Sharing and archiving of publicly funded research data | Report to the Research Council of Norway

Executive Summary (excerpts)

Mandate

The objective of this study is to gain a better understanding of researchers in Norway’s current practice on sharing and archiving, as well as barriers to the sharing and archiving of research data. The study also proposes possible approaches to overcome these barriers.

The study will serve as a contribution to the Research Council of Norway’s work on developing a strategy and guidelines for sharing and archiving of publicly funded research data in Norway.

Main findings

The survey confirms that researchers in Norway see the benefits of the sharing and archiving of research data. Around 80 percent of the respondent researchers agreed that open access to research data enhances research, and that it is an ethical obligation of research to make research data available for validation. These are also the two reasons for open access agreed to by most researchers.

Although most researchers agree on the benefits of sharing data, many researches are also undecided about whether publicly funded research data should be considered public property. Of the remaining 20 percent who do not agree that open access to research data will enhance research, 15 percent are undecided and around 5 percent disagree. This high proportion of undecided researchers may reflect the complexity of the issue and the distance between good intentions and practical solutions that address storage, ownership and credit, replicability of use, and other obstacles.

Recommendations

First, we suggest that the Research Council of Norway actively work to raise awareness on the benefits and pitfalls of the archiving and sharing of research data.

Second, our study indicates that a lack of incentives for the crediting of data is a barrier. This could be addressed by clarifying and implementing a system for citation but also outlining the inherent
responsibility and expectation on the part of researchers.

Third, many researchers lack knowledge as to what data to share and archive and how to do so. This includes information about what form the data should be archived in and how proper information about the data should be assigned.

Furthermore, selective investments in infrastructure and technical skills are necessary. Both interviews and studies suggest that the infrastructure for sharing and archiving data is fragmented, overlapping and insufficient. Our study also suggests that many researchers archive most of their data on their own servers or portable computers.

There is a need for guidelines, standards and training on the sharing and archiving of research data. Defining what data to share and what is worth archiving (or not) could help clarify the debate. These should be developed in close interaction with researchers, institutions and legal experts. Such work should be inspired by work initiated internationally to avoid creating a Norwegian bureaucracy alongside international standards.

Finally, archiving will lay ground for the sharing of more research data. Infrastructure investments should involve all relevant stakeholders while also ensuring a robust infrastructure which will serve the needs of the future.