensual agreement on the criteria underlying mutual recognition of respective contributions. Models recognized for the timely sharing of data for more effective response to emergent infectious disease threats include the data sharing mechanism introduced by the GISAID Initiative.[4][5]

Despite policies on data sharing and archiving, data withholding still happens. Authors may fail to archive data or they only archive a portion of the data. Failure to archive data alone is not data withholding. When a researcher requests additional information, an author sometimes refuses to provide it.[6] When authors withhold data like this, they run the risk of losing the trust of the science community.[7] A 2022 study identified about 3500 research papers which contained statements that the data was available, but upon request and further seeking the data, found that it was unavailable for 94% of papers.[8]

Data sharing may also indicate the sharing of personal information on a social media platform.

U.S. government policies

[edit]

Federal law

[edit]

On August 9, 2007, President Bush signed the America COMPETES Act (or the "America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act") requiring civilian federal agencies to provide guidelines, policies and procedures, to facilitate and optimize the open exchange of data and research between agencies, the public and policymakers. See Section 1009.[9]

NIH data sharing policy

[edit]

'The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement defines "data" as "recorded information, regardless of the form or medium on which it may be recorded, and includes writings, films, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions, drawings, designs, or other graphic representations, procedural manuals, forms, diagrams, work flow charts, equipment descriptions, data files, data processing or computer programs (software), statistical records, and other research data."'

— Council on Governmental Relations[10]

The NIH Final Statement of Sharing of Research Data says:

'NIH reaffirms its support for the concept of data sharing. We believe that data sharing is essential for expedited translation of research results into knowledge, products, and procedures to improve human health. The NIH endorses the sharing of final research data to serve these and other important scientific goals. The NIH expects and supports the timely release and sharing of final research data from NIH-supported studies for use by other researchers. 'NIH recognizes that the investigators who collect the data have a legitimate interest in benefiting from their investment of time and effort. We have therefore revised our definition of "the timely release and sharing" to be no later than the acceptance for publication of the main findings from the final data set. NIH continues to expect that the initial investigators may benefit from first and continuing use but not from prolonged exclusive use.'

— 'Final NIH statement on sharing research data.'[11]

NSF Policy from Grant General Conditions

[edit]

36. Sharing of Findings, Data, and Other Research Products

a. NSF …expects investigators to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the data, samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of the work. It also encourages awardees to share software and inventions or otherwise act to make the innovations they embody widely useful and usable.

b. Adjustments and, where essential, exceptions may be allowed to safeguard the rights of individuals and subjects, the validity of results, or the integrity of collections or to accommodate legitimate interests of investigators.

— "National Science Foundation: Grant General Conditions (GC-1)", April 1, 2001 (p. 17).

Office of Research Integrity

[edit]

Allegations of misconduct in medical research carry severe consequences. The United States Department of Health and Human Services established an office to oversee investigations of allegations of misconduct, including data withholding. The website defines the mission:

"The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) promotes integrity in biomedical and behavioral research supported by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) at about 4,000 institutions worldwide. ORI monitors institutional investigations of research misconduct and facilitates the responsible conduct of research (RCR) through educational, preventive, and regulatory activities."

— Office of Research Integrity.

Ideals in data sharing

[edit]

Some research organizations feel particularly strongly about data sharing. Stanford University's WaveLab has a philosophy about reproducible research and disclosing all algorithms and source code necessary to reproduce the research. In a paper titled "WaveLab and Reproducible Research," the authors describe some of the problems they encountered in trying to reproduce their own research after a period of time. In many cases, it was so difficult they gave up the effort. These experiences are what convinced them of the importance of disclosing source code.[12] The philosophy is described:

The idea is: An article about computational science in a scientific publication is not the scholarship itself, it is merely advertising of the scholarship. The actual scholarship is the complete software development environment and the complete set of instructions which generated the figures.[13][14]

The Data Observation Network for Earth (DataONE) and Data Conservancy[15] are projects supported by the National Science Foundation to encourage and facilitate data sharing among research scientists and better support meta-analysis. In environmental sciences, the research community is recognizing that major scientific advances involving integration of knowledge in and across fields will require that researchers overcome not only the technological barriers to data sharing but also the historically entrenched institutional and sociological barriers.[16] Dr. Richard J. Hodes, director of the National Institute on Aging has stated, "the old model in which researchers jealously guarded their data is no longer applicable".[17]

The Alliance for Taxpayer Access is a group of organizations that support open access to government sponsored research. The group has expressed a "Statement of Principles" explaining why they believe open access is important.[18] They also list a number of international public access policies.[19] This is no more so than in timely communication of essential information to effectively respond to health emergencies.[20] While public domain archives have been embraced for depositing data, mainly post formal publication, they have failed to encourage rapid data sharing during health emergencies, among them the Ebola[21] and Zika,[22][23] outbreaks. More clearly defined principles are required to recognize the interests of those generating the data while permitting free, unencumbered access to and use of the data (pre-publication) for research and practical application, such as those adopted by the GISAID Initiative to counter emergent threats from influenza.[24][25]

International policies

[edit]

Data sharing problems in academia

[edit]

Genetics

[edit]

Withholding of data has become so commonplace in genetics that researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital published a journal article on the subject. The study found that "Because they were denied access to data, 28% of geneticists reported that they had been unable to confirm published research."[26]

Psychology

[edit]

In a 2006 study, it was observed that, of 141 authors of a publication from the American Psychological Association (APA) empirical articles, 103 (73%) did not respond with their data over a 6-month period.[27] In a follow-up study published in 2015, it was found that 246 out of 394 contacted authors of papers in APA journals did not share their data upon request (62%).[28]

Archaeology

[edit]

A 2018 study reported on study of a random sample of 48 articles published during February–May 2017 in the Journal of Archaeological Science which found openly available raw data for 18 papers (53%), with compositional and dating data being the most frequently shared types. The same study also emailed authors of articles on experiments with stone artifacts that were published during 2009 and 2015 to request data relating to the publications. They contacted the authors of 23 articles and received 15 replies, resulting in a 70% response rate. They received five responses that included data files, giving an overall sharing rate of 20%.[29]

Scientists in training

[edit]

A study of scientists in training indicated many had already experienced data withholding.[30] This study has given rise to the fear the future generation of scientists will not abide by the established practices.

Differing approaches in different fields

[edit]

Requirements for data sharing are more commonly imposed by institutions, funding agencies, and publication venues in the medical and biological sciences than in the physical sciences. Requirements vary widely regarding whether data must be shared at all, with whom the data must be shared, and who must bear the expense of data sharing.

Funding agencies such as the NIH and NSF tend to require greater sharing of data, but even these requirements tend to acknowledge the concerns of patient confidentiality, costs incurred in sharing data, and the legitimacy of the request.[31] Private interests and public agencies with national security interests (defense and law enforcement) often discourage sharing of data and methods through non-disclosure agreements.

Data sharing poses specific challenges in participatory monitoring initiatives, for example where forest communities collect data on local social and environmental conditions. In this case, a rights-based approach to the development of data-sharing protocols can be based on principles of free, prior and informed consent, and prioritise the protection of the rights of those who generated the data, and/or those potentially affected by data-sharing.[32]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Literature

[edit]
logo
Scholia has a topic profile for Data sharing.

