Caracterización de los atractivos de la ruta

Our study shows that Norwegian researchers fre- quently use and share research data with each other.

As many as 64 percent of researchers have used research data from other researchers over the last three years.

Researchers mostly use research data generated by other researchers from their own institution, but only slightly more than by data from researchers at other institutions outside of Norway.

Potential to increase sharing of research data

About one-third (36 percent) of the researchers have not used data gathered by other researchers. Of these, 71.5 percent reported that they would like to make use of other researchers’ data. This indi- cates a clear potential for increasing sharing of re- search data.

The numbers indicate untapped potential for in- creased and improved sharing of data.

Only one in ten had not used research data gener- ated by other researchers over the past three years did not wish to use this type of data.

Researchers see benefits in sharing their data

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

Further, 77 percent agreed that open access to re- search data facilitates the education of students and new researchers, and 74 percent that open access to research data stimulated research collaboration respectively.

Many researchers are undecided

Although most researchers agree as to the benefits of sharing their data, many researchers are unde- cided as to whether publicly funded research data should be considered public property.

Of the remaining 20 percent who did not agree that open access to research data would enhance re- search, 15 percent were undecided and about 5 percent disagreed. This large proportion of unde- cided respondents may reflect the complexity of the issue.

Additionally, more than 600 respondents actively decided not to participate in the survey. This reluc- tance to participate might also be seen as an indi- cation that questions regarding open access to re- search data are perceived as being irrelevant to the

11 Main findings and recommendations

individual respondents (i.e., he or she is not an ac- tive researcher) or that he or she is undecided as to the issue.

These 600 non-respondents correspond to 30 per- cent of the actual respondents. If they are regarded as undecided respondents, the share of research- ers without a clear position on the issue of open ac- cess to research data is quite significant.

The survey included an open answer option where respondents could write free text. Inputs in this sec- tion show that many researchers find the issue of open access to research data challenging and com- plex. Many researches are clearly positive towards sharing, but many researchers are also negative, as we have tried to state in the report.

Researcher want to remain in control of their data

Most researchers share their research data with other researchers. Yet research data is generally shared under certain conditions (e.g., only upon re- quest, under a non-disclose agreement, in an anon- ymized format). Researchers want to control who gets access to their data and how they use it. With each researcher setting the term, there is a risk that she becomes a gatekeeper.

Lack of proper infrastructure and incentives for sharing

When asked about the barriers to sharing more of their data, the central barriers according to the re- searchers are:

1. Preparing data for open access takes valuable time away from research-activities.

2. Respondents do not have adequate technical infrastructure.

3. Open access to research data might reduce re- searchers’ possibilities for future scientific pub- lications.

These responses indicate, inter alia, that research- ers lack adequate and user-friendly infrastructure, guidelines and procedures, and certainty about im- material rights in order to embrace the idea of shar- ing data.

Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find any ma- jor differences across sectors, fields of research or years of professional experience.

Archiving data on local computers and institutional servers

The study found that 85 percent of the respondents archived their data on their own devices or at an in- stitutional server. This figure do not vary across sec- tors, disciplines or professional experience, which is something of a paradox, since storing data on their own devices cannot be regarded the most secure means of storage. This is especially apparent inso- far as many of the respondents were concerned about security and the sensitivity of their data. Researchers see few initiatives from their manage- ment

The survey responses suggest significant differ- ences in the way in which research managers deal with the sharing and archiving of data. Conse- quently, researchers see a need for greater institu- tional support.

Only 16 percent (within the research institutions) and 6 percent (within health trusts) perceived to a - significant extent - that their management encour- aged them to share data. Moreover, only six percent (within the research institutions) and two percent (within health trusts) perceived a significant degree

of solutions and technical support for sharing their data.

There is a need for better infrastructure and a credit system for researchers

The survey indicates a strong relationship between the major barriers to sharing data and the research- ers’ proposed solutions to overcome them.

The flipside of these barriers are possible solution. These include:

1. Better infrastructure.

2. Implementing a system for citation.

3. Implementing guidelines, training and standards for sharing data.

Again, we find very limited differences across sec- tors, disciplines and professional experience.