Academia is a Reputation Economy
In autumn 2014, my colleagues and I conducted a survey on academic data sharing among 1564 researchers in Germany, a follow-up study on our paper “What Drives Academic Data Sharing?“.
In the survey, we asked researcher about their handling of research data, their publication culture, and in particular about what keeps them from making data available to others.
One has to know that reusing data is often regarded as the next big thing in academic research. It encourages collaboration among researchers and allows finding synergies in the laborious task of collecting data. Moreover, it makes research results reproducible and allows using old data for new research questions. In short: It has the potential to foster scientific progress. It is not surprising that funding agencies, academic journals, policy makers, and researchers themselves increasingly demand open access to research data. With regards to research data, Neelie Kroes, the European Commissioner for Digital Agenda, says: “open access to research results will boost Europe’s innovation capacity“.
To some extent, however, open access to research data is just like the electric car that everyone likes but nobody drives. In our survey, only 13% of the researchers have ever made data available publicly. 37% of the respondents said that it is uncommon to share data in their community. At the same time, 88% would like to use data for their own research. The results bring out quite clearly the mismatch between the aspirations and the empirical reality. The bitter reality about Open Access to research data is that everyone likes the idea but nobody follows it through.
Last week, we published the first article based on the results of our survey. Our main argument is that academia is a reputation economy, an exchange system that is not driven by monetary incentives, nor the desire for scientific progress, but by individual reputation. Reputation is expressed in (high ranked journal) publications whereas sharing data receives not enough formal recognition. In our view, data sharing will only be widely adopted among research professionals if it pays in form of reputation. Policy measures that intend to foster research collaboration need to understand this aspect of academia. Successful measures must ascribe more value intermediate products, such as research data, more highly than it is the case now.
The article can be found on SSRN.
The questionnaire can be found on our Github Page.
This post represents the view of the author and does not necessarily represent the view of the institute itself. For more information about the topics of these articles and associated research projects, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Sign up for HIIG's Monthly Digest
and receive our latest blog articles.
Whether civil society, politics or science – everyone seems to agree that the New Twenties will be characterised by digitalisation. But what about the tension of digital ethics? How do we create a digital transformation involving society as a whole, including people who either do not have the financial means or the necessary know-how to benefit from digitalisation? And what do these comprehensive changes in our actions mean for democracy? In this dossier we want to address these questions and offer food for thought on how we can use digitalisation for the common good.
AI is also discussed at the subnational level. We wondered: Why do German federal states feel the need to also issue AI policies for themselves?
Designing rules for digital democracy is difficult. Private platforms' orders imperfectly shape what can be said online, as new ideas for more democracy on platforms through deliberative elements are being...