Committee on Issues in the Transborder Flow of Scientific Data, National Research Council (1997). Bits of Power: Issues in Global Access to Scientific Data. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. doi:10.17226/5504. ISBN 978-0-309-05635-9. — discusses the international exchange of data in the natural sciences.

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Data sharing

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
![Decision on data deposition][float-right] Data sharing is the practice of making research data, such as measurements, observations, and transcripts, along with associated metadata, available to other investigators for purposes including verification, , and secondary . This process underpins scientific and accelerates progress by enabling the combination of datasets for novel insights, though it requires careful management to address inherent tensions between and proprietary interests. Prominent frameworks like the FAIR principles—emphasizing , , , and reusability—have emerged to standardize data sharing practices, fostering broader adoption in fields from to social sciences. Funders and journals increasingly mandate sharing to combat reproducibility crises evidenced in empirical studies showing low replication rates across disciplines. Notable achievements include large-scale repositories that have facilitated meta-analyses yielding breakthroughs, such as in where shared data has mapped disease variants more comprehensively than isolated efforts. Despite these advances, data sharing encounters persistent barriers, including fears of loss, competitive scooping by rivals, and risks particularly with human subjects data. Systematic reviews identify institutional disincentives, such as lack of credit for shared data in academic evaluations, and technical hurdles like incompatible formats as key obstacles, often outweighing perceived benefits for individual researchers. Controversies arise from cases where premature sharing has led to uncredited reuse, underscoring the need for robust to balance communal gains against causal risks of exploitation.

Definition and Historical Development

Core Concepts and Principles

refers to the practice of making research available to other investigators, either through public repositories, supplementary materials in publications, or direct exchange, to facilitate verification of results, replication of studies, and further . This process underpins the cumulative nature of scientific inquiry, where from one study informs and builds upon subsequent work, reducing redundant efforts and mitigating errors from incomplete or inaccessible datasets. From a foundational perspective, withholding undermines the self-correcting mechanism of , as independent scrutiny is essential to distinguish robust findings from artifacts or biases, a principle rooted in the empirical validation required for causal claims about natural phenomena. Core principles emphasize structured accessibility to maximize utility while respecting constraints like or participant confidentiality. The FAIR guidelines, articulated in , provide a framework for effective data stewardship: data must be findable through unique identifiers and rich metadata; accessible via standardized protocols, even if restricted; interoperable with compatible vocabularies and formats; and reusable under clear licenses permitting ethical secondary use. These principles prioritize machine-actionability to enable automated processing, addressing the inefficiency of human-only interpretation in large-scale datasets. Empirical support for such approaches stems from observations that shared, standardized data enhance rates, as demonstrated in fields like where public databases have accelerated discoveries. Additional tenets include promoting where feasible to foster and , balanced against ethical imperatives such as protecting sensitive human subjects data through or controlled access. Institutions like the NIH mandate data management plans that outline sharing strategies, underscoring that non-sharing can impede broader and public benefit from taxpayer-funded research. However, principles also recognize practical limits: data sharing should align with jurisdictional laws and avoid premature release of unvalidated preliminary findings, ensuring shared resources contribute causally to verifiable knowledge advancement rather than .

Early Practices in Science

In the of science, spanning the 16th to 18th centuries, data sharing occurred predominantly through informal epistolary networks rather than formalized repositories or mandates. exchanged raw observations, measurements, and experimental findings via letters, fostering verification and collaborative advancement amid limited printing and institutional structures. This practice aligned with the emerging ethos of empirical scrutiny over scholastic authority, though it was uneven, often tempered by concerns over intellectual priority and secrecy in proprietary fields like . The "," an international correspondence network active from the late 17th to 18th centuries, exemplified this mode of exchange, connecting intellectuals across and beyond through postal systems. Participants, including and (each authoring around 15,000 letters), shared astronomical positions, biological specimens' descriptions, geological samples, and experimental protocols to promote the experimental method and refute dogmatic claims. For instance, networks mapped from John Locke's correspondence reveal clustered exchanges of observational data that accelerated knowledge dissemination, with letters serving as precursors to by circulating findings for critique among trusted colleagues. Such practices enabled incremental progress, as seen in the global reach of Jesuit missionaries' reports on natural phenomena, though confidentiality circles limited full openness in sensitive matters. A pivotal early example of data sharing's impact unfolded in astronomy between and around . Brahe amassed unprecedentedly precise positional data on planetary motions, particularly Mars, using advanced instruments at his observatory in (1576–1597). Reluctant to release raw measurements during his lifetime to protect his geocentric models, Brahe permitted limited access to Kepler as an assistant in from 1600; following Brahe's death in 1601, Kepler fully utilized over 1,000 observations to derive his three laws of planetary motion by 1609 and 1619, overturning circular orbits in favor of ellipses. This reuse of empirical data—despite interpersonal tensions—demonstrated causal linkages in , underscoring how shared observations could refute entrenched theories through rigorous computation. The founding of the Royal Society in in 1660 institutionalized nascent sharing practices, emphasizing transparency to combat . Its journal, Philosophical Transactions, launched in 1665 by secretary , published detailed accounts of experiments, including tabular data, instrument readings, and observational logs—such as early microscopic descriptions by or atmospheric measurements. By disseminating "data" (a term increasingly applied to factual bases for inference, as analyzed in over 200 years of issues), the journal facilitated replication; for example, issues from 1665–1677 included astronomical ephemerides and catalogs, reaching subscribers across . This marked a shift toward public verification, though full raw datasets were not always appended, relying instead on narrative sufficiency for .

Emergence of Formal Policies (Pre-2000)

The U.S. Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network, initiated in 1980 by the , marked one of the earliest formal frameworks for data sharing in , requiring sites to manage and share after a brief embargo period—typically one to two years—to enable primary investigators to publish first while promoting broader access for verification and secondary analysis. By 1990, the LTER adopted explicit guidelines emphasizing documentation, metadata standards, and eventual public dissemination, though implementation varied due to limited digital infrastructure, with only one site initially supporting online access. These policies addressed challenges in long-term studies, such as coordinating multi-site on ecosystems, and influenced subsequent federal expectations for resource sharing in . In , the Principles of 1996 represented a pivotal formalization during the (HGP), an international effort launched in 1990 to sequence the human genome. Adopted at a meeting in from February 26-28, 1996, these principles required the immediate release of finished DNA sequence data—within 24 hours of assembly—to databases like , rejecting delays tied to publication or commercial interests in favor of unrestricted global access to accelerate discoveries in biology and medicine. This policy, enforced through HGP consortium agreements, contrasted with prior norms of proprietary withholding and was credited with enabling rapid progress, such as identifying disease-related genes, by fostering collaborative verification. Preceding these, domain-specific mandates emerged in fields like and , where the International Union of Crystallography required deposition of atomic coordinates in the for publications since the 1970s, though enforcement relied on journal policies rather than centralized regulation. Similarly, the 1873 Vienna Congress established international standards for daily weather data exchange among nations, facilitating global climate analysis but lacking the binding mechanisms of later scientific policies. These early efforts highlighted recurring tensions between openness for collective advancement and individual incentives, setting the stage for broader pre-2000 policies in federally funded research.

