{"title":"开放研究数据的价值:基于多利益相关者调查的系统评价框架","authors":"Zhifang Tu , Jiashu Shen","doi":"10.1016/j.lisr.2023.101269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Stakeholders such as funders, data centers and data curators need specific and detailed evidence to support and justify the value of their existing or proposed open data<span> policies and practices. A questionnaire-based evaluation framework was designed through systematic review<span> and expert interviews, focusing on the scientific, economic, and societal values of open research data. Specifically, scientific value was sub-categorized into 24 statements centering around research process, quantity, quality, efficiency, and impact. Economic value included 6 statements related to cost savings and increased returns, while societal value was divided into 7 statements focused on efficiency and quality. The questionnaire survey was conducted among 219 stakeholders from 22 countries/regions. On average, participants (strongly) agreed that open research data has scientific (83.97%), economic (76.94%), and societal (86.89%) value, all 37 statements of the framework were supported and confirmed. This framework is one of the most comprehensive and systematic tools for measuring data value, which can offer support to diverse stakeholders, especially funders, data centers, and data curators in managing and promoting open data systems.</span></span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":47618,"journal":{"name":"Library & Information Science Research","volume":"45 4","pages":"Article 101269"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Value of open research data: A systematic evaluation framework based on multi-stakeholder survey\",\"authors\":\"Zhifang Tu , Jiashu Shen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.lisr.2023.101269\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Stakeholders such as funders, data centers and data curators need specific and detailed evidence to support and justify the value of their existing or proposed open data<span> policies and practices. A questionnaire-based evaluation framework was designed through systematic review<span> and expert interviews, focusing on the scientific, economic, and societal values of open research data. Specifically, scientific value was sub-categorized into 24 statements centering around research process, quantity, quality, efficiency, and impact. Economic value included 6 statements related to cost savings and increased returns, while societal value was divided into 7 statements focused on efficiency and quality. The questionnaire survey was conducted among 219 stakeholders from 22 countries/regions. On average, participants (strongly) agreed that open research data has scientific (83.97%), economic (76.94%), and societal (86.89%) value, all 37 statements of the framework were supported and confirmed. This framework is one of the most comprehensive and systematic tools for measuring data value, which can offer support to diverse stakeholders, especially funders, data centers, and data curators in managing and promoting open data systems.</span></span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47618,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Library & Information Science Research\",\"volume\":\"45 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 101269\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Library & Information Science Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740818823000452\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Library & Information Science Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740818823000452","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Value of open research data: A systematic evaluation framework based on multi-stakeholder survey
Stakeholders such as funders, data centers and data curators need specific and detailed evidence to support and justify the value of their existing or proposed open data policies and practices. A questionnaire-based evaluation framework was designed through systematic review and expert interviews, focusing on the scientific, economic, and societal values of open research data. Specifically, scientific value was sub-categorized into 24 statements centering around research process, quantity, quality, efficiency, and impact. Economic value included 6 statements related to cost savings and increased returns, while societal value was divided into 7 statements focused on efficiency and quality. The questionnaire survey was conducted among 219 stakeholders from 22 countries/regions. On average, participants (strongly) agreed that open research data has scientific (83.97%), economic (76.94%), and societal (86.89%) value, all 37 statements of the framework were supported and confirmed. This framework is one of the most comprehensive and systematic tools for measuring data value, which can offer support to diverse stakeholders, especially funders, data centers, and data curators in managing and promoting open data systems.
期刊介绍:
Library & Information Science Research, a cross-disciplinary and refereed journal, focuses on the research process in library and information science as well as research findings and, where applicable, their practical applications and significance. All papers are subject to a double-blind reviewing process.