This report is the second in a series of annual studies and explores the level of Open Data Maturity in the EU28 and Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein – referred to as EU28+. The measurement is built on two key indicators Open Data Readiness and Portal Maturity, thereby covering the level of development of national activities promoting Open Data as well as the level of development of national portals.
In 2016, with a 28.6% increase compared to 2015, the EU28+ countries completed over 55% of their Open Data journey showing that, by 2016, a majority of the EU28+ countries have successfully developed a basic approach to address Open Data.
The Portal Maturity level increased by 22.6 percentage points from 41.7% to 64.3% thanks to the development of more advanced features on country data portals. The overall Open Data Maturity groups countries into different clusters: Beginners, Followers, Fast Trackers and Trend Setters.
Barriers do remain to move Open Data forward. The report concludes on a series of recommendations, providing countries with guidance to further improve Open Data maturity.
Countries need to raise more (political) awareness around Open Data, increase automated processes on their portals to increase usability and re-usability of data, and organise more events and trainings to support both local and national initiatives.
Authors : Michele Nuijten, Jeroen Borghuis, Coosje Veldkamp, Linda Alvarez, Marcel van Assen, Jelte Wicherts
In this paper, we present three studies that investigate the relation between data sharing and statistical reporting inconsistencies. Previous research found that reluctance to share data was related to a higher prevalence of statistical errors, often in the direction of statistical significance (Wicherts, Bakker, & Molenaar, 2011).
We therefore hypothesized that journal policies about data sharing and data sharing itself would reduce these inconsistencies. In Study 1, we compared the prevalence of reporting inconsistencies in two similar journals on decision making with different data sharing policies.
In Study 2, we compared reporting inconsistencies in articles published in PLOS (with a data sharing policy) and Frontiers in Psychology (without a data sharing policy). In Study 3, we looked at papers published in the journal Psychological Science to check whether papers with or without an Open Practice Badge differed in the prevalence of reporting errors.
Overall, we found no relationship between data sharing and reporting inconsistencies. We did find that journal policies on data sharing are extremely effective in promoting data sharing.
We argue that open data is essential in improving the quality of psychological science, and we discuss ways to detect and reduce reporting inconsistencies in the literature.
Open access to research data has been described as a driver of innovation and a potential cure for the reproducibility crisis in many academic fields. Against this backdrop, policy makers are increasingly advocating for making research data and supporting material openly available online.
Despite its potential to further scientific progress, widespread data sharing in small science is still an ideal practised in moderation. In this article, we explore the question of what drives open access to research data using a survey among 1564 mainly German researchers across all disciplines.
We show that, regardless of their disciplinary background, researchers recognize the benefits of open access to research data for both their own research and scientific progress as a whole. Nonetheless, most researchers share their data only selectively.
We show that individual reward considerations conflict with widespread data sharing. Based on our results, we present policy implications that are in line with both individual reward considerations and scientific progress.
Les institutions européennes ont promu l’harmonisation, le partage et la réutilisation des données publiques et en particulier des données géographiques avec plusieurs directives entre 2003 et 2013.
Mais au cours des 10 dernières années, cette harmonisation et cette ouverture des données s’est révélée être un processus lent et nécessitant un important effort de la part de l’ensemble des acteurs publics, à différentes échelles. Et les collectivités locales semblent être « en retard » au regard des autres échelons européens.
Cet article fait l’hypothèse que le choix de la thématique environnementale correspondait à une stratégie de mobilisation des acteurs sur une dimension porteuse pour les citoyens européens, mais que ce choix n’était pas le plus adapté pour les collectivités territoriales.
L’article propose d’interroger à différentes échelles les difficultés réglementaires, techniques et politiques de mise en œuvre des réglementations européennes, d’harmonisation et d’ouverture des données géographiques.
Il s’appuie sur une enquête auprès des collectivités locales pour comparer les situations à l’échelle la plus fine en Espagne, en France, au Portugal et au Royaume-Uni.
There is a strong need for a comprehensive, coherent, and consistent data policy in Europe to increase interoperability of data and to make its reuse both easy and legal. Available single recommendations/guidelines on different topics need to be processed, structured, and unified. Within the context of the EU BON project, a team from the EU BON partners from Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Plazi, and Pensoft has prepared this report to be used as a part of the Data Publishing Guidelines and Recommendations in the EU BON Biodiversity Portal.
The document deals with the issues: (i) Mobilizing biodiversity data, (ii) Removing legal obstacles, (iii) Changing attitudes, (iv) Data policy recommendations and is addressed to legislators, researchers, research institutions, data aggregators, funders, and publishers.
Science is the mother of the digital age. And yet, twenty-two years after CERN placed the World Wide Web software in the public domain, effectively creating the open internet, science itself has struggled not only to “go digital” but also to “go open”. This report, Making open science a reality reviews the progress in OECD countries in making the results of publicly funded research, namely scientific publications and research data openly accessible to researchers and innovators alike.
The report i) reviews the policy rationale behind open science and open data; ii) discusses and presents evidence on the impacts of policies to promote open science and open data; iii) explores the legal barriers and solutions to greater access to research data; iv) provides a description of the key actors involved in open science and their roles; and finally v) assesses progress in OECD and selected non-member countries based a survey of recent policy trends.
« This paper reviews developments in funders’ data management and sharing policies, and explores the extent to which they have affected practice. The Digital Curation Centre has been monitoring UK research funders’ data policies since 2008. There have been significant developments in subsequent years, most notably the joint Research Councils UK’s Common Principles on Data Policy and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’s Policy Framework on Research Data. This paper charts these changes and highlights shifting emphasises in the policies. Institutional data policies and infrastructure are increasingly being developed as a result of these changes. While action is clearly being taken, questions remain about whether the changes are affecting practice on the ground. »