Theoretical Rationale and Empirical Benefits

Philosophical and First-Principles Justifications

Data sharing aligns with the Mertonian norm of communalism, which holds that scientific knowledge constitutes a public good belonging to the collective rather than individual property, obligating researchers to disseminate findings—including underlying data—to foster cumulative progress rather than proprietary hoarding. This norm, articulated by sociologist Robert K. Merton in 1942, underscores that secrecy undermines the scientific enterprise by impeding verification and extension of results, whereas open access to data promotes disinterested collaboration over personal gain. Empirical adherence to communalism correlates with reduced questionable research practices, as sharing counters incentives for data withholding that erode trust in published outcomes. From a first-principles standpoint, data sharing is causally necessary for scientific advancement, as isolated datasets limit to single analyses, whereas pooled data enable robust meta-analyses, hypothesis generation, and detection of errors or through independent scrutiny. Without access to raw data, replication—key to establishing reliability—becomes infeasible, stalling the iterative refinement of theories grounded in . This rationale echoes Karl Popper's emphasis on , where testable claims require transparent evidential bases; restricted data effectively shields hypotheses from rigorous disconfirmation, blurring the boundary between science and . Publicly funded amplifies these imperatives, imposing a moral duty on recipients to maximize societal returns by treating as a non-rivalrous resource whose value multiplies through reuse, rather than allowing that duplicates costly collection efforts. Funders' pro tanto obligations include mandating to asymmetries where taxpayers bear costs but derive incomplete benefits from summarized publications alone. Such principles prioritize causal realism—linking outputs directly to inputs—over institutional biases favoring opacity, ensuring serves truth-seeking over careerist silos.

Evidence from Reproducibility and Collaboration Studies

Empirical investigations into reproducibility highlight data sharing as a critical factor in enabling independent verification of scientific findings. A 2023 study examining nearly 500 articles in Management Science revealed that the journal's June 2019 policy mandating data and code disclosure elevated reproducibility rates from 6.6% in pre-policy articles (where voluntary materials were available for only 12% of cases, with 55% of those succeeding) to 67.5% post-policy, though data access issues persisted in 29% of latter submissions. Similarly, Science's February 2011 policy requiring supplementary data and code sharing increased data availability from 52% in 2009–2010 articles to 75% in 2011–2012 ones, yet computational replication succeeded in only 26% overall, attributing shortfalls to incomplete artifacts or inaccessible formats rather than policy absence. These results demonstrate that while policies boost material provision, full reproducibility demands standardized, verifiable deposits to mitigate technical barriers. Collaboration studies further link data sharing to amplified research networks and output integration. Public data availability permits secondary analyses and meta-syntheses, fostering multi-institution efforts that non-shared datasets preclude. In a 2007 analysis of 85 cancer microarray clinical trials, papers depositing data in public repositories received 69% more citations (p=0.006) than non-depositing peers, controlling for journal , publication date, and author attributes, with shared data accruing 85% of total citations despite comprising 48% of trials. A 2019 natural experiment across and journals confirmed that enforced data mandates—unlike unenforced ones—yielded about 97 additional citations per article via instrumental variable estimation, reflecting heightened reuse in collaborative extensions. Such citation premiums, often from downstream collaborations, underscore data sharing's role in accelerating collective progress, though benefits accrue primarily when sharing is verifiable and low-friction.

Economic and Societal Impacts

Data sharing in scientific yields economic benefits primarily through reduced redundancy in and enhanced in . Openly available data can avert duplicative efforts, potentially saving up to 9% of costs by obviating the need for repeated . The failure to share data in formats (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) imposes an estimated annual cost of at least €10.2 billion on the European economy, reflecting lost opportunities from siloed datasets. Case studies further indicate that data sharing delivers financial returns for funding agencies by minimizing expenditures on redundant , thereby amplifying for publicly financed . Macroeconomic analyses project that broader access to and sharing of data, including research datasets, could unlock value equivalent to 0.1% to 1.5% of GDP in affected economies, driven by accelerated and gains across sectors reliant on evidence-based . In global contexts, initiatives promoting data are forecasted to contribute up to 2.5% of worldwide GDP through spillover effects like improved and novel applications of existing data. These gains stem from causal mechanisms such as lowered for secondary analyses, which expand the utility of high-cost datasets beyond initial creators. On the societal front, data sharing bolsters in by enabling independent verification and , which mitigates errors and biases in published findings. It facilitates cross-disciplinary collaborations, yielding emergent insights that solitary efforts might overlook, and supports equitable access for researchers in resource-constrained settings. In domains, shared datasets enable rapid signal detection for outbreaks, refine epidemiological models, guide evidence-based policies, and incorporate diverse stakeholder inputs, as evidenced during responses to infectious threats. Additionally, by enhancing enterprise-level and operational resilience, data openness contributes to broader objectives, including and socioeconomic planning. underscores these outcomes, with shared data correlating to higher citation rates and faster knowledge dissemination in fields like .

Policy Mandates and Regulatory Frameworks

United States Policies

The federal government has implemented policies promoting scientific data sharing primarily through funding agencies, emphasizing transparency, reproducibility, and public access to taxpayer-funded outputs. These policies require grant applicants to submit detailed and plans, with mandates evolving from earlier voluntary guidelines to more stringent requirements in response to reproducibility crises in science. A pivotal framework is the 2022 Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) memorandum, "Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research," issued on August 25, 2022. This directive instructs federal agencies to revise public access policies for scholarly publications and supporting scientific data, eliminating embargoes and requiring immediate availability upon publication or acceptance, with full implementation by December 31, 2025. It prioritizes machine-readable formats, metadata standards, and accommodations for sensitive data while aiming to maximize the reuse of data for validation and new discoveries. Agencies must develop plans ensuring data from funded research is preserved in designated repositories, with progress reports due within 180 days of the memo. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) enforces the Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy, effective January 25, 2023, applicable to all extramural and intramural research generating scientific data, regardless of funding amount. Applicants must include a DMS plan in grant proposals, outlining data management, preservation, and sharing strategies, including timelines, formats, and repositories compliant with FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles where feasible. Scientific data—defined as recorded factual material of sufficient quality to validate and replicate results—must be shared no later than the publication date of associated findings or the end of the award period plus one year, with a maximum retention of five years post-sharing unless justified otherwise. Budgets must allocate costs for these activities, and compliance is assessed during peer review and progress reports, with non-compliance potentially affecting future funding. The policy builds on the 2003 NIH Data Sharing Policy but expands scope to mandate plans for all relevant projects, addressing prior limitations where sharing was optional for smaller grants. The (NSF) requires a supplementary two-page and Sharing Plan (DMSP) for all proposals since 2011, detailing how data will be managed, preserved, and disseminated to enable validation and reuse. Funded projects must deposit datasets in public repositories, with sharing expected upon publication or within a reasonable timeframe tied to the research lifecycle, and annual reports must document progress. In alignment with the OSTP memo, NSF is updating its public access plan to enforce zero-embargo data release by 2025, including metadata interoperability and support for diverse data types across directorates. Exceptions apply for proprietary or classified data, but proposers must justify any withholding. Other agencies, such as the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (), incorporate similar requirements tailored to their domains, often mandating deposition in agency-specific repositories like OSTI.gov for energy research . These policies collectively aim to mitigate issues evidenced in studies showing low availability rates in publications (e.g., less than 50% in some fields pre-mandates), though enforcement relies on self-reporting and institutional oversight rather than audits.

International and Supranational Initiatives

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) adopted the Principles and Guidelines for Access to Research Data from Public Funding in 2007, building on a 2004 declaration by ministers from OECD countries to ensure optimal access to publicly funded digital research data. These guidelines emphasize open access that is easy, timely, user-friendly, and preferably internet-based, while respecting intellectual property rights, privacy, and national security; they apply to data produced for publicly accessible knowledge and have been endorsed by OECD member states to foster international collaboration. In 2021, the OECD updated its Recommendation on Enhanced Access to Research Data from Public Funding, incorporating FAIR data principles to promote machine-readable metadata and persistent identifiers for better discoverability and reuse. The European Union's program, launched in 2021 with a budget exceeding €95 billion through 2027, mandates data management plans (DMPs) for all funded projects to outline how research data will be managed, preserved, and shared in accordance with principles. Beneficiaries must ensure data is as open as possible and as closed as necessary, prioritizing FAIR-compliant repositories for long-term accessibility, with exemptions only for justified reasons such as commercial exploitation or ethical constraints; this builds on Horizon 2020 guidelines from that first required implementation. The EU's approach aims to maximize the reuse of data across borders, supported by the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) infrastructure for federated access. The (WHO) established a policy in 2016 promoting data sharing during public health emergencies, urging rapid, transparent release of research data to inform responses, as demonstrated in calls following the 2014-2016 outbreak where delayed sharing hindered global efforts. In September 2022, WHO updated its funding policy through the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) to require full sharing of all research data generated from awarded grants, including raw datasets, to accelerate discovery and reproducibility in health research. This aligns with joint initiatives like the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R), which in 2017 outlined principles for data sharing in emergencies, emphasizing ethical frameworks to balance speed with protections for vulnerable populations. The Guiding Principles for scientific and , articulated in a consensus statement by an international group of stakeholders, provide a framework for making findable through unique identifiers and rich metadata, accessible via standardized protocols, interoperable with other datasets, and reusable under clear licenses. Though not legally binding, these principles have been integrated into policies by supranational bodies like the and , influencing global standards for digital research outputs. Complementing this, the Committee on Data of the (CODATA) has advanced initiatives such as the Data Policy for Times of Crisis project since 2020, developing tools and guidance for sharing during disasters to support evidence-based decision-making across disciplines and borders.

Private Sector and Industry Approaches

In the pharmaceutical industry, data sharing approaches center on controlled-access platforms for clinical trial data, driven by regulatory pressures and collaborative needs while safeguarding proprietary interests. The Vivli platform, launched in 2016 by a nonprofit consortium, serves as a centralized repository where sponsors voluntarily deposit anonymized patient-level data from over 7,500 clinical studies, allowing independent researchers to request access after review by an independent panel to ensure scientific merit and ethical compliance. Similarly, ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com (CSDR), operational since 2013 and comprising major sponsors like GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi, provides a gateway for qualified researchers to access de-identified data from interventional trials, with access granted via data-sharing agreements that prohibit commercial use and require result publication. These initiatives stem from 2013 principles endorsed by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which advocate sharing data post-regulatory approval to verify findings without undermining commercial viability. Technology firms adopt open data strategies to foster ecosystem innovation, often releasing non-proprietary datasets or supporting infrastructure for research while retaining control over core IP. Microsoft, for instance, collaborates with industry partners to promote private-sector data sharing for societal applications, including AI training datasets and cloud-based tools that enable secure federated access without full disclosure. Amazon Web Services (AWS) hosts public research datasets and provides compliance tools for open data policies, such as those tied to federal grants, facilitating cost-effective storage and analysis while companies like AWS prioritize user agreements to prevent misuse. These approaches contrast with unrestricted open access by incorporating tiered permissions, reflecting empirical evidence that unrestricted sharing risks competitive disadvantages, as identified in analyses of private-sector barriers where intellectual property leakage concerns deter 70-80% of organizations from broader disclosure. Across sectors, private initiatives emphasize trusted intermediaries and standardized agreements to mitigate risks like data scooping or privacy breaches, with partnerships yielding targeted benefits such as reduced R&D duplication in , where shared negative trial results have informed 20-30% of subsequent studies per platform reports. However, uptake remains selective; a 2022 study of private organizations found that only 25% routinely share data externally due to misaligned incentives, including fears of eroding market edges, underscoring that industry approaches prioritize verifiable over universal openness.

Systemic Barriers and Incentive Misalignments

Academic Career Incentives and Publish-or-Perish Culture

The publish-or-perish culture in academia, where advancement hinges predominantly on volume and prestige, systematically discourages data sharing by prioritizing control over datasets to sustain personal output. Tenure, promotions, and grant funding evaluations emphasize metrics like paper counts and journal impact factors, fostering a competitive environment where researchers hoard to derive multiple publications rather than risk enabling rivals' analyses. This misalignment arises because shared could accelerate others' findings, reducing the original investigator's opportunities for follow-up papers and citations, which are central to professional metrics. Empirical studies confirm that motivational barriers rooted in these incentives predominate. A 2017 analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine argued that conventional authorship practices incentivize maximizing sequential from one , thereby undermining data release as it dilutes the primary author's pipeline. Similarly, a survey of academics found that perceived effort outweighing rewards, including scant career for sharing, deters deposition, with respondents citing the absence of tangible benefits in promotion dossiers. In biomedical fields, where underpin high-stakes replication, this culture exacerbates withholding, as investigators view raw data as for future grants rather than communal resources. Recent surveys quantify the scale of this disincentive. A 2025 study across institutions identified limited incentives—such as no formal recognition in evaluations—as a barrier for 15% of researchers, compounded by fears of competitive disadvantage in a metrics-driven system. Linking to broader issues, a 2025 Nature survey of over 1,500 scientists revealed that 62% attributed irreproducibility "always" or "very often" to pressures, which manifest in selective disclosure to meet output demands rather than full transparency. These patterns persist despite mandates, as institutional reward structures rarely credit curation or sharing equivalently to novel results. Proposals to realign incentives include data authorship credits or dedicated funding for sharing efforts, yet adoption lags due to entrenched evaluation norms. Without reforms tying promotions to verifiable contributions like accessible datasets, the publish-or-perish dynamic continues to impede collaborative progress, prioritizing individual metrics over cumulative scientific advancement.

Resource and Technical Obstacles

One major resource obstacle to data sharing in scientific is the high time and labor investment required to prepare datasets for release, including , anonymizing, documenting, and formatting data to comply with repository requirements. Surveys of researchers indicate that insufficient time is frequently cited as a top barrier, with one study of over 1,000 academics finding that 28% viewed the effort involved in data preparation as excessive relative to potential benefits. This burden is exacerbated in resource-limited settings, such as low- and middle-income countries, where data sharing demands additional for and communication that are often unavailable without dedicated . Financial constraints further compound these issues, as archiving and maintaining shared incurs ongoing costs for storage, curation, and infrastructure that are rarely covered by or institutional budgets. For instance, the lack of sustainable models for data repositories leads to underinvestment in long-term preservation, with estimates suggesting that preparing a single for can cost thousands of dollars in personnel and resources. In academic environments, where principal investigators juggle multiple projects, these expenses compete directly with core research activities, deterring unless mandates enforce it. Technical obstacles primarily stem from the absence of standardized formats and metadata protocols, which impede and reuse across disciplines and platforms. Without uniform standards, researchers must invest additional effort in converting proprietary or field-specific formats—such as raw sequencing files in or proprietary outputs in —into accessible, machine-readable structures, a process that can fail due to incompatible legacy systems. Inadequate , including limited computational tools for large-scale handling and secure transfer, poses further hurdles; for example, high-volume datasets from fields like astronomy or modeling overwhelm many public repositories' capacity, resulting in upload failures or degraded accessibility. Data security and integration challenges also arise technically, as ensuring compliance with varying and access controls requires specialized software that many labs lack. A 2023 analysis highlighted that fragmented technical ecosystems, including siloed databases and insufficient APIs for cross-platform querying, reduce the practical utility of shared data, with issues cited in 52% of reported barriers among surveyed institutions. These problems persist despite emerging tools, as adoption lags due to gaps and compatibility with existing workflows.

Intellectual Property and Scooping Risks

![Factors influencing reluctance to deposit data publicly][float-right] In the of scientific sharing, the of being "scooped"—whereby competitors exploit shared to publish analyses or findings before the original researcher—serves as a prominent barrier, particularly in competitive fields like and . This concern stems from the high stakes of academic careers, where priority in directly impacts , promotions, and tenure; surveys of biologists highlight it as a key perceived risk, alongside worries over uncompleted personal analyses. Empirical analyses suggest, however, that scooping remains infrequent, as data originators retain advantages in interpreting their own datasets, with most follow-up publications from original occurring within two years, outpacing reuse of archived which peaks later. Intellectual property risks further complicate data sharing, as public disclosure can forfeit protections—valuable for maintaining competitive edges in proprietary research—and potentially invalidate claims if inventive aspects are revealed prior to filing under doctrines like . Raw facts and data themselves lack eligibility, though creative elements such as annotations or database structures may qualify, with ownership typically vesting in creators or employers via work-for-hire arrangements. In practice, policies like the National Institutes of Health's and framework permit temporary data withholding to secure patents, balancing openness with innovation incentives, yet researchers must navigate contracts and licenses—such as variants—to delineate reuse terms without unintended IP erosion. Mitigation strategies include timestamping priority via preprints on platforms like or employing data licenses that stipulate attribution and restrict premature competing uses, though challenges persist in decentralized repositories. Despite these risks, indicates that strategic archiving, post-initial , minimizes vulnerabilities while enabling verification and collaboration, underscoring a tension between individual safeguards and collective scientific advancement.

Disciplinary Differences and Field-Specific Issues

Natural and Biomedical Sciences

In the natural and biomedical sciences, data sharing enables verification of experimental results, meta-analyses, and accelerated discovery, but implementation varies widely across subfields due to dataset complexity and regulatory constraints. Biomedical datasets often include sensitive human health information, necessitating compliance with privacy laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the United States, which limits unrestricted access to protect patient confidentiality. In contrast, natural sciences such as physics and astronomy frequently achieve higher sharing rates through public repositories; for instance, particle physics collaborations like those at CERN routinely release raw data from experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider to foster global validation. However, even in these fields, sharing raw experimental or observational data remains inconsistent, with surveys indicating that only about 55% of researchers in physical sciences deposit data openly. Empirical studies reveal persistently low data sharing rates in biomedical research, undermining efforts. A review of 7,750 medical research papers published between 2015 and 2020 found that just 9% included promises of data availability, with actual fulfillment even lower due to barriers like lack of standardized formats and . In clinical trials, biological trials were 1.58 times more likely to share than pharmaceutical trials, reflecting differences in competitive pressures and data volume. Genomic in fares better, with public archives like hosting over 300 million sequences as of 2023, yet associated phenotypic and clinical metadata are often withheld to prevent re-identification risks. These patterns highlight how biomedical 's linkage to identifiable individuals creates ethical dilemmas, contrasting with natural sciences where datasets, such as geological or astronomical observations, pose fewer issues but still face technical hurdles in . Key barriers in biomedical sciences include researcher concerns over intellectual property, scooping by competitors, and the substantial effort required for curation without immediate rewards, exacerbated by a "publish-or-perish" culture prioritizing novel findings over data maintenance. Lack of time emerges as the predominant obstacle, cited by a majority in surveys of life sciences researchers, alongside insufficient incentives for FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) compliance. In natural sciences, while collaborative projects promote sharing—evident in open access to climate modeling data—individual investigators often withhold proprietary simulation outputs due to resource-intensive reproduction costs. Efforts to address these include controlled-access platforms like the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP), which balance utility with security, though adoption remains partial owing to administrative burdens. Overall, while natural sciences benefit from less regulated data types, biomedical fields grapple with harmonizing openness and ethical safeguards, resulting in fragmented practices that hinder cumulative progress.

Social Sciences and Psychology

In social sciences and psychology, data sharing rates remain notably low compared to natural and biomedical fields, with empirical analyses of psychological journal articles from 2014 to 2017 revealing public data sharing in fewer than 4% of empirical papers. This reluctance persists despite advocacy for practices, as surveys of psychologists identify perceived barriers such as the uncommon nature of sharing in the discipline, preferences for data release only upon direct request, and concerns over intellectual priority or "scooping." Quantitative data from surveys, including experimental and survey-based studies, are somewhat more amenable to sharing than qualitative materials like transcripts, yet overall adoption lags due to field-specific methodological diversity and human subjects protections. Privacy and ethical constraints constitute primary impediments, as these disciplines frequently involve sensitive personal data from human participants, including mental health records, behavioral responses, and demographic details subject to regulations like HIPAA in the United States or GDPR in Europe. Institutional review boards (IRBs) often impose stringent conditions on data release to safeguard confidentiality, with researchers citing fears of re-identification, participant harm, or breaches of informed consent as deterrents; for instance, qualitative data sharing evokes worries over lacking explicit participant permission and eroding trust. In education research—a social science subdomain—barriers include IRB hurdles and risks of data misinterpretation by secondary users lacking contextual expertise, further compounded by legal frameworks like FERPA that restrict sharing identifiable student information. These issues are exacerbated in psychology, where digital behavioral data collection heightens inadvertent privacy risks, prompting calls for de-identification techniques like aggregation or synthetic data generation, though implementation remains inconsistent. The reproducibility crisis in underscores data sharing's potential benefits while highlighting its deficiencies, as large-scale replication efforts have yielded success rates substantially below original study expectations—often around 36% for key effects in cognitive and experiments—partly attributable to unavailable . Lack of accessible datasets impedes independent verification, with analyses linking non-sharing to inflated false positives from selective reporting or p-hacking, practices more prevalent in fields reliant on significance testing. In social sciences, similar patterns emerge, where institutional and normative factors, including career pressures favoring novel findings over replication, discourage proactive sharing; however, mandated policies and repositories have shown modest increases in when data are deposited, though behavioral controls like technical skills and resource access continue to limit uptake. Despite these challenges, targeted interventions—such as badges for in journals or federated access systems preserving privacy—have encouraged gradual shifts, with psychologists reporting higher willingness when preconditions like standardized formats and ethical safeguards are met.

Other Fields (e.g., , )

In , data sharing often involves depositing digital records of excavations, artifacts, and spatial into repositories that adhere to principles—findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable—to enable verification and secondary . The Data Service in the UK, for instance, emphasizes these principles to facilitate data discovery and reuse, though challenges persist due to inconsistent documentation and a historical emphasis on primary collection over long-term reusability. Reusers frequently encounter barriers such as inadequate context for interpreting datasets, leading to difficulties in verifying findings or integrating data from multiple sites. Ethical and jurisdictional issues further complicate sharing in , particularly with indigenous or culturally sensitive materials, prompting integration of CARE principles (collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics) alongside to respect . Repositories like tDAR (Digital Archaeological Record) demonstrate successful , such as reanalyzing chronological data from legacy projects, but many datasets remain siloed due to overlapping federal and state regulations that hinder standardized access. A 2023 study found that while digital archiving improves preservation, reuse rates lag because of insufficient metadata describing analytical processes. In , data sharing supports replication efforts amid a recognized challenge, where approximately 61% of experimental studies have replicated successfully in large-scale assessments, often hinging on access to original datasets and . Barriers include fear of scooping, where researchers withhold or survey data to protect publication opportunities, and competitive funding models that incentivize short-term sharing but discourage long-term openness due to perceived risks to career advancement. Economic analyses frequently rely on public datasets from sources like statistics, yet microdata from firms or surveys is rarely shared fully, exacerbating replication gaps as economists replicate others' work at low rates compared to fields like . Incentives for sharing in are misaligned by "publish-or-perish" pressures favoring novel results over verifiable packages, though journals increasingly mandate and deposits, boosting partial in about 40-60% of cases depending on the subfield. Costly technical barriers, such as anonymizing sensitive economic while preserving utility, further deter sharing, with studies showing that without policy enforcement, self-reported sharing intentions rarely translate to actual deposits. Despite these hurdles, targeted reforms like replication bounties or pre-registration have shown promise in subfields like , where shared has enabled meta-analyses revealing incentive distortions in original studies.

Controversies and Real-World Outcomes

The reproducibility crisis refers to the widespread inability to replicate published scientific findings, with replication rates as low as 36% in and 11-25% in preclinical . Insufficient data sharing exacerbates this issue by preventing independent researchers from accessing necessary to verify analyses, detect errors, or rule out selective reporting and fabrication. Without , replication attempts are limited to re-running reported methods on new samples, which cannot confirm if original results stemmed from data manipulation or analytical flaws. Empirical studies demonstrate a direct link between availability and replication success. In a large-scale replication effort in by the Collaboration, many original studies lacked shared , complicating verification; where were available, reproducibility assessments revealed discrepancies in only about 55% of cases, implying even lower rates without access. A survey of researchers identified unavailability of as a primary barrier to , cited by over 40% of respondents as a frequent cause of failed replications. In social sciences, an analysis of 250 articles from 2014-2017 found available for only 7% of studies, correlating with low transparency and hindering independent checks. Data withholding often stems from fears of , as sharing exposes potential errors or , yet this practice perpetuates non-reproducible claims in the . For instance, at the journal Molecular Brain from 2017-2019, over 97% of manuscripts requiring verification were rejected or withdrawn due to inadequate data provision, with many later published elsewhere without disclosure. This pattern suggests that non-sharing masks irreproducibility, allowing questionable findings to influence policy and further research. Academic incentives prioritizing novel publications over verification amplify the problem, as researchers avoid sharing to prevent "scooping" or criticism, despite evidence that enhances overall scientific reliability. Mandated sharing policies, such as those from NIH post-2020, aim to mitigate these links by enforcing data deposition, though compliance remains uneven.

Compliance Failures and Enforcement Gaps

Despite mandates from major funders and journals, compliance with data sharing requirements remains low across scientific disciplines. A analysis of articles adhering to International Committee of Editors (ICMJE) standards for s found that only 0.6% of individual-participant sets were deidentified and publicly available on journal websites, with most authors citing availability statements that promised sharing upon request but rarely delivering. Similarly, in a review of 2,941 publications, just 34% included any sharing statement, with rates varying from 52% in to lower in other fields, indicating inconsistent adherence even where policies exist. These figures persist despite journal policies, as requests for from authors promising succeed in only 27-59% of cases, with 14-41% ignored entirely. Enforcement mechanisms are often weak or absent, exacerbating non-compliance. Funding agencies like the NIH outline potential consequences for failing and (DMS) plans, such as adding special award conditions or termination, yet systematic monitoring is limited to self-reported progress updates, which lack independent verification. Perrino et al. argue that varying enforcement degrees across policies undermine effectiveness, with non-binding requirements failing to compel sharing amid competing academic incentives. In high-impact medical journals, even mandatory policies yield incomplete data and code deposits, highlighting gaps in oversight where journals rarely retract or penalize non-compliant articles. Field-specific gaps further illustrate enforcement shortfalls. In rehabilitation , journals with stringent data sharing mandates report higher data sharing statement prevalence, but actual provision lags, as authors exploit ambiguities in "availability upon request" clauses without follow-through. studies show 42% DSS compliance, yet over half of promising authors withhold , attributable to unmonitored policies rather than technical barriers. Leading funders perceive six core challenges, including insufficient incentives and verification tools, rendering policies more declarative than operative. This pattern suggests that without robust, automated compliance checks or tied disbursements, systemic non-enforcement perpetuates selective sharing favoring high-profile or low-risk datasets.

Success Stories and Counterexamples

The Human Genome Project exemplified successful data sharing through the Bermuda Principles, established in 1996, which required the rapid public release of sequence data within 24 hours of assembly, fostering international collaboration and accelerating the project's completion two years ahead of schedule in 2003. This approach generated over 3.8 million research papers citing the project by 2020 and enabled downstream discoveries, such as identifying genes linked to diseases like cystic fibrosis, by making data accessible to thousands of independent researchers worldwide. In the response, immediate deposition of genome sequences to public repositories like in January 2020 allowed for phylogenetic analysis and variant tracking, directly informing designs by companies such as and Pfizer-BioNTech, which received emergency authorization by December 2020.00147-9/fulltext) Over 15 million sequences were shared by mid-2023, enabling real-time surveillance that prevented an estimated 1.3 million deaths through optimized distribution modeling. Counterexamples highlight implementation failures despite policy mandates. A 2022 mixed-methods of 2,700 biomedical papers found that only 6% of authors claiming availability actually provided accessible upon request, undermining and wasting an estimated $28 billion annually in U.S. biomedical research due to non-shared datasets. In , post-HGP shifts toward controlled-access models for sensitive , such as the NIH's dbGaP database requiring data use agreements since 2008, have slowed secondary analyses; a 2021 review noted that restricted access delayed insights into rare variants by months compared to open models. Scooping risks, though often cited as a barrier, rarely materialize but can deter sharing. A 2017 Finnish of projects documented researchers employing strategies like timestamped preprints and modular release to mitigate fears, yet one instance involved a competitor publishing derivative findings from shared preliminary datasets before the originators, eroding trust without . In , a 2022 allegation against a researcher fabricating from a shared extinction-site to preempt a collaborator's illustrates misuse potential, though the case centered on falsification rather than legitimate reuse. These instances underscore that while systemic non-compliance and rare abuses persist, proactive policies like citation credits for datasets—implemented in platforms such as since 2014—can align incentives without fully eliminating risks.

Recent Advances and Future Prospects

Policy Updates Post-2020 (e.g., NIH DMS Policy)

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) finalized its Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Policy in October 2020, with implementation effective for all competing grant applications submitted on or after January 25, 2023. This policy requires researchers to develop and submit a DMS Plan outlining how scientific data from NIH-funded projects will be managed, preserved, and shared to maximize its reuse and value, including provisions for data formats, metadata standards, and access timelines. Unlike prior NIH data sharing guidance, which applied selectively to certain institutes or data types, the DMS Policy applies uniformly to all extramural research generating scientific data, regardless of funding amount, and mandates prospective budgeting for data management and sharing activities, with costs allowable in NIH budgets starting from the effective date. Scientific data must be made available in designated repositories no later than the end of the performance period or upon acceptance of associated publications, whichever comes first, while respecting privacy, proprietary, and ethical constraints. The policy's core elements include four required DMS Plan components: data management and sharing descriptions, anticipated data types and preservation standards, related documentation and metadata, and access/usage/reuse policies, with NIH institutes providing supplemental guidance on plan formats and review criteria. NIH evaluates compliance through just-in-time submissions for funded awards, of plans for scientific merit, and post-award oversight, including potential enforcement via funding restrictions for non-compliance, though initial implementation emphasized education over penalties. By July 2023, NIH reported over 90% of applicable applications included DMS Plans, reflecting broad adoption, though challenges persist in defining "scientific data" (excluding physical collections or lab notebooks) and selecting appropriate repositories from NIH's recommended list. Complementing NIH's efforts, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a memorandum on August 25, 2022, directing all federal agencies to update public access policies for scholarly publications and underlying data from federally funded research, eliminating previous embargo periods and prioritizing immediate, equitable access without delay. This "Nelson Memo" requires agencies to finalize revised policies by December 31, 2025, with implementation phased to enhance data discoverability, interoperability, and reuse through standardized metadata and federal data repository coordination, building on the 2013 Holdren Memo but extending zero-embargo access to data alongside publications. Agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) aligned their data management plans with similar requirements effective January 2023, mandating data sharing plans for all proposals and emphasizing FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles. These updates aim to address longstanding barriers to reproducibility and collaboration, though implementation varies by agency, with OSTP encouraging harmonized federal standards to minimize researcher burden.

Technological Facilitators and Repositories

![Decision tree for data deposition in journals][float-right] Technological facilitators for research data sharing include standardized frameworks such as the FAIR principles, which emphasize making data findable through unique identifiers like DOIs, accessible via open protocols, interoperable with common formats and vocabularies, and reusable with clear licenses and information. These principles, formalized in 2016, underpin many repository implementations by requiring rich metadata to enable automated discovery and integration. further enables scalable storage and computation, allowing repositories to handle large datasets without local infrastructure, as seen in cloud-native systems that offer high reliability and cost-efficiency for big scientific data. APIs and federated access protocols facilitate secure, controlled sharing across platforms, reducing duplication while preserving privacy through techniques like or . Key repositories for data sharing encompass generalist platforms like , operated by since 2013, which assigns DOIs to datasets and supports files up to 50 GB with long-term preservation commitments. Figshare, launched in 2011 by , allows immediate publication of research outputs with citation metrics and integration with for author tracking. , a nonprofit repository founded in 2008, specializes in peer-reviewed data packages linked to publications, enforcing licenses and providing curation services. Harvard , part of the Dataverse Project since 2006, offers institutional branding, , and APIs for programmatic access, hosting over 80,000 datasets as of 2023. Domain-specific repositories enhance sharing in targeted fields; for instance, for genomic sequences or ICPSR for data provide specialized metadata schemas aligned with disciplinary standards. The Framework (OSF), developed by the Center for Open Science in 2013, integrates with data storage, preregistration, and tools to support reproducible workflows. NIH guidelines, updated in 2023, recommend repositories with features like persistent identifiers, access controls, and compliance with , prioritizing those that minimize costs for public data while accommodating sensitive information through restricted access tiers. Emerging technologies like for data and IPFS for decentralized storage are being piloted to address trust and permanence issues in sharing. Despite these advances, adoption varies, with generalist repositories handling multidisciplinary data but often requiring manual curation to meet compliance fully.

Potential Reforms to Align Incentives

One proposed involves academic evaluation criteria to explicitly reward data sharing during hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions. Institutions could incorporate metrics such as citations, reuse rates, and contributions to public repositories into faculty assessments, shifting emphasis from count to broader impact including . A 2021 scoping review of interventions found that such incentive alignments, when tied to advancement, increased sharing rates in fields like , where sharing rose from 0.6% pre-mandate to over 50% after journal policies rewarded . Funding agencies could further align incentives by conditioning grants on verifiable data management and sharing plans, with priority given to applicants demonstrating prior or replication efforts. For instance, the has explored extending its and Sharing Policy to include bonus funding for high-impact shared datasets, addressing the current misalignment where non-sharing preserves competitive edges in grant cycles. Proponents argue this counters the "," where proprietary data hoarding reduces collective scientific progress, as evidenced by surveys showing 75% of researchers citing career risks as barriers to . Publishers and journals might implement tiered incentives, such as open data badges conferring citation advantages or dedicated tracks for data-focused publications. A 2025 report from the Research Data Alliance recommends that journals weight contributions in impact factors, potentially increasing sharing compliance by 20-30% based on prior badge experiments in ecology journals. Additionally, creating markets for data reuse—via platforms rewarding originators with royalties or co-authorship credits—could monetize , though empirical tests remain limited to pilot programs in . Institutional and cultural reforms, including dedicated funding for data curation (e.g., 5-10% grant overheads), could mitigate preparation costs that deter sharing. A 2025 initiative by the allocates $1.5 million for proposals reforming tenure tracks to value open practices, aiming to normalize sharing as a rather than an extracurricular burden. These measures collectively address root causes like , where shared data risks scooping, by fostering a where openness yields tangible returns over secrecy.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7178147/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4340811/
  3. https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618
  4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joms.13091
  5. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1144
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12375187/
  7. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021101
  8. https://osp.od.nih.gov/policies/scientific-data-management-policy/
  9. https://www.go-fair.org/fair-principles/
  10. https://data.who.int/about/data/who-data-principles
  11. https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/bsa/data-sharing-report
  12. https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/republic-of-letters/
  13. http://republicofletters.stanford.edu/
  14. https://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/formal/icecore/brahe_kepler.html
  15. https://www.bitss.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/a-data-sharing-story2.pdf
  16. https://royalsociety.org/journals/publishing-activities/publishing350/history-philosophical-transactions/
  17. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2019.0024
  18. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/0012-9623-91.1.14
  19. http://www.vcrlter.virginia.edu/elecvol/ecoinformatics.old/A_Brief_History_of_LTER_Data_Sharing.pdf
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30390178/
  21. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10739-018-9538-7
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5453323/
  23. https://www.socialsciencespace.com/2015/09/data-sharing-in-historical-perspective/
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10163171/
  25. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/ijclp/ijclp_11/ijclp_11a.pdf
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289624000734
  27. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2504790
  28. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00981-0
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8140582/
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11303567/
  31. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13662716.2022.2033178
  32. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2023.03556
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5856507/
  34. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000308
  35. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225883
  36. https://handbook.pathos-project.eu/sections/0_causality/open_data_cost_savings.html
  37. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10777335/
  38. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/enhancing-access-to-and-sharing-of-data_276aaca8-en/full-report/economic-and-social-benefits-of-data-access-and-sharing_836734cb.html
  39. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/the-benefits-of-data-sharing-now-outweigh-the-risks
  40. https://blog.datadryad.org/2025/07/24/benefits-of-open-data/
  41. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01428-w
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6781855/
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1059056024007779
  44. https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/sharing-policies/dms/policy-overview
  45. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf
  46. https://sparcopen.org/our-work/2022-ostp-memo/
  47. https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/intramural-program-oversight/intramural-data-sharing/2023-nih-data-management-sharing-policy
  48. https://www.nsf.gov/eng/data-management-plans
  49. https://www.osti.gov/2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo-Release
  50. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2007/04/oecd-principles-and-guidelines-for-access-to-research-data-from-public-funding_g1gh7fe5.html
  51. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0347
  52. https://rea.ec.europa.eu/open-science_en
  53. http://www.openaire.eu/how-to-comply-with-horizon-europe-mandate-for-rdm
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5407259/
  55. https://www.who.int/news/item/16-09-2022-new-who-policy-requires-sharing-of-all-research-data
  56. https://www.glopid-r.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/glopid-r-principles-of-data-sharing-in-public-health-emergencies.pdf
  57. https://codata.org/initiatives/data-policy/dptc/
  58. https://vivli.org/
  59. https://mrctcenter.org/project/data-sharing/
  60. https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com/
  61. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-023-03113-0
  62. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/open-data
  63. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/researchers-meet-new-open-data-policies-federally-funded-research-aws/
  64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363739840_Barriers_to_Data_Sharing_among_Private_Sector_Organizations
  65. https://fpf.org/blog/data-sharing-for-research-a-compendium-of-case-studies-analysis-and-recommendations/
  66. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/61e6bcec-d348-4b2d-b127-3c387dfba7d2/content
  67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK137824/
  68. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1616595
  69. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/bio.2020.0037
  70. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04253-w
  71. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0273259
  72. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-01969-8
  73. https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-017-0028-9
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7356467/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4547313/
  76. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK362423/
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666979X25001016
  78. https://www2.datainnovation.org/2023-data-sharing-barriers.pdf
  79. https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/researcher-challenges-and-experiences-with-data-services/
  80. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001779
  81. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2022.1113
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4551669/
  83. https://research.umn.edu/units/techcomm/news/nih-data-management-and-sharing-policy-patent-and-intellectual-property-considerations
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11566659/
  85. https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_053478.pdf
  86. http://www.niso.org/niso-io/2024/10/iop-publishing-study-navigating-barriers-sharing-data-publicly
  87. https://www.science.org/content/article/ready-set-share-researchers-brace-new-data-sharing-rules
  88. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0301917
  89. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-90453-x
  90. https://academic.oup.com/bib/article/25/4/bbae262/7688102
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12047515/
  92. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224545.2021.1938811
  93. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2515245917751886
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5920518/
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5967383/
  96. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261719
  97. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11135-025-02188-6
  98. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2020/01/cover-trends-protect-privacy
  99. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00003-2
  100. https://molecularbrain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2
  101. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0268401215000432
  102. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/leap.1388
  103. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2109313118
  104. https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/help-guidance/data-reuse/fair-data/
  105. https://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2013/faniel-archae-data.pdf
  106. https://opencontext.org/about/fair-care
  107. https://core.tdar.org/document/499893/archaeological-data-reuse-in-action-three-fair-examples-in-tdar
  108. https://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue63/8/
  109. https://rady.ucsd.edu/why/news/2021/05-21-a-new-replication-crisis-research-that-is-less-likely-to-be-true-is-cited-more.html
  110. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK613170/table/t01/?report=objectonly
  111. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733325001696
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268123001555
  113. https://techpolicyinstitute.org/publications/evidence-based-policy/edward-miguel-on-the-replication-crisis-in-economics-and-how-to-fix-it-two-think-minimum/
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8808319/
  115. https://poldrack.github.io/psych-open-science-guide/3_datasharing.html
  116. https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/2023/08/08/an-executive-summary-of-sciences-replication-crisis/
  117. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.190806
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6528747/
  119. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2775667
  120. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf359/8153715
  121. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20250417121436939
  122. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-025-02587-1
  123. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/15/3/e092490
  124. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/educational-resources/fact-sheets/human-genome-project
  125. https://wellcome.org/insights/articles/human-genome-project-new-era-scientific-progress
  126. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00331-5
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9671807/
  128. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360941352_Many_researchers_were_not_compliant_with_their_published_data_sharing_statement_mixed-methods_study
  129. https://datascience.codata.org/articles/dsj-2017-029
  130. https://www.science.org/content/article/paleontologist-accused-faking-data-dino-killing-asteroid-paper
  131. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05227-z
  132. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70220313
  133. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/technology-management/tech-trends/2022/data-sharing-technologies.html
  134. https://www.teamscopeapp.com/blog/6-repositories-to-share-your-research-data
  135. https://datamanagement.hms.harvard.edu/share-publish/data-repositories
  136. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories
  137. https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/datasharing/repositories
  138. https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/sharing-policies/dms/selecting-a-data-repository
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10270328/
  140. https://www.cos.io/impact/2023/make-it-rewarding
  141. https://datascience.codata.org/articles/10.5334/dsj-2025-015
  142. https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/sharing-policies/dms/data-sharing-approaches
  143. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2401231121
  144. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388424165_The_misalignment_of_incentives_in_academic_publishing_and_implications_for_journal_reform
  145. https://www.rd-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/RDA_SHARC_recommendations_17Oct2024-1.pdf
  146. https://incentivizingopen.org/2023/08/fostering-incentives-rewards-for-open-practices/
  147. https://retractionwatch.com/2025/10/06/1-5-million-program-targets-changes-to-academic-incentives/